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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29087
|
Pork shoulder low slow cook time
I am planning to cook a 10lb (4.5kg) bone-in pork shoulder at 250°F (121°C) for about 8 hours.
Is there any danger in overcooking if I cook for a few hours longer? I know it needs the time for the collagen to break down. I'm just wondering if there is an outside time danger of it becoming dry?
If you cook it too long uncovered it will lose moisture and dry out. If it is covered and you have a bit of liquid in there you could cook it longer and it would stay moist. You could turn it down to 200 too to slow the cooking process.
EDIT:
If I was going to cook a piece of meat that long I'd opt for a braise instead of a roast as if you cook any meat dry too long it will dry out even if it's well covered. For pork some thin stock and white wine would do, or maybe cola or ginger ale which works well for ham.
I agree, as @GdD stated, make sure it is covered, however if you leave it in for 2+ hours, you may want to baste your pork shoulder with some water after an hour, to add some moisture to the roasting pan. This should also help from drying out your meat. :)
Stop @HeyCameron, you're making me hungry and I'm still at work.
Covered or not, the risk of losing moisture is the same if it is cooked too long.
If it is being cooked dry, definitely. If I was cooking it that long I'd be braising it.
Roasting a meat dry, in and of itself, does not dry meat out. That is proven time and again at barbecue competitions across the country. Similarly, braising does not guarantee moisture. You can cook all the moisture out of a piece of meat even if it's submerged in liquid from start to finish.
@SeanHart I agree with your point, but it's important to note that a taster's perception of "moisture" in meat is more due to melted fat and gelatinized collagen than water content. As you say, even boiled meat can taste dry. However good fatty pork meat is tough to dry out, which is why you can cook a pig even overnight with great results.
It's also water content. Once you excite the muscle tissue in a piece of meat enough squeeze the moisture out of it, it will not reabsorb. You can boil a piece of meat until it's bone dry on the inside.
Why would you want to cook your pork shoulder past the point at which it is done? Granted, that is a very forgiving cut of meat, and an extra hour at 250f will probably make little substantive difference. However, there is no shortage of methods you can employ to keep your pork at a safe temperature until serving. These include, but are not limited to:
Wrapping in foil and storing in a cooler.
Covering and holding in an oven at its lowest temperature.
Using the "Warm" setting of a slow cooker.
You also could alter your cooking temperature so that it takes longer. However, I tend to think you're better off targeting a time a couple hours before you plan on serving it, to give you a little wiggle room if things take longer than expected, and then having a "hold warm" strategy at the ready.
It's too complicated to explain why I ask. Has to do with me being away from the oven and the timing working out that way. Your solutions are all great though. Thank you.
I use a variant on a recipe from Fine Cooking. The first 4-4.5 hours are at 300 and there's no water in the pan. Then it gets some vegetables, wine, and water and another hour at 300. Finally it gets pulled apart to make more surface area and gets 15 minutes at 375 to create some browned and crispy spots. It is spectacularly delicious and not dry at all.
I don't know why you need 8 hours at 250, but I think the same process that cooks the meat and melts the connective tissue also drives out the water. So if mine is not dry after almost 6 hours at 300, and yours isn't normally dry after 8 hours at 250, I wouldn't worry that it will dry out if you do 10 hours instead of 8. But let me recommend adding wine, water, and garlic for the last hour anyway just for the yum factor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.108950
| 2012-12-11T15:58:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29087",
"authors": [
"ABC",
"CrossRoads",
"GdD",
"HeyCameron",
"J. Win.",
"Neila",
"Sean Hart",
"Thien",
"e9t",
"harmothic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67487",
"thefarseer",
"user14697",
"user67412",
"valkyrie568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18552
|
Determining a wok's material
I bought a wok at a Goodwill a little while ago and haven't really used it for much yet. I don't know how to determine what material it's actually made out of. I suspect it's just got a teflon coating on it, since it's fairly light and both the inner and outer sides of it appear to be different materials. I don't want to use it at high temperatures in case it's got a non-stick coating, so it's kind of important to figure out if it is. What would be good determining aspects of the different, most common wok materials?
Edited to add: The outer side of it is a dark, grooved, almost matte black, while the inner side is a slightly ligher shade, almost more grey. The reason I was first thinking it might be teflon is that there's a light scratch on the inner side where a much lighter, steely surface shows through.
Pictures: 1 2 3 4
edit to add: After getting a carbon steel wok, I can confirm that what I had here was definitely not anything like that. Comparing my old wok to ones in stores, it seems the one pictured here almost certainly has some kind of non-stick coating, and so isn't very good for a wok's high temperatures.
can you post a picture? according to the description it does sound like it is nonstick but I would need a picture or a model number to know for sure.
I second the request for a picture. Is there a brand marking? You might have a good carbon steel wok on your hands, but without seeing more, I wouldn't say for sure.
Added some pictures finally.
Looks kinda like teflon to me...
Pretty sure thats teflon.
Check the bottom of the pan; often useful information is stamped there. Like the brand, sometimes even model number. Assuming nothing useful:
Steel and iron are ferromagnetic. That is to say, a magnet will stick to them. Both are unlikely to be Teflon-coated (edit: though Wikipedia informs me they exist). The black (which is hopefully somewhat shiny) is seasoning (cooked on oil). Iron would probably mean cast iron, and would generally be heavy (my cast iron wok weighs in at well over 10lbs). So, if they magnet sticks, you probably have steel.
Some stainless steels are ferromagnetic, but most aren't. Stainless is also unlikely to Teflon-coated. But it'll probably be shiny, at least on the outside. So, if not magnetic, its probably aluminum. Aluminum is probably coated.
Teflon isn't the only coating that may be used. It could be anodized aluminum as well (which, I guess, may not technically be a coating). Or one of the newer nonstick coatings. They all look different: Teflon is very dark gray to black, anodized is light gray to dark gray. The newer ones unfortunately are numerous and some can be any color. (Your description of the color sounds like Teflon to me).
You could also try cooking a scrambled egg in it; start it in a cold pan. Teflon in at all good shape will release the egg very easily. Seasoning will, unless very good, probably have you cursing.
I don't think I was able to find any identifying markings, but I'll look again when I try a magnet on it. It could just be selective blindness on my part. And the egg idea sounds great.
There's no marks on it at all, but the bottom is really scuffed up, so maybe there were once marks there. The handle has a slight "Taiwan" etched into it. Turns out magnets stick to it, and so do eggs -- tried frying one and it just bonded completely to the pan, had to soak it to get it out.
@DougKavendek: Sounds like carbon steel to me, then. But that picture sort of looks inbetween seasoning and teflon :-( ... and Wikipedia informs me that there are actually teflon-coated steel/iron woks :-( And that there is Xylan as well...
If you determine that it IS carbon Steel, you probably need to re-season it from scratch. You can find methods to do so all over Google and YouTube.
Woks are generally sold in four materials. Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, Cast Iron, and teflon coated. Carbon Steel is the preferred material due to a number of reasons..especially for Asian Stir Fry's, but those woks (I own three) require seasoning and care. It's worth the effort. The key for seasoning is repeated applications of VERY LITTLE fat or oil, and Wiped. Then heated to smoke point, cooled and repeated. This is Polymerization.
Woks are generally only useful at high temperature, and are generally made from thin plain steel
The inner coating should be the "seasoning" that is just oil baked on at high temperature. This accumulates from normal use. Any scratches can be repaired by wiping with cooking oil and heating to a high cooking temperature. This normally happens each time you use it to cook :-)
If the wok has a Teflon coating, it will be of no use for most Chinese dishes
I wouldn't necessarily say that woks are only useful at high temperatures. I use my woks for steaming, braising, deep frying... all of which are done at much lower pan temps than a quick stir fry. I have also seen woks made out of every material (as a matter of fact my mom has most of them).
Woks are definitely made from Teflon-coated aluminum. I used to own one. I switched to cast iron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.109324
| 2011-10-25T03:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18552",
"authors": [
"Dennis Kuempel Jr.",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Eric Blaise",
"Gudumba",
"Larry",
"Puter Gal",
"SittingElf",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80502",
"hushshsh",
"jma73",
"rfusca",
"sarge_smith",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17648
|
What's that scum at the sides of my home-made burger when I cook it?
When I do home-made burgers, my mix is as follows:
ground beef
bread-crumbs or grated potatoe
egg
parmezan cheese
salt, pepper, sweek paprika
dijon mustard
a bit of olive oil
sometimes pieces of ham and some other cheese
sauteed onion and garlic
I take a handful, make a patty and drop it in a hot skillet. In time, I see some gray scum coming mostly from the sides of the patty (which I dutifully separate with a spoon).
At the end, the burger's texture is pleasant, so...
What is this scum?
Am I doing something wrong?
thanks!
Strange, the ingredient list when I make home-made burgers is "freshly ground beef". This one sounds more like a fancy meatloaf.
This scum is made from proteins. Meat contains muscle fibers (the proteins actin and myosin) as well as some loose proteins swimming in the fluids within the meat (the cell plasma). When you cook meat, the protein-rich fluids are expelled (that's why overcooking makes meat dry). Under hot temperature, the proteins in the fluid coagulate, making it firm. It is especially noticeable in your burger, because there is more liquid flowing out quickly from your cut-up meat, but it also happens with whole pieces of meat, albeit more slowly. It is also very noticeable when cooking stock, because the stock is cooked for a long time and the liquid has time to come out from the meat.
The coagulated liquid can form a single piece (as it does with steak on a slightly oiled pan), but when it flows into water or oil, it mixes with it without dissolving, creating small loose particles. They float to the top, creating the frothy scum you describe.
The process is perfectly natural, you're not doing anything wrong. You can in fact eat the scum without any ill effects, but the taste isn't that great. So it is better to fish it out from the oil (or water when making stock). In dry cooking (aforementioned steak) it is exactly this stuff (after getting nicely browned on the hot pan) which makes gravy taste so well, together with the dripped fat.
Thorough answer! thanks! followup: is this the same thing that when deglazing (with wine for example) turns to gravy?
The stuff you deglaze contains both these proteins and fat rendered from your meat. It tastes differently in the gravy, because it undergoes a Maillard reaction on the hot pan (it gets browned), which creates many tasty compounds not present in the original proteins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.109736
| 2011-09-11T13:05:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17648",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Gnanamoorthy Viyasar",
"Ray Butterworth",
"blastoisedadbod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"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
}
|
78927
|
Where can I buy dark chocolate which was not produced in a factory that handles milk?
According to an FDA study most plain dark chocolate has milk in it. If it is produced in a factory which handles milk, it almost always has milk in it, even if it says its vegan and dairy free.
Does anyone know where I can buy or know of brands of dark chocolate (70% cocoa or more) which was produced in a completely dairy/milk free environment?
I am somewhat confused here. You linked to a study which says that producer claims were found to be untrue,so presumably you will not trust a producer's claim that the chocolate was milk free. The study was done by a regulatory agency, and it does not list "safe" brands (it doesn't sound like they have enough data to do so), so it doesn't look like you could get a food inspector's word for a chocolate being dairy-free. What kind of evidence is left that would convince you that a chocolate is dairy free? What are your criteria for a good answer?
@rumtscho I thought some of the users of this site knew of a factory that does not handle milk/dairy at all. The best way is to contact them and check their full range which I am doing now as well.
OK, I see. It seems like a rare thing to know, but I hope that somebody here can help! Thank you for clarifying it.
It's rare but very important. I am highly allergic to milk and I am now sick because of baking using chocolate which claimed to be dairy free and vegan
Many vegetarians and vegans DO NOT MIND unintentional traces of whatever, as long as they are not put in there with commercial and/or culinary intent. Explicitly labelling such a product vegan (as opposed to there being no animal based ingredients in the ingredients list and a warning of "may contain traces of...") is bad form though.
Had a friend who was nearly hospitalized because of carelessness of a similar sort. He's extremely allergic to fish and shellfish. Bar/restaurant didn't think using the same oil that they use for fry fish and shrimp was worth mentioning when he was getting french fries.
I know of a similar case where someone with a severe milk allergy (not the more common lactose intolerance) had identified a brand that was made on a dedicated production line. The manufacturer was taken over and changed to a more efficient system causing him to get ill. Another brand was identified but I don't recall the details (this was UK, several years ago, I worried with his wife but don't any more).
Anything certified "Kosher Parve" should be ok for you. Part of Kosher dietary laws are no mixing milk and meat, so if it were to be used with meat, it can't have ANY milk in it. As parve can be used with meat, that would mean there is an impossibility of there being milk in there.
@Mennyg that would still be relying on a labelling that is based on the requirement of you going to heaven after you die, not on you not doing so in the first place.
If you want a product that is allergen/intolerance safe and/or compliant to a certain cultural standard - be it political (vegan, vegetarian), dietary (low carb, low fat), or religious (halal, kosher...), one statement of compliance usually does not make it safe to imply another.
How ingredients and allergens have to be labelled is very dependent on local law. If we are talking countries that are close to the european approach, everything intentionally added (and not considered removed again in the finished product!) will be in the ingredients list, and possible allergens will be in the allergen statement. If you find them provably present in relevant amounts without being in that list, do talk to the manufacturer and possible escalate to local food safety authorities.
It is important to know that even in these countries there are exceptions to mandatory declaration for certain food groups (possibly having to do with trade secret protection being considered more important than health relevant information on foods considered unhealthy/for moderate consumption anyway); these are defined in relevant law - alcoholic beverages and indeed chocolate are typically among these exceptions, so find and read the relevant laws. Allergen labelling SHOULD not be affected by these exceptions but COULD be excepted.
Your best bet for finding something that will meet your criteria is looking at local manufacturers - if there was a globally active chocolate brand that only did dairy free in their production it would have been mentioned here by now...
These brands seem to have "vegan AND lactose free" products in the european market, if it helps:
http://www.moofreechocolates.com/
http://www.dammenberg.com/
https://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/
Plamilfoods: "Our entire factory has never had any dairy in it, nor ever will. We are very much a vegan company, having started as an offshoot from the Vegan Society in the 60's and will always continue in this way :)
Hope that helps, just let me know if you have further questions!"
"Today 'allergy management' is at the heart of how we make our products. For those that wish to avoid many ingredients, for instance dairy or nuts, either due to allergy or for ethical/religious reasons the 'exclusion from the production site' is more clearly defined and understood." That sounds promising too!
i found these dark chocolate chips
and an answer on there FAQ page.
dont know if that is stringent enough for you but thought i would share.
Many thanks for this. I have thankfully found a UK local producer as mentioned by rackandboneman above. They has been producing vegan products since the 60's in the U.K. and their factory has never had any milk, dairy or animal products in it. So it's perfect.
Great. i assumed you were in the USA based on your FDA comment. glad you found some.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.109972
| 2017-03-06T13:06:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78927",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Chris H",
"Mennyg",
"PoloHoleSet",
"TheLearner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55523
|
What is milk product in cocoa butter?
What does "may contain milk" mean on the side of my cocoa butter container? Is it not pure cocoa butter?
possible duplicate of Callebaut's cocoa butter callets, "may contain milk", melts strangely
@ChingChong I would prefer to close the other question. This one at least has an answer and is more to the point.
I agree with ChrisSteinbach and it appears that this question was a new user attempting to post an improved version of the other with good intent. lb: In the future just edit the original, SE sites have a slightly different etiquette than the usual forums.
@ChrisSteinbach I agree with you, too. I just wasn't sure about whether to mark the newer (but better) question or the other question as the duplicate :-\
Any time you see something like "may contain" after an ingredient list, it's a warning that it might contain trace amounts of that substance and so could be harmful to anyone who's allergic to it. Basically what they're saying is that they didn't intentionally add any milk or milk products to the cocoa butter, but since they make other products at the same factory that use milk they can't guarantee that some hasn't slipped in somehow.
So assuming that cocoa butter is the only ingredient then it would be pure cocoa butter, at least by the legal definition.
Thank you for your all your help with my question, I don't think I belong in this forum, so I better get out now while the going is good, sorry for any mis spellings. Thanks again.
@lb While you're not going to be able to ask many question related to your cosmetic business here, I don't think there's an issue with you not "belonging" here. Your first question wasn't phrased very well, but it wasn't so much a problem with spelling as it didn't immediately seem to be on topic. Plenty of people are willing to help you out with spelling and grammar, but Stack Exchange sites in general can bit quick on the gun when it comes to questions that appear to be off-topic.
Well this is how we learn. I am asking a question with all do respect, when you say, "didn't immediately seem to be on topic" do you mean I should have just wrote. Cocoa Butter callets, what does "may contain milk " mean and left it at that?
@lb There's nothing wrong with how you phrased your second question, it clear and concise. If it were how you phrased your first question everything would be fine. The only problem with your second question is that it duplicates the first. Note that your first question actually asks two questions, one about milk and one about melting. You might want to edit your first question so it only asks about the problem with melting, that way you're asking two different questions in two separate posts. You should also add more details about what you did to melt it and what it ended up like.
@lb Ross Ridge is correct. We function somewhat differently from a forum, and many people have a hard time following the rules from the beginning, because they are not aware that they exist. But we don't bear grudges against people, even if we have downvoted or closed a question which does not fit our format. You are free to go or stay, but if you decide to stay, we have a help section which can make it easier, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help. Also, I'm glad you could get a good answer to this one question, even if the process was a bit hard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.110410
| 2015-03-08T05:15:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55523",
"authors": [
"Alan Harris",
"Ching Chong",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jason C",
"Jennifer Massey",
"Rauno Tukia",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sue Hutchinson",
"Trader Gal Sal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"katrina lloyd-martin",
"l b",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44674
|
How to make Fennel juice?
How to make juice from Fennel Seeds? In India we eat fennel after meals, but I want to make some drinks using it.
I would imagine it is considerably easier to make fennel juice out of actual grown fennel, not the seeds...
Surely infusion is a better approach than extracting something from the seeds?
You can buy fennel seed extract, but I can't find instructions to make it. I assume you could just crush the seeds, put them in vodka and strain in a week or two.
If you don't want to use alcohol, you could also use propylene glycol or glycerine.
Another thing you might consider is using vinegar the same way. That could certainly be an interesting accent to certain drinks.
Any kind of attempt to juice the seeds isn't going to work. Extraction should work, I'll experiment with it. I'll update this post in a couple of weeks if no one beats me to it.
EDIT: It says on WIKI that you can make a tea with fennel seeds. By golly it works! I used slightly crushed fennel seeds and added boiling water. Once it cooled to drinking temperature, I strained it. I'm drinking it now, it tastes like fennel seeds. It's quite nice with a touch of honey.
Later EDIT: I just checked on the fennel seed extract in vodka and the vinegar. Both seem to be working just fine. I think the vinegar has some real potential. Maybe not so much with fruit, but perhaps with vegetable juices and/or kefir. I'm also thinking that it is going to make a great salad dressing.
UPDATE: The extract made with vodka is exactly how I expected it to be. It's a bit boozy (of course) but it tastes like fennel seeds. A few drops of this could easily replace actual fennel seeds in any recipe I can think of.
The vinegar is another story entirely. This stuff is awesome. I'm not yet sure exactly how I am going to use it, but I will, and I'll make it again. Furthermore, this has inspired me to make an infused vinegar using all of the whole spices that I still have from my most recent adventure with pho (Vietamese noodle soup). I can imagine it as a secret ingredient in all kinds of goodness. Thanks for the question which in turn inspired good stuff!
ohh and what about simple water or any other fruit juice? can I use it with Milk or it is a opposite food?
The tea I made was with water. Just now I put some milk in it just to see. It tastes fine, and very definitely tastes like fennel seeds. It needs sweetness, it wasn't tasty until I added honey. I'll have to ponder juice a moment.
@djavaphp Take a look at this recipe
I also tried with cold water, sugar and powder of fennel seeds. It smells and test good. Thanks. I will also try it with green tea and other fruits.
Fennel tea? How intriguing. Might have to try this in a simple syrup, for use in sweetening other teas, in light desserts, and in cocktails. I've done similar things with peppercorns and coriander seeds before.
yeah. Green tea , some Fennel seeds and honey. boiled seeds and tea leafs after that serve with sugar or honey.
I really enjoy practical, hands-on answers like this one. Very useful and interesting!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.110708
| 2014-06-06T07:33:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44674",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diamond Elite",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Feud Poisson",
"Heather Easley",
"Jolenealaska",
"Liz ",
"Madd Maxx",
"Oh re-a-lly",
"ParaDoxxx-260",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Spammer",
"Vibrasprout",
"djavaphp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"logophobe",
"sorrell",
"twsmith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8489
|
Do I need to pre-cook bacon when adding it to a quiche?
I've got a quiche recipe that requires me to use bacon but it's not clear on whether or not I should cook the bacon before adding it to the quiche.
The quiche is to be cooked at 180C for 25 mins so I wanted to double check.
Is it ok to add bacon to my quiche without cooking it first?
It depends on the fat content of the bacon you're starting with. If it's very fatty, then it could make your quiche 'loose' or oily when the rendered fat mixes with the rest of the filling. So, I'd recommend you pan cook the bacon (and drain the fat) before adding it to the quiche.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.110989
| 2010-10-25T01:04:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8489",
"authors": [
"Michael Schneider",
"MikeTheTall",
"Pizza Neophyte",
"freshbm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17446"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
811
|
Garlic turning green?
When I try to make garlic bread or, in general, something where the garlic is not in a liquid, it sometimes turns green while cooking! It's worth noting that the taste doesn't seem to really be "off", but the color certainly isn't appetizing. Without doing a ton of experiments myself, does anyone happen to know what causes this?
What I'm doing for garlic bread is as simple as slicing the bread, buttering it, putting crushed garlic on it, and baking. Is there something I'm doing wrong, or perhaps something I should be doing to prevent it?
Embrace the greenness. Call it green garlic bread :-)
Just make it for St Patricks day, nobody will complain.
Yes, I preserved garlic with some vinegar. It turned the most vibrant cyan-green color... It's harmless but the color is weird.
As far as I'm aware there are a few possible reasons for this to occur.
Young garlic can turn green when the presence of an acid, in this case the butter.
As a possible chemical reaction between the garlic and certain types of cooking utensil, such as cast iron or copper.
It will sometimes change colour if it has prolonged exposure to bright sunlight.
The most important worry can be dismissed, it's not harmful :)
Garlic contains a sulphur compound and an enzyme that when "mixed together" by cutting or crushing garlic create allicin which will turn green or blue when it comes in contact with an acid, such as vinegar or tomato sauce. It also happens when it comes into contact with trace minerals found in water or minerals found in certain metals(ie:knife or cooking vessel).
The environment in which the garlic is grown and/or stored, as well as the age of the garlic can also contribute to garlic turning green or blue.
It is completely safe to eat, and some cultures even prize colored garlic.
Just add ginger paste along with garlic. NO color change of blue or green. I successfully tried this. The ginger will not allow the garlic to change color.
I'm not convinced that this is a solution given that there is a similar question regarding blue ginger. That aside, it's difficult to imagine garlic bread tasting as garlic bread should once ginger paste has been introduced.
My pressed garlic always turns green once it sits for a bit open to the air. If I plant it in oil as soon as I press it, it stays within normal color range. It seems to me, that whatever causes the change is in the air....not other stuff. I have used green garlic and I feel that once it is green it tastes sharper with little or no sweetness to balance it. I feel I have to alter other ingredients to accommodate this change.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Unfortunately, this is an anecdote, not an answer.
@DanielGriscom Actually, it is an answer - suggesting an preventive measure. Whether you agree with it or consider it a good answer is up to you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.111201
| 2010-07-13T05:59:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/811",
"authors": [
"Ann Allen",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dorrene",
"Eagle-Eye",
"HenningJ",
"Local SEO Sharks",
"ManiacZX",
"Paul Cline",
"SF.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42",
"tooshel"
],
"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
}
|
1127
|
How long does it take for buttermilk to go bad?
I love making buttermilk pancakes but I can never seem to use up my buttermilk before it passes the expiration date. The thing is, if I take a solid whiff of the "expired" buttermilk it smells great (even up to a month after the expire date).
How can I tell if it's still ok to use?
I experience the same problem, so I substitute evaporated milk mixed with a bit of lemon juice or vinegar. See my "buttermilk" pancake recipe here: http://www.justrightmenus.com/recipe.php?id=10
I make the pancakes with the substitute every time.
@JustRightMenus - I used that substitution for a long time. I switched to real buttermilk because, although the acidified milk has a similar texture, real buttermilk has a lot more flavor.
Personally I find the powdered stuff to be a better substitute than the mixing substitute, which flavor-wise I was not a fan of at all. America's Test Kitchen agrees with me that it is the best backup.
@justkt - I haven't used powdered buttermilk. Is it acidic or just the flavor?
@Sobachatina - it's the real thing - a powdered form of buttermilk itself plus a few other ingredients. Here's what I use: http://www.sacofoods.com/culteredbuttermilkblend.html
I gave up on real buttermilk because of the expiration date problem. I switched to using the Saco buttermilk powder a few years ago, and have been VERY happy with the results. It is really nice to always have non-expired buttermilk at hand for my recipes.
Just used some buttermilk over a month past its expiration date, that was opened before the expiration date. It was fine.
Buttermilk is already thoroughly packed with live bacteria. During its manufacture, that bacteria already consumed some portion of the available lactose and turned it into lactic acid.
Because of the lack of food, acidity, and the extreme competition it is pretty hard for buttermilk to go bad. The good bacteria will stay active and the buttermilk will get thicker and more sour until it runs out of lactose. In fact- when your buttermilk container has about 1/2 cup left you can make more just by refilling the container with milk and leaving it to ferment on the counter for a day. If you use it up more quickly than the bacteria eat the lactose then you can keep this up indefinitely.
Don't worry if it is thicker- if it still smells good then it probably is. As Noctrine said- mold around the lip is the worst risk. I am not a food chemist and despite my personal experience- if you ever suspect that food is bad just throw it out. $2 of buttermilk isn't worth an unpleasant afternoon.
I was curious about the ability to culture more on your own, and found a great reference from a professor of biology & chemistry: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/cheese/buttermilk.htm
@ken- Dr. Fankhouser's site is a great resource for all sorts of home milk fermentation.
The only time I ever throw buttermilk out is if it has mold in it. I keep it in the back top shelf of the fridge and it does fine. I have some right now with an expiry date of Dec 2012. Whenever I'm making a choc cake or cornbread I open it and if it has no green, Shake it up to incorporate and go ahead and use it. I try to buy the kind in a plastic container, it seems to last longer (like 9 months isn't long enough LOL)
As long as it's mostly liquid, you're probably ok...Buttermilk tends to turn pretty solid when it goes bad. Still, I'd be scared of using it more than 7-10 days after expiration.
A good trick is to freeze it in the quantities that you typically use, and thaw as needed.
Do you just thaw it in a container. How do you defrost it... just leave it in the fridge, on the counter or...
Buttermilk should hold for sometime after the expiry date, in general you should be wary if it has become chunky, and of course (like all food) if it becomes molded.
I've also ran across a few things that said it would have a taste that is more bitter than usual the worse off it becomes.
Buttermilk never expires. Ten days after the expiration date, just boil it for a few minutes and let it settle for a while. It makes a great dry yogurt in the form of cookies. They last for years.
I freeze left over buttermilk in ice cube trays. When frozen, I put the cubes in a plastic bag to be kept in the freezer & use as needed.
Could you expand on this? Presumably the buttermilk will keep in the freezer indefinitely (i.e., it won't "go bad" as long as your freezer is working and kept at a cold enough temperature), but do you thaw it in the fridge? Microwave? Does the texture suffer at all?
I also have a plastic container of buttermilk in the back of my frig cause it's coldest there for some reason and my expired in nov and it stills smells like buttermilk . I just shake it up before using , do the sniff test, and ck for mold and chunky texture if it's all good then I'm baking . Today I will be making banana bread
Happy cooking
You typically want to check for mold before you shake it up. (see mommyoftwinz's answer)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.111504
| 2010-07-16T19:29:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1127",
"authors": [
"Callmeed",
"Clonkex",
"David Hanson",
"Eric Goodwin",
"Florian Jenn",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kyra",
"Laura",
"ParanoiaPuppy",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rick G",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7297",
"justkt",
"ken"
],
"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
}
|
9805
|
What is the advantage to crushed garlic over minced garlic beyond texture?
I use a lot of garlic in my cooking, especially minced garlic. But lately I've been doing some more recipes with crushed garlic and while I love the texture of cooked garlic, I can't see how it could be better than minced garlic for the overall taste.
Is there an advantage to crushed garlic over minced garlic, beyond texture?
Hi Mark - it'd be great if you could leave out those extra tags, please. The [texture] and [ingredients] tags are essentially leftovers from a mess that we haven't gotten around to cleaning up yet (long story). Sorry for the confusion and thanks.
I don't see the advantage of removing those tags, what's the point? If there are more tag terms, questions are easier to find for people searching for them. I don't see how less tags is better than having more tags.
A straightforward, easy-to-understand tagging convention of foods, techniques, and equipment (the main subjects that are on topic) is absolutely preferable to a polluted and inconsistent system that tries to cover every conceivable theme. More tags are not better if the tags don't identify specific areas of expertise/interest, and you'll have to work hard to convince me that there are people out there looking for information on "ingredients", sans context. You might want to look at some of our earlier meta discussions where this was debated at length.
Sure I can see your case with 'ingredients' (...I guess), but what about 'texture'? Don't you think it's conceivable that some might search for the tags garlic and texture, or meat and texture, in order to study the texture of a particular ingredient? You may not know but you can cross search between two tags, among other search methods. What is the counter argument to that? Someone may be studing cooking and texture in general as I have been lately.
Another counter argument is that as the volume of questions increases the need for more tags will become greater. At some point there will probably be 50-100 garlic questions, which most users will not want to sift through one at a time. By adding additional tags a particular question will be found more quickly by more people.
Mark - no matter how many questions we get, [ingredients] is never going to be a useful tag, and neither is [texture]. Everybody I discuss this with has essentially the same argument - that somebody might want to search for garlic and texture at the same time. But we already have a full-text search; tags aren't for searching, they're for subscriptions and customized views, and "texture" doesn't actually identify a field of interest by itself (and if you have to combine it with another tag then the results are far too narrow to be useful). Bottom line - abstract and meta tags are noise.
Do you have any links to data, articles, or studies of search results that would validate your particular view?
If you fry garlic too long it develops an unpleasant taste. In my experience minced garlic does this faster and more easily than crushed garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.112157
| 2010-12-05T19:13:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9805",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aldo Abouchedid",
"Ben Collins",
"Flounderer",
"James",
"Mark Rogers",
"Setsuna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jc303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10769
|
How do you drain Velveeta Rotini & Cheese with Broccoli, without losing the rehydrated Broccoli?
Rotini & Cheese is a variation on Kraft's shells and cheese. It's actually kind of like an upgrade because you get small pieces of dehydrated broccoli in addition to the mac and cheese. Halfway through the cooking process you add the broccoli to the simmering pasta so that it can rehydrate.
The only problem is that whenever I strain the pasta from the water I lose half of the rehydrated broccoli.
Does anyone know a way to keep from losing the broccoli without wasting a ton of time?
One option is to line your strainer with cheesecloth, which will keep just about anything from getting through. Since you're only putting pasta, water, and broccoli through it, uou can rinse and re-use the cheesecloth so it's cost effective.
I buy my cheesecloth in bulk at fabric stores, as it's significantly cheaper there than any food-related store I've ever been to.
How are you straining it? A fine mesh strainer certainly won't let rehydrated broccoli through. Depending on the size of the florets, if they are very tiny pieces, perhaps a regular strainer might, but I doubt it. If you are trying the crack the lid method I could see more issues. A strainer should be fine.
I've got some strainers but they have slits, so I'm kind of SOL. Also the bits are tiny so they can go though many strainers.
Interesting, I have quite a few strainers, but don't have any strainers with slits. I'd guess you're using something like this: http://goo.gl/rosrH and would recommend trying to get your hands on something like this: http://goo.gl/YjjkV (which can be used for a lot more than just this application, for example making sauces)
I'd rehydrate the broccoli bits separately. Put the pieces and a bit of water (you'll have to figure out how much) into a microwave-safe bowl and cover with plastic wrap. Give it 3 minutes on high power, and your bits should be nicely rehydrated by the steaming.
Then just stir that into your pasta after you've already drained it.
If you're committed to making boxed mac and cheese, I'd recommend just getting the plain kind and a bag of frozen broccoli. The broccoli will be bigger, nicer pieces, and you can just thaw it quickly and add it to your finished mac and cheese to warm through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.112424
| 2011-01-05T19:33:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10769",
"authors": [
"Mark Rogers",
"cheryl pirrera",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3673",
"jl8e",
"kevin",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11253
|
What is the best time and temperature for taste when cooking a salmon fillet in the oven?
I have an Atlantic salmon fillet in my frig at the moment, but I really have no idea what the normal cooking temperature and time are for a salmon fillet.
What's the best temp and time to cook a 1lb salmon fillet in the oven?
Why cook in the oven? My favorite is fried in butter :)
For some reason frying stuff scares me, and I've become obsessed with the oven. It's the lazy mans grill!
When you're determining the doneness by time, you're doing it wrong :)
There are too many differences between individual fish to go just by weight, thickness, oven temperature, and time. The best way is to measure the internal temperature (stick a thermometer into the thickest part of the fillet); I like about 120 F (50 C) for salmon (carryover cooking raises the temperature a little higher after taking it out of the pan), but then it has to be good quality fish. You need to check early and often, because it can go from undercooked to overcooked fairly quickly. Now, like zanlok says, my experience is mostly with pan frying, and I'd expect using the oven would be a bit slower than using a pan because of slower heat transfer; so you should be a bit safer.
If you don't have a meat thermometer, an easy way to test fish for doneness is to look for translucency. Salmon can still be just a little translucent in the middle. Also, properly done fish flakes along the natural "seams". Another nice trick (which doesn't work for boneless fillets - sorry) is to find a bone in the thickest part of the fish: if it comes out fairly easily, then the connective tissues have mostly dissolved and it's done.
That leaves the temperature for your oven. I would go with very high - that way the fish gets the least possible time to dry out (which is going to be a big risk with this cooking method, I would think - unless you wrap your salmon in bacon or something like that). At a guess, I'd try 450 F (230 C).
Salmon needs to be significantly overcooked before drying out, since it's so fatty. I usually cook it at 350 F, and check often. Otherwise, your comments are spot on.
I wrapped the fillet in foil and cooked it for 42 minutes at about 375°F (190°C).
It was delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.112622
| 2011-01-19T20:56:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11253",
"authors": [
"Mark Rogers",
"Martha F.",
"cmidmid",
"geofflee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3673",
"leonard norman",
"pushya",
"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
}
|
8996
|
Bitter watercress
I have a recipe for spring rolls which call for (essentially) half watercress and half ground pork.
I boil the watercress first, then chop it and fry it with carrot, tofu, and seasonings. Then I add the meat (cooked previously).
Often when I make the recipe I am half-way through (or worse) and I realize that the watercress is way too bitter to eat. I'm not sure why this is happening; it could be the watercress itself or perhaps I didn't boil it long enough.
What tips do you have for preventing this situation, and is there a way to fix this dish? I'm willing to add anything, even if it changes the flavour a lot, to rescue this dish.
Don't boil the watercress, just wash and use raw
I suspect the Asian watercress varieties are a little hardier than what is found in most western countries
You could try substituting it with some other Asian greens. Maybe a mix of Choy Sum and Coriander with some grated White Turnip for some peppery zing. Or try other peppery greens like Arugula, Endive, or whatever local weeds provide that peppery taste (Daisy family?)
OK. There is a secret Chinese way to resolve this problem.
Two points:
Put the Watercress in ONLY AND ONLY when the water is boiling. I have been making soup with Watercress for years and this should reduce the bitterness. Also, it may be good idea to add a few drops of vegetable oil in the boiling water
If you like greener Watercress, don't boil it for too long. A few mins will do the job.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.112835
| 2010-11-10T01:35:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8996",
"authors": [
"Martin",
"Umesh .A Bhat",
"cristis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18469",
"thyme.tyger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7818
|
Gluten-free replacement to coat something with before roasting, to obtain crust
A recipe calls for coating (slightly cooked) fennel bulbs in flour before roasting them, presumably to obtain a bit of a crust. Is there anything I could coat them with that is gluten-free?
Rice flour should work well for this; it produces very crispy crusts.
Doesn't rice flour also contain gluten?
No. Rice generally thought of as a good gluten free alternative. Brown rice contains something like .02 of gluten so some highly intolerant people can only have white. I emphasis that this is rare though.
@nunu: thanks for the correction. It seems I learn something new every few hours, and unlearn something wrong every day.
I like nuts that are finely chopped, kinda like bread crumbs. Almond flour will perhaps work as well.
The last time I made "breaded" chicken, I had some spare lentils leftover and decided to pulse them in the food processor and try using them (not quite to a fine powder, but closer to that than whole). The result was delicious, a little bit of a nutty flavor, and a great crunch.
+1 for a cool, off the beaten path idea. Did the wife consider it a vegetable? ;)
@yossarian - HA! I didn't think to ask, but I bet she did :) and it must have been pretty good because she asked me to make it again the next week!
This sounds delicious! Were the lentils cooked or raw when you pulsed them?
They were still raw - which is why I decided to take them down to a size that was as close to a powder as I could without being an actual full-on powder (though I suspect a powder would work just as well, maybe with just a little less crunch)
I would consider using potato flour. It gives a coating sort of like the outside of a chip (french fry).
And for the cases where you're replacing breadcrumbs instead of flour, you can crush up potato chips (but use the thicker cut ones, like the ripple cut ones)
I'd use corn starch. It's gluten free and I use it as part of (although not all of) my fried chicken coating for extra crispiness.
Almond meal is another alternative.
Actually, what I usually use at home is chickpea flour.
It has a neutral flavour, generally, and gives a nice brown coat to my pakoras.
Bean flour, usually from lentils is a very good gluten free replacement for many things (except in baking). It's very popular in a lot of Indian food.
@Nick is correct. Gram flour (milled from chickpeas) is used extensively for 'crunch' with fried stuff. It does have a taste of its own which although tasty, doesn't necessarily go with everything. But its definitely worth a try.
Its also a very good alternative to facial scrub cosmetics.
Some links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/chickpea_flour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.113005
| 2010-10-04T15:08:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7818",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Dorrene",
"Gilbert Sawyer",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/719",
"nunu",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5374
|
Do chillis impregnate a wooden chopping board?
After chopping away at a chilli earlier today (well, 10 minutes ago) I then went through my normal ritual of scrubbing my hands to remove what traces the chiles leave on my fingers.
And it made me wonder - is whatever is difficult to get off my finger having any long-term effect on my wooden chopping board?
I clean/scrub the board regularly, and there is no visible staining, but we all know hidden problems exist..
PS - wasn't sure if I should create a "chilli-pepper" tag, or use "chilli" on it's own (or with "peppers"). So please re-tag as is necessary.
It looks like there's some disagreement about chili/chilli/chile in the tags already used - I'm pretty sure that chili is the most common. Maybe that's one of those things that ought to get treated as synonyms.
I think the flavor/heat is absorbed much less than that of garlic or onions. I have 3 boards: garlic/onion/savory, meat, and fruit/veg/sweet. Keeps flavors generally separate.
@Jefromi In my experience, chile refers to the pepper, while chili is the dish (the brown gloppy stuff from Texas). At least that is the common usage in New Mexico.
@KeithB: I've seen that convention too, and I like it, but I've also seen chili used an awful lot for the peppers - including in dictionaries, before any dish definition. Google surveys seem to agree, with "chili pepper/powder" having far more hits than "chile pepper/powder". Wikipedia says "Chili pepper (from Nahuatl chilli, chilli pepper, chilli, chillie, chili, and chile)". Obviously the one certainty is that there's variety, but chili does seem like a good de facto standard to pick.
P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper#Spelling_and_usage
Isn't the dish called Chili con (or sin) carne?
http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/619/chilli-chili-or-chile
Pretty much everything I've read (for example, this page) says not to use wood, because the oils from the peppers will penetrate the board and transfer, and hold there indefinitely, even after thorough washings.
This thread is full of people with personal experience transferring the heat to later meals.
That said, as with Jefromi, I've cut hot peppers on wood before and not noticed any transfer. Specifically, home grown habaneros and jalapenos on maple boards.
Maybe I'm just acclimated to the heat and don't notice, but those recommendations are not in line with my personal experience. I do thoroughly scrub my boards after use, but that probably isn't washing away any residual oils.
If you really want to be safe, for example if someone in your house is heat sensitive or you have small children helping in the kitchen, you can dedicate a board to cutting peppers, or just cut peppers on a small plastic board and wash thoroughly after each use.
I sometimes notice a limited transfer, especially after working very hot chillies like habaneros. It doesn't last long. But then, I too, am accustomed to the spice...
My anecdotal evidence (spicy raw mango after cutting it on a board commonly used for birds eye and habanero chiles...) confirms it :)
I chop pretty much everything on a bamboo cutting board, including chipotles en adobo all the time, and plenty of fresh peppers frequently. Admittedly I'm Texan and a bit acclimated to these things, but I've never noticed any residual heat in the board. And really, though my tongue may be used to it, I don't think my eyes are - and if the board were hot, I'd have managed to find out the hard way by now.
Good point about the eyes, I have also not learned the hard way, so our experience seems to at least be in line with each others', if not in line with the rest of the internet - awesome :)
Bamboo expresses oil of it's own (one of the big advantages of it in many applications) and may be more resistant because of that.
@dmckee: Ah, good point. Though stephennmcdonald's boards are maple.
Yeah, I'm sure it depends a lot on how porous the wood surface is and whether it has been sealed with something like mineral oil, which polymerizes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.113247
| 2010-08-17T18:03:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5374",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Bruce",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine",
"DMA57361",
"HenningJ",
"KeithB",
"Michael Natkin",
"Peter Westlake",
"Pickels",
"Ponmalar",
"Russell Zornes",
"Swoogan",
"agam",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"jevon",
"louie",
"okm",
"patty",
"rackandboneman",
"rlperez",
"stephennmcdonald",
"vijaita"
],
"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
}
|
12933
|
Given I have to make the batter now to eat in 3-4hrs, what's the best way to store my pancakes (or the batter)?
I'm about to make some pancakes(1) for my daughter, and will want to make some for me and my wife this evening (in about 3-4hrs), since using a single egg should make at ~six I'll have too much batter for the one or two I wish to make now, so I'd like to use the same mix for both instances.
Is it better to store the mixed batter for 3hrs and then cook this evening's fresh or should I cook them now, store the cooked pancakes and reheat this evening?
What's the best way to store the batter/prepared pancakes?
Finally, what should I take in to account when cooking/reheating the stored batter/pancakes?
1. I know the term has different meanings, so to be clear, I mean pancakes like these.
In the US, we would probably call it a crepe.
That Delia recipe the BBC posted has been knocking about for 30-odd years, except they edited it. It always used to say put the batter in the fridge, before adding the melted butter, for a few hours (at least half hour), and then add the melted butter right before cooking. Always cook fresh.
Batter for pancakes is often nicer if it is left in the fridge for a few hours. I'd make them fresh tonight with the batter you're making for the couple you want now. Enjoy!
Well, the first are made and the remaining batter has gone in the fridge. I had half the daughter's second one (she "didn't like them" after one and a half...oh well, means I get a taster :9) so we'll see how this evening's compare...
Yep, this worked nicely. Needed a quick re-mix as it came out the fridge as it had separated a little bit, but the final result was good!
I'm pleased they worked out well, can't beat pancake day!
It won't matter for the style of pancake that you're doing, but for ones that use chemical leavening like you'd find in the US, there are issues with holding the batter for long periods:
If you're using baking soda as a leavening, it'll have already given its all by the time you cook it hours later ... but you'd have to add baking powder to compensate when it's time, as there might not be enough acid left for baking soda. Baking powder in the batter isn't as much of a problem if it's double-acting, where it'll give some leavening when it gets wet, and again as it gets warm. Of course, you don't want to add too much baking powder, as it can give a metallic taste.
For the style you're looking to do (crepes, pannekoeken, etc), it's often better to let the batter sit for a whole as nixy said (much better than letting the cooked product sit), but my only issue is that each round of baking you almost always lose the first one as you're trying to get the timing/heat adjusted correctly.
(lose in the "less than ideal, I'll go and eat this one when no one's looking" sense, not the "unfit for human consumption" type)
@Joe - glad I'm not the only one who has the less than ideal first pancake/crepe!
@Joe: The English rarely make leavened pancakes, particularly not on pancake day. If you say pancake to a British person, it means a slightly thicker format of a crepe, with lemon juice and sugar as a rule.
@daniel, surely that's just a matter of the pan being the right temp, no? I'd imagine if it's too hot, the batter cools it down and if it's not hot enough, it continues to heat while the first one cooks. So by #2, everything is the proper temp. If it's the proper temp to begin with, then the first one should be fine. I can't think of any other reason the first one would fail.
@orbling, preferably with a little Tiptree Raspberry Jam. The US supermarkets have started carrying more and more English stuff (yay for Smarties, Penguins, and Branston), but the Tiptree is still elusive. Nothing else is quite the same. :(
@yossarian: Well the jam inclusion is a known variant, but not as usual. I say that, but these days, so many people go the chocolate spread route. Wilkins & Sons definitely need to push the US market then - the US importer follows, badger them: Source Atlantique Inc, 140 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 - T:1-201-947-1000
@daniel The first pancake isn't for the pan... it's for the cook!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.113711
| 2011-03-08T16:39:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12933",
"authors": [
"Chris Povirk",
"DMA57361",
"Murky Macadamian",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"justkt",
"michael",
"nixy ",
"philosodad",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45053
|
A firm mousse with juice with my cream whipper
Can I create a firm mousse (dense self holding foam) with juice and no fat or dairy with my cream whipper?
It's very difficult to create a firm anything with a cream whipper, since by definition what it does is whip. It's meant for preparations that incorporate a lot of air - i.e. light and fluffy. Most mousse recipes don't only use cream, they also use eggs and/or gelatin and that is what gives it its body.
There are certainly ways to whip things without cream - for a gel preparation (as opposed to a foam) you're generally looking at egg whites (or equivalent), gelatin, or carrageenan. Gelatin is already a very common ingredient in mousses, but I think carrageenan might be a better choice for what you're trying to do, because of its shear-thinning property; whereas with gelatin you have to heat it in order to loosen it up, carrageenan you can just shake a bit.
I think you'd do well to start off with a meringue-based mousse and forget the whipper, just to see if it's a texture you like. You make the base and then fold in the other ingredients. It's not going to be the same as a traditional mousse at all, but nothing will be without fat. Italian meringue has more of a frosting/icing-like quality, so you could try that as well.
Then you could try incorporating iota carrageenan (kappa isn't shear-thinning) or gelatin. I don't think I'd recommend a whipper for this, though. Typically you'd make this by first preparing the meringue, then folding in egg yolks and other flavours. The gelling agent would probably go in with the latter half, since I'm not sure if it's possible to whip egg whites with gelatin or carrageenan already incorporated (I've never tried, but it sounds dubious). If you do it in a whipper, I'm not sure how you could separate these steps. You could try to do them together if you don't mind the possibility of throwing away ingredients; my guess is that it might fail to whip at all, or if it does whip, then might be too thick to dispense.
You might also consider more traditional dairy substitutes - for example, there's a recipe for coconut oil chocolate mousse that you should be able to adapt to fruit. Coconut oil is a fat, of course, but I'm assuming your real issue is dairy - you don't explain your reason why you can't have fat or dairy and without details, it sounds like an unnecessarily arbitrary restriction - if this has something to do with not wanting a "fattening" dessert then it's the sugar, not fat, that you should be concerned about.
Anyway, one last thing - you probably will not meet with much success trying to use actual juice for this. I suggest using an extract and some food colouring if you want it to look right - or maybe some frozen juice concentrate, so you don't need to use as much. If you're whipping egg whites, you can't water it down, and you don't want to lower the pH too much either.
Aaronut's answer is spot on, and gives lots of details, but if you are not experienced with foams, you might need some more general information before you read the details.
The simple answer is: no, you can't. There are very few substances in the kitchen which do foam, and even less whose foam doesn't dissipate after a few seconds.
The two most common foams in the kitchen are whipped cream and meringue. Whipped cream works because cream is a fat-based emulsion; you need at least 30% of fat in your food to create this type of foam (and, if it isn't already emulsified the way cream is, you might need to add emulsifiers, such as the egg yolk in mayonnaise).
The second common foam is meringue. It is protein-based. As Aaronut's answer says, it only works as long as it is not watered down. If you add stuff to it, the proteins cannot hold to each other any more, your additional liquid gets in the way. This is why he suggests working with an extract and food coloring.
Any other foam must be created by adding a thickening agent capable of achieving firmness, and forcing bubbles into your mixture. A cream whipper cannot force bubbles into anything; it does mix liquid with air, but it only creates bubbles if it is a bubble-friendly liquid like cream or egg whites. You'd need a special foaming device and thickeners to firm the foam. This is what the other part of Aaronut's answer explains - the gelatin/carrageenan part of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.114080
| 2014-06-22T08:08:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45053",
"authors": [
"Cathy",
"David Tilley",
"Nasrollah",
"Prophet6",
"TS Locksmith Dundee spam",
"Tom Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107225",
"jeddings"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45193
|
Why is it that caramel sauce should not be stirred after it has boiled?
The internet says swirling is fine, but not stirring. Why is that so?
Actually, I think "the Internet" is wrong on this one, assuming that we are talking about proper caramel sauce.
In most of candy making, you are very careful of crystalization. You are working with a supersaturated sugar solution, and it is looking for the slightest excuse to precipitate. Stirring will clump the sugar out of the solution into crystals.
Some candy types need to be perfectly smooth, while others (like fudge) get their characteristic texture from careful management of crystal size. You shouldn't be stirring there at all.
But once you have reached caramelization, you can stir. What you have in the pan is no longer a supersaturated sugar solution, but caramelization products mixed in a less-concentrated sugar solution. In other words, you have caramel, which is a substance quite different from sugar syrup. And it does not clump into crystals. It is amorphous in its structure, not a crystal, and it's actually got some viscosity (if you leave a clump a solid caramel around for years, it will flow a few centimeters).
And you are not just dealing with pure caramel, but with caramel sauce, which also has lots of liquid added in the form of cream. So much liquid would have also prevented the sugar syrup from crystalizing if it had been added earlier.
So, to summarize, you shouldn't stir a sugar solution during candy making, but you can stir both caramel and caramel sauce.
It seems that somebody learned the rule about hot sugar solutions and decided that it applies in all kinds of candy making, without exceptions. But in fact, it doesn't apply to caramel sauce.
"[...] while others (like fudge) [you] shouldn't be stirring there at all." Regarding fudge I'm not sure I agree. Before the soft-ball stage is reached stirring is fine, provided no sugar crystals are introduced by the spoon. While the fudge cools there should be no stirring until a sufficient number of sugar crystals have started to form (somewhere between 43°C and 54°C) after which stirring is necessary to limit the size of the crystals.
@ChrisSteinbach Agreed. I was trying to keep from going into too many details, such as having to stir the fudge later. As for stirring while hot, it is possible, but fussy (the crystal introduction you mentioned, worrying about possibly already being too hot because of thermometer lag), so there is a good reason to abstain.
I've heard the same thing mentioned in the question and have done it that way for decades, why do you think it is wrong? Assuming the only ingredient is caramel sauce is sugar.
@Gigili: It is never true that the only ingredient in caramel sauce is sugar. If the only ingredient is sugar, then it's not a sauce, it's caramelized sugar; it will be very hard and brittle when it cools down.
@Gigili Pure caramel is not sugar, even though it is made from sugar. It behaves quite differently from sugar. Also, as Aaronut says, caramel sauce is not pure caramel, and neither is it sugar. You shouldn't stir sugar, because it can crystalize and turn grainy. It is OK to stir things which are not sugar, for example caramel. You can also make caramel (or caramel sauce) without stirring, and it is not wrong per se, just inconvenient, and serves no good reason. A source which tells you never to stir caramel is wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.114436
| 2014-06-29T07:52:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45193",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bryanna Patterson",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Gigili",
"Stefan Bollmann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"rumtscho",
"spammer",
"www.tvyoutube-tvstart.com",
"狗蛋47"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60165
|
How to stop Xanthan Gum from clumping?
Every so often, I make Irish Cream. The problem I have with it is that the cocoa and some of the cream split a bit in the bottle. It's still drinkable, and shaking the bottle fixes it, but I'd rather this not happen. The usual stabiliser for Irish Cream is eggs, but that shortens the shelf-life far too much for my tastes. I figured I could use Xanthan Gum as a stabiliser to stop it from splitting. The problem is, no matter what, I can't stop it clumping together in anything I add it to. I even bought a tea strainer to use as a sieve, but the fine powder on the top of whatever I add it to still managed to clump together, as though I'd added dead skin. I tried mixing it with sugar before adding, but it still clumped up.
How do I stop it from clumping? Reading about it online, it doesn't seem like that uncommon of an ingredient, so obviously, other people aren't having as much bother with it as I am.
Xanthan gum is easier to use is first dispersed in another powder. In a small bowl place some sugar and the Xanthan and swish it around until well intermixed. Then remember to mix the Xanthan and the liquids for a long time.
You have to stir that stuff fast, while adding it slowly. I use a food proc. or a blender.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/28643/4638
I use an immersion blender angle @ about 45 degrees to create a vortex. I gently and slowly sprinkle the xanthan gum into the vortex then use the blender to make sure all of it is incorporated. I have not had any problems with clumping unless I add too much at a time.
To thicken a liquid with xanthan gum, first disperse it in another powder, use small amounts, and once in the liquid, mix well. Whenever I use it in sweet dishes I disperse it in sugar (at a 10 to 1 ratio), and for savory dishes, in starch or salt. Xanthan is slow to mix, so I always do it with a food processor or blender. Small amounts means one part in 50 to one part in 1,000 by weight.
To thicken (add mouth feel) and emulsify the Irish Cream, 1/8 of a teaspoon for two cups of liquid should be more than enough.
As an experiment, I tried making an emulsion with just water, xanthan gum, and a tiny bit of sugar all hand whipped. It was not sufficient to just swirl the sugar and the xanthan together. Instead I had to mix the powders well by placing the sugar and the xanthan into a small bowl and then alternate pouring the mixture between two bowls. The well mixed powders where sprinkled over water while being whipped with a fork. What I noticed was that after some amount of the xanthan-sugar mixture had been dissolved in the water, it stopped emulsifying well. Small whitish clouds the size of the bubbles would form. They where not clumps, but regions with higher concentration of the xanthan powder. I got tired of hand whipping the emulsion but did not succeed in making the clouds disappear. Before the clouds formed the emulsion was thicker than needed for Irish Cream or a salad dressing.
Info gleaned from several sites:
First, start 15 min. ahead of time, if you want to thicken something with Xanthum.
Always start by putting Xanthum gum with 1-2 parts oil or glycerin. You can still see the particles of gum in the oil. This mixture can be kept for 24 hours.
Someone said that the best temp for the mixture you are adding gum to, is 50 degrees. [I read that Xanthum can be added to hot or cold liquids.]
I did all of the above. Seemed to work out okay for gravy for liver, and couldn't taste it.
If you add the gum straight to liquids, it sounds as if you will be whisking forever. It clumps before you can even start whisking it, people said. One site said-- only add Xanthum to liquid that is in a blender.
I accidentally dumped a tablespoon of olive oil on top of my pinch or 2 of Xanthum. Even after it sat for awhile, I could still see the particles of gum in the oil, So I guess the oil is just to help disperse it, as it will clump within nanoseconds of touching liquids, many said.
Xanthum is also sold in little packets, since any exposure of steam-liquid will age the contents. Wish we had known...
If your goal is to keep the mixture from splitting while avoiding to add eggs you shouldn´t go (only) for a stabilizer like xanthan but for an emulsifier. Without eggs you do not only loose the eggs stabilizing properties but also the lecithine from the yolk. For a prolonged shelf-life you can replace it with plant based lecithine from soy or sunflowers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.114704
| 2015-08-23T11:26:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60165",
"authors": [
"Caroline Maginty",
"Chris Blanks",
"Colleen Lindley",
"Elizabeth McKone",
"Francisco Sanmarco",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zimmer frei spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"papin",
"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
}
|
62174
|
How does substituting yogurt into a cake change the texture and why can it be used?
I've read about using yogurt in cake recipes to make them healthier. I was wondering how and why does replacing the fat by yogurt work, in particular whether the cake becomes rubbery and how to avoid this.
substituting yogurt in place of what?
Instead of the oil, I can't see how it would work and am interested in the science behind it
I am always reminded of a quotation from one of the early episodes of "Two Fat Ladies" the BBC cooking show that yogurt is NOT a substitute for cream. I found that if I needed to address the dietary concerns of a guest, I found it easier to cook recipes that called for yogurt as a base rather than experimenting with an existing recipe that required cream or cheese.
The recipes often depend of the fat content of cream or creamed cheese to provide moisture to your baking etc.
If we are talking about baked deserts, there are a wonderful range of Indian desserts that start with a yogurt dairy base instead of needing cream and milk.
I find that a useful dessert is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrikhand
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.115086
| 2015-09-30T13:56:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62174",
"authors": [
"Daniel Chui",
"Drew Chapman",
"Elizabeth Lynn",
"Jacqueline Davies",
"Jenny Luttrell",
"Leah Hess",
"Roberta Polk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"lhg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2538
|
Can I make my chips crunchy again after they have gone soggy?
Sometimes I forget that bag of salsa chips open and with the summer weather they go soggy. How do I get them crunchy again before the guacamole is all gone?
A quick and dirty way of achieving this is to microwave them for a bit. Microwave oven powers vary, so try 10 seconds first and add time as necessary. You'll find the right time for the right amount to bring your chips to nearly what they were prior to sitting out.
This worked well. Microwaved and then waited a few minutes before saving in a Ziploc.
Try spreading them out on a cookie sheet and baking them at low heat for 15 minutes or so.
I warmed mine in an iron frying pan for about two minutes on each side. They turned out nice and crunchy.
pan fry them for a minute or too in an iron skillet
I have dried chips by leaving them in open in the freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.115262
| 2010-07-21T03:35:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2538",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7211",
"papin",
"questie760",
"silent1mezzo",
"tab"
],
"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
}
|
11994
|
How can I reduce nitrate concentration in vegetables before or during cooking?
Can someone tell me how to minimize nitrate concentration in raw vegetables before cooking them? I need this advice very much because I'm cooking vegetables for my infant son, and I've heard that high nitrate concentrations are especially toxic for infants.
Some say that soaking vegetables in salty water with ascorbic acid can help, is that true?
Also, is there some technique that allows to neutralize nitrates during cooking? Like, maybe, changing the water.
Here is a great resource for this: Nitrates, Carrots, and Homemade Baby Food.
In a nutshell, though, there really is no way to reduce nitrate content without exhaustive preparation. We're talking grinding, pressing out the juice, then heating the juice to produce leafy veggie tofu. Yuck.
Uh, if you meant to post a link, it has gone AWOL.
The link was there, just the opening quote was missing on the href attribute - but FYI it's easier to use the Markdown syntax than to write HTML tag soup anyway. There's also an inline shorthand [link name](http://example.com).
I think it's also worth noting that the article linked states that once an infant is at the age where people are encouraged to start adding normal foods to the diet (4 months or so), the child is virtually immune to the toxic effects of nitrates because their digestive system is sufficiently developed.
The linked article actually does not offer any method to reduce nitrate content of foods, possibly because there is no such method. The bottom line seems to be, if your baby is old enough to eat carrots, then he or she is old enough that nitrates are no longer a problem.
@marti: No, it doesn't. If you dig, there are a couple of sites that espouse the method I described in the second paragraph. IMHO, however, it's not a vegetable anymore at that point.
@aaronut: I go to too many different sites to be able to wean myself off of the "a" syntax. Thanks for fixing it.
@Satanicpuppy, I've read everything on the page you linked to, and it definitely does not espouse any technique for reducing nitrates. There might be a random page somewhere else on the internet that describes making vegetable tofu, but this information is not found at that link.
@marti: That's why I said, "No, it doesn't." Try this one: http://www.leafforlife.org/PAGES/LEAFVEG.HTM (Warning: They're not sane.)
Sorry, @Satanicpuppy, I totally misread your comment. //brain fart
@marti: No worries. I should have put that link up first.
As was said before, it's not easily possible to extract the nitrate from produce. However, there are vegetables that contain more nitrate that others. You can look these up and use them for your baby's food. Be sure not to cook too one-sided, though; so your kid doesn't go without important nutrients that happen to come with nitrate-rich veggies.
If you grow your own food, you can harvest right before cooking. Plants contain the most nitrate in the morning, because they "eat up" their inner storage during the day.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.115384
| 2011-02-09T19:35:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11994",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jason_L_Bens",
"Marti",
"Noah",
"RICK",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Spammer",
"Zsbán Ambrus",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"juce",
"mark"
],
"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
}
|
11958
|
How can I put a hot dog in a bun without splitting the bun?
I have some store-bought, pre-slit hot dog buns. They are a little brittle, and if I open the slit wide enough to take the hot dog, the bun splits in two.
I've tried using my toaster oven to warm the buns. They taste nice that way, but it they don't soften much.
Any other tricks?
What I do is take some flour, water, salt and yeast, mix them up and let them proof. Then bake, cool and slice them. Afterwards I put the hot dogs into the bun and, this is crucial, throw away the store bought buns.
Steaming them will soften them up for your dogs. The quick-and-easy way to do that would be to microwave (as another user suggested), or just over a pot of water briefly until they're soft enough
You could try microwaving the buns. Microwaves tend to make things, especially bread-like things, soggy and soft, which normally is not great, but in this case might be helpful.
Another option might be to put some warm water underneath them in the toaster oven. I'm not sure how logistically feasible this is, but in theory it could help to soften up the bottoms of the buns.
Use water plus the microwave: sprinkle the buns with water, put them in a paper bag, and microwave for maybe 5 seconds per bun.
I did not try it myself, but if you have an apple-core remover, you can make a hole in the bun and put the sausage in through the hole. If your sausage is too big, it could be a mess, maybe 'stab' several times then.
Good luck!
As a work-around you could cut a V-shape in it to fit the hot dog in.
put your bun in microwave no more than 20 seconds , then remove from microwave and pierce one end with a sharpening steel pushing straight through bun . insert hotdog gently , there u have it neat tidy and so easy .
Take a sharp knife, and cut a vague circle or square into one end of the bun (no problem how it looks) - depending on preference, it can be deeply angled, or pretty shallow. Work the plug of bread out. Levering your knife towards the middle of the bun should pop it out, if not try a few times on opposite sides.
Take a butter knife, and slide it into the bun. Wrap your hand around one side of the bun, and push the flat side of the knife towards your hand. Rotate, pushing the bread away from the center, with your hand braced on the outside of the bun (note having your hand there helps keep the bread from splitting, it may not be necessary if the bread is soft, if you already cut deeply, or if you don't mind if it tears a bit). You now have a hollow hot dog bun.
It's probably easiest to add whatever sauces you want on your hotdog first (toppings might be a little trickier depending on how dry they are). when you slide the hotdog in, it will displace the sauces, and spread them all the way down and back up the bun. You can be pretty generous with sauces, they won't leak out since they are enclosed in the hollow bun. Drier toppings you might have to try to tuck down the sides of the bun as you're sliding in the hotdog to fit - or just layer on top per bite afterwards. This basic principle is how they make the 'puka' style hotdog in Hawaii (though I think they're called 'hula' style now).
You can use the leftover plug of bread to stop the open end, keeping the sauces in while it's horizontal on a plate or while you make multiple hotdogs. A shallower cut plug is easier to fit back into the open end, a deeper one is easier to hollow out - and if you don't care about putting it back, you can even slice the very end off the bun horizontally to get access to the softer crumb for hollowing it. If you don't replace the bread plug, you can eat the extra, use it for breadcrumbs, or simply discard.
The splitting happens a lot less if the buns are fresh. Try to use your hot dog buns the same day you buy them. Additionally, check the dates on the package when you buy them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.115665
| 2011-02-09T03:19:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11958",
"authors": [
"AARTI KOOLWAL",
"Egan",
"Maria",
"Marie",
"Marti",
"Rob",
"Willie Wheeler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80305",
"sask",
"user24626",
"user24629"
],
"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
}
|
4003
|
What is curried tapenade?
I have just watched the A-Team film and B.A. seems to have an obsession with something called Curried Tapenade? My experience of Tapenade is that it's a Olive based dish and making a curried version sounds horrible. Does anyone who what Curried Tapenade actually is?
Does anyone know where I can get a real light-saber? I saw these in a movie once. My plastic one makes cool noises but cannot actually cut someone's hand off. Halp! :-D
Are they talking about the bastardized English definition of curry or the Indian origin of the word?
It is a joke. Coconut curry tapenade with toast points is ridiculous to begin with, and it is intended to be funny that a big burly man craves something that is supposed to sound dainty? or elegant?
I'm sure you can quite possibly make a dish and call it this. However, I can't imagine olives, coconut milk, and curry tasting very good.
@daniel So much win! :'D Do post your results in this thread.
Ingredients (per a person) ;
20 drained, anchovy stuffed green olives
5-10 drained capers
5mm tubed ground garlic
1 Tbsp extra virgin olive oil
1.5 tsp curry powder
4 Tbsp coconut milk powder
fish sauce to taste
4 twigs of fresh parsley
3 leaves of red chicory
2 slices of bread (& butter) [or chips]
Directions ;
1. Place the olives, capers, garlic and olive oil into a blender or food processor; pulse to mince.
2. Add the curry powder and coconut milk powder. Blend until smooth.
3. Season to taste with fish sauce.
4. Mix chopped fresh parsley.
5. Scrape the paste onto a dish. Stand chicory at the center.
6. Toast the bread. Spread butter and cut into the triangles.
The origin of the word curry basically meant a sauce meant for service of rice. The bastardized english variant generally means smothering meat and rice in a sauce made from curry powder.
A tapenade is a seasoned paste of olives, capers, and anchovies.
So it could be simply tapenade that has been adjusted in texture and intensity to be used over rice, or it could mean that it is tapenade with curry powder added. Or it could just be a fancy name of a dish that the screenwriter thought would impress the movie audience.
Yeah, I think hobodave has it right, just a dumb joke.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.116134
| 2010-08-02T14:33:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4003",
"authors": [
"JamesCW",
"John",
"Michael Natkin",
"Randell",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Yakimych",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7527",
"jose",
"marco",
"pkoch"
],
"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
}
|
1089
|
What is a "roux" and what are its uses?
I've had excellent Macaroni and Cheese that I was told was made with a "roux." What exactly is a roux, when is it used and what are the benefits of using it versus other cooking methods?
I'm not sure if giving instructions for making a roux would qualify as a recipe (and be off-topic), or just a technique. If you want information on making a roux, try searching for recipes for 'bechamel', aka 'white sauce', which likely was the base of your mac&cheese. (although, I agree with @bmargulies -- add a little liquid at a time; you won't have to heat it first, and won't get lumps if you stir well after each addition)
@Joe: If it was Mac & Cheese, I'm betting that it was actually a Mornay.
@Aaronut: is there some way to make a mornay sauce without first making a bechamel? There's a reason it's one of the 'mother sauces'.
@Joe: No, Mornay basically is béchamel with some cheese added. Sorry, I suppose it sounded as though I was disputing your conclusion, but I only meant to extend it slightly.
It's actually spelled 'roux', and is a mixture of oil and flour, cooked to remove the starchy taste of the flour.
It's a great thickener any time that you don't need the sauce to be clear, and you have time to cook it down. I typically use it for cream sauce (including cheese sauces, such as for mac & cheese) and gravies.
As for benefits -- it's habit at this point, so I'm not really sure -- I guess it's made from things I always have on hand. You can also get flavor from the roux, if you cook it longer , but you'll adversely affect the thickening ability. Gumbo is normally made from a dark roux (the Cajuns have a series of names for the color of roux, including 'brick', 'peanut-butter' and 'chocolate')
Just to add - various "colors" of roux differ primarily in the cooking time. The longer you cook it, the darker it gets. You must stir it constantly and thoroughly, from the bottom, as the one on the bottom will get darker much faster than that on the surface; dark roux is particularly difficult as it takes a fairly long time, and if you fail to stir any area near the bottom, it will burn to black, spoiling the dish (and the timing between 'dark' and 'burnt' is really slim, plus even after you turn off the heat, heat of the pan and oil can still burn it...)
@SF : you can also cook your roux in the oven, to reduce the issue of uneven cooking when doing it on the stovetop.
A "Roux" is a mixture of 50% butter, 50% flour that is used as a starch thickener for a number of "mother" sauces (notably Béchamel, Espagnole, Velouté).
For a white sauce base, you may heat both butter and flour together in a saucepan over a low flame while combining with a wooden spatula. After just 30 seconds mixing, you will get a consistent semi-liquid that is your "Roux".
Now, turn the heat to medium and continue stirring rapidly. Gradually add milk, cream or other liquid as required. As you add more liquid you can slow down your stirring speed. The sauce should thicken in just a few minutes.
For a dark sauce base, heat the butter first on a medium/low heat for about 5 minutes until the butter takes on a nutty flavor. It will also darken due to the sugars caramelizing. Once you have the desired color, add the flour and continue as above.
See Sauces for more information.
as mentioned by others a 'roux' is flour and oil/butter mixed together, while under heat.
a roux is normally used for thickening sauces (usually cream/cheese type sauces).
the benefits of using a roux, are that your sauces will not get lumpy. Try just adding flour directly to the sauce next time. All you will get are lumps of flour in it. Not nice!
the roux keep everything nice and smooth.
Same thing can be said about thickening with corn starch. You mix corn starch into water (or broth) first. Why? because if you directly add the cornstarch to the sauce, all you get is cornstarch lumps
Typical procedure:
Heat shortening (oil or butter), add flour, cook, stirring continually, for a few minutes. Add liquid a little bit at a time. Many sauce recipes (e.g. Mac & Cheese white sauce) are just built up this way; in other cases you'll in turn add the somewhat thinned roux to something else.
It doesn't have to be continuous stirring, you just don't want to leave it for too long or it'll burn. And I agree on the little liquid at a time -- I've seen chefs on tv insist to heat up the liquid you're adding, then dump it all in at once -- if you're adding a little at a time, you don't have the problems with getting lumps.
+1 for not stock does NOT have to be hot when mixing it in with the roux.
For making gravy I prefer to make dark roux in the oven. Melt 1 part butter in a baking dish, sprinkle with 1 part flour, bake for 30 minutes (stirring and re-spreading half way through). This works great once you have taken the turkey or roast out of the oven to rest. Once you have your roux to the desired color starting adding your drippings and broth for a great gravy.
You can get roux in a jar
You can also make roux in the microwave
You can even make a dry roux without any oil!
The most difficult part of making a roux on top of the stove is that you could burn it and have to start all over again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.116352
| 2010-07-16T12:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1089",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexandre Passos",
"Alice",
"Casey Watson",
"Darren Newton",
"Jimmy Hedman",
"Joe",
"Kit",
"Kris Erickson",
"Nathan Stanford",
"SF.",
"boo-urns",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leeand00",
"vanden",
"wootscootinboogie"
],
"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
}
|
12337
|
Does active dry yeast really need proofing?
Several sources (e.g., The Bread Baker's Apprentice, The Fresh Loaf's Yeast FAQ, and even On Food and Cooking) tell me that active dry yeast must be reactivated by proofing in warm water, or the bread won't rise adequately.
My bread machine manual says to keep it dry, so I have. I've kneaded it into breads I've made by hand, once again dry. I've mixed it with the dry ingredients in a stand mixer, before adding water. None of these fail to rise adequately, or noticeably less than when I proof it. (I'm using Red Star Active Dry Yeast)
I'm wondering, am I missing something? Why does something that according to almost anywhere I look is not supposed to work seem to work just fine?
The only clue I've got is that On Food and Cooking warns that "at cooler soaking temperatures, the yeast cells recover poorly and release substances that interfere with gluten formation (glutathione)."
edit: To clarify: yes, it's active dry yeast; "Red Star Active Dry Yeast" in particular. Yes, the bread machine manual says active dry yeast, not instant, and has different instructions for rapid rise.
Are you using RapidRise yeast, which is listed as for bread machines? If so, that's instant yeast, not active dry.
@justkt: No, I'm using active dry. Here is a picture: https://photos-1.dropbox.com/i/l/-k2uNJ655Oj6sbUcCIBkXSNxr-lSDa4yKKbNhSXq4FU/14889463/1298138400/3c6cb06#1
404 error on your picture. Link to product: http://www.redstaryeast.com/products/product.php?cid=1&pid=1
No, it isn't actually necessary. The yeast activates just fine with the moisture in the bread. I've been using Active Dry Yeast for years and hardly ever bother with proofing it.
Proofing shows that the yeast is actually alive. If you have any doubt about it, proof it as the first thing that you do, before mixing up the other ingredients (and especially before putting liquid in). If it fails then you didn't waste materials.
When we found a jar of active dry yeast in the freezer that was three years old, proofing was vital to discover that the yeast was dead. However, for recently bought yeast, you don't actually need to proof it.
Your bread machine manual is probably telling you to use instant yeast and not active dry yeast if you are not to hydrate it first.
Instant yeast (which is my favorite) can be added directly whereas active dry yeast has to be rehydrated first -preferably with warm water.
No, it clearly says "active dry". It has different instructions (and settings on the machine) for rapid rise. And I've definitely been using active dry, and it works.
Late to the party but, YOU DO NOT need to “prove” (as it was called way back when) yeast BEFORE using it UNLESS you are unsure of it. If it is old and you can’t remember how long you have had it then you need “PROOF” that it will work. You don’t want to waste all of your ingredients by using something that is dead and won’t cause your dough to rise so, if you’re using a typical 1/4-ounce packet of yeast, just follow the directions on the back: dissolve the contents of the packet in 1/4 cup warm water with 1 teaspoon sugar. After 10 minutes, the mixture should be bubbly. Once you’ve “proved” the yeast is still alive, go ahead and add it to your recipe – reducing the water in the recipe by 1/4 cup.
Source: the chef who taught me in culinary school.
Erm, putting the yeast in some water with a bit of sugar to activate it before adding to the rest of the ingredients is typically considered “proofing”?
I have been successfully making 1-2 loaves a week using a low-end ToastMaster bread machine for 11 years.
Their manual says:
*
"For all programs except FAST BAKE™ we used RED STAR® Active Dry Yeast
when we developed the bread recipes. However, RED STAR® QUICK•RISETM
Yeast may also be used. We found that we did not have to vary the
amount used when we substituted one for the other. When using bread
machine yeast, follow the package instructions."
*
I use Red Star Active Dry Yeast that I keep in a jar in my fridge. I do not "reactivate" it and get nice tall and tasty loaves.
I just replenished that jar with yeast from a 3 year old package of Red Star Active Dry Yeast that has been double sealed in plastic stored in my freezer, and it came out fine.
Hope this helps.
Yes,active dry yeast need to be reactivated.Instant dry yeast don't need it.
Active dry yeast must be reactivated by proofing in warm water, or the bread won't rise adequately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.116803
| 2011-02-18T10:45:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12337",
"authors": [
"Coxy",
"Edward Strange",
"Martha F.",
"Preeti Jain",
"Semo",
"Stephie",
"Susan",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"justkt",
"larrydalmeida",
"user25433"
],
"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
}
|
10252
|
Harshuf -- Artichoke Stalks
I come from a Moroccan background where they prepare a dish call 'Harshuf'. The name is from the main ingredient stalks of the artichoke plant. It is cooked with lemon and chicken.
Does anyone know what artichoke stalks are called in the US?
@Andrew - in the past "where can I find..." type of questions have been closed as too localized. Asking about names for artichoke stalks across the world would be on-topic, but as this question stands I think it may be closed.
Do you have a link to a recipe? I'm just curious, no bearing on the question. My googling has been unsuccessful - though your question is at the top of the list!
@justkt: I have modified the question to be on-topic?
@Jefromi: I do not have a recipe on line. It is a traditional family recipe.
Is cardoon what you're looking for? It's very closely related to artichokes, and is grown for the stalks. Availability may still be a problem - it's not common, but it's definitely out there. I know my grandmother manages to find it in grocery stores here (Texas) with reasonable frequency.
@Jefromi. Yes it does look like cardoon is what I am looking for. I will add an answer to that effect. -- Thank you.
Cardoon is what I am looking for. Thanks to Jefromi for supplying the answer in the comments.
P.S. from Jefromi: according to the Wikipedia article linked above, it's also called artichoke thistle, cardone, cardoni, carduni or cardi.
The correct name of Harshuf in English is Cardone. It's usually sold in farmer's markets. Here is a website where you might be able to get it: www.oceanmist.com.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.117171
| 2010-12-17T18:20:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10252",
"authors": [
"Andrew Stein",
"Bort",
"Cascabel",
"Kaori Price",
"LazorLord",
"Margaret Stancill",
"NextInLine",
"Patti Randazzo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71560",
"justkt",
"tracy"
],
"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
}
|
102394
|
Why are grape preserves so hard to find in the USA?
When I was much younger my grandmother was always complaining that she could never find grape preserves anymore. That was maybe 20-30 years ago.
I recently started looking for grape preserves and am unable to find them. I can find black currant preserves, blueberry preserves and just about any other fruit under the sun. But why is grape preserves so hard to find?
I thought maybe it has something to do with fermentation and wine? But I cannot find any information. I am not talking about grape jelly, I am specifically talking about grape preserves.
Other than making them myself, where do you find any in a store?
** If you do not know the difference between jelly and preserve, you can read about it here.
In jelly, the fruit comes in the form of fruit juice. Jelly has the
smoothest consistency and is usually clear.
In jam, the fruit comes in
the form of fruit pulp or crushed fruit. This makes jam less stiff
than jelly.
In preserves, the fruit comes in the form of chunks in a
gel or syrup. Preserves will have more fruit in them than jam will.
Marmalade is a type of preserve with citrus fruits in it.
What's the difference between a 'preserve' & a 'jelly'? Also, this is probably unanswerable, without recourse to the manufacturers. 'Why?' questions don't really work on stack exchange.
@Tetsujin I can't speak for other countries but, in the US, there is a great difference between jelly, jam, and preserves. I do remember many years back, relatives making grape preserves, but usually with scuppernong grapes. Wasn't anything like concord or other purple grapes.
@D3vtr0n Where are you located? Based on your comments I'm thinking the US, but not sure.
@Cindy Texas, USA
A friendly reminder from the moderator on duty: We do have a Code of Conduct and we insist that you remain friendly and civil.
@Stephie downvoting is not friendly or civil. I have a simple question that deserves a simple answer, not a bunch of headache.
@D3vtr0n I recommend this and this. Or hover over the downvote arrow and read the pop-up. You have to accept downvoting as part of our model and no, it’s neither unfriendly nor impolite.
Found Arbor Hill brand Concord Grape preserves for sale here: https://thegrapery.com/shop/arbor-hill-jams-and-preserves/concord-grape-preserves/ . The description says the preserves contain the whole grapes.
@Cindy wow thank you so much! I like this part in the description "The whole Concord grape is in the jar using an old-time recipe"
@D3vtr0n Go figure, after reading some of the comments I didn't bother to search. Then on a whim, did, and it came up in the first couple of results. I will be ordering some of the preserves. And I must say that the grape pie and/or filling piques my interest.
It could also possibly be because the modern varieties of grapes commercially grown for eating do not make a good jelly or jam.
Having made jam with a variety of grapes I have found that most of the grapes we buy as table grapes make a fairly ordinary jam whereas if you can get hold of older cultivars, grape jam/jelly is an amazing preserve.
I agree, I think it might have something to do with grape supply and quality/quantity. I can definitely find grape preserves at farmers markets (homemade style) but I really want to know why its not commercially available. I have emailed both Smuckers and the Bonne Maman but havent heard anything back yet.
Your answer is the closest to the real answer. +1. The skins and seeds are unpleasant for commercial grape preserves.
I typically see scuppernog or muscadine preserves near me ... but they're sold as "scuppernog preserves" not "scuppernog grape preserves", it requires the person buying the preserves to know that scuppernog is a variety of grape.
TL;DR: likely because demand was too low to sustain commercial distribution
Barring any relationship to a specific historical incident, it's very difficult to find out why a specific food is no longer commercially produced. In the absence of specific reasons, we can see a number of contributing factors as to why grape preserves would have gone off the market:
In the US, sales of preserves in general trail sales of jams and jellies considerably. Grape jelly eclipses sales of grapes in other forms (sorry all refs behind paywalls). This distribution is very skewed with 9 varieties constituting 80% of the market. So it could be quite possible for grape preserves to "fall off" the bottom of the market.
For historical reasons having to do with the Concord Grape, Americans are used to eating their grapes as jelly, so preserves may seem quite oddball and hard to sell.
From what I could gather from the one grape preserve recipe I found, the runny texture of grape preserves are possibly off-putting to most consumers.
Not terribly satisfying, I know, but that may be as much information as is out there.
Most people in get thoroughly tired of grape jelly by their teen years. The stuff is so ubiquitous as to be noxious. I make current and plum orange marmalades myself. Plenty of pectin in the orange skin.
This is fascinating info for a Brit, one who has never previously heard of grape jelly, nor ever eaten any kind of peanut butter & jelly sandwich in their life. It's simply not a thing over here. US-style jellies are very hard to find, other than imports on Amazon. You cannot buy it in supermarkets. (& that's excluding the fact that what we call jelly, you would call jello). We do 'jam' with a similar definition to the US & preserve/conserve which has less sugar. Jam must have 60% sugar to legally be called jam, so the high fruit content ones cannot be called jam & must be called preserve.
There actually are several grape "preserves" on the market, but they are low volume and not readily found. You can locate them places like Amazon. In truth though, IMO they rely on there being no legal definition in the US of the terms. I know them as the OP and which is most common usage, jelly is a clear jell, jam includes pump and often seeds, preserve is chunks and attempts to preserve the essences of fresh fruit. What is sold as preserve I have never seen in the US as more than jam at best, and see no way of making an appealing preserve especially from Concords.
@Tetsujin it is really weird. If you want to really observe the bizarro nature of American food projects in action, look up "cider".
er, that's "products"
@dlb I cannot find grape preserves on Amazon. Do you have a link for it?
@D3vtr0n I stand partially corrected, many of the ones I saw were mixed fruit to allow the other fruits to provide the structure you usually get in a preserve. Dillman Farms I can find now. I know there are more but cannot find them at the moment either. However, I doubt any are noticeably different than jam in the case of grape. It just does not have the structure to hold up. Some that are named things like "low sugar all fruit spreads" are actually probably as close as you will come at least with common concord grapes.
@dlb I disagree, grape preserves are superior than the rest and no jelly comes close as its not even the same thing.
I received the following response from Bonne Maman in France
Dear Mr. XXX,
Thank you for contacting Bonne Maman®. We are always happy to hear
from our consumers. You are the reason Bonne Maman is such a
successful brand.
Bonne Maman is owned by Andros SNC, a privately owned, family run
company, situated in the southwest of France. Our products are
manufactured and packed in the town of Biars, in the Lot region, and
shipped all over the world.
All our Bonne Maman® Preserves have seeds as the recipes are made
using whole fruits. The products feature trademark pieces of fruit,
along with the seeds in all of our Bonne Maman flavors of Preserves
and Spreads.
Bonne Maman® Jellies are made with the juice of fruit and therefore
have neither large pieces of fruit nor seeds. This is true with Bonne
Maman as well as all products labeled “Jelly”. Consumers who prefer a
smooth, consistent texture, often prefer jellies vs. preserves or
spreads.
A sure way to distinguish between our Bonne Maman Preserves and
Jellies is the color of the cap of the jar. Our Preserves and Spreads
(with seeds) have the red and white cap, our Jellies (no seeds) have
the navy blue and white cap. The flavors available in the USA as
Jellies are: Muscat Grape, Redcurrant, Blackcurrant and Blackberry.
You may find that they are not as widely available in stores as the
Bonne Maman Preserves, but you can find them on our online store,
www.bonnemaman.us, click “Shop Now” at the top of the page.
Bonne Maman has never made grape preserves. Seeds and skin pieces
would be too big and make it unpleasant.
I hope this answers your question.
Sincerely,
Christine
Andros Foods USA Inc.
www.bonnemaman.us
The simple answer is:
Seeds and skin pieces
would be too big and make it unpleasant.
For what it is worth, in case you want to make your own grape jam.
The recipe calls for basically four things: grapes, sugar, lemon, butter. And as I have gotten a lot of recipes off of SeriousEats.com, I figure this might be worth a look.
Check it out here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.117363
| 2019-09-19T18:18:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102394",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"D3vtr0n",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10489
|
Is salt important to the texture of dough?
Does salt have any effect on the texture of doughs?
My mother in law has gone on an ultra low salt kick and has taken to not putting salt in anything. This includes her pierogi dough (you know the potato & often cheese filled dumplings common to eastern European peasant cooking).
I've noticed that her pierogi dough seems tougher (like she's re-rolled the dough, which over works the dough and as I under stand makes more gluten) without the salt that used to be with it. It's a rather simple dough: flour, water, vegetable oil and salt. I imagine I'd get the same effect with a pie crust as well.
Is the salt inhibiting the gluten formation or doing something else or am just imagining this effect?
Salt toughens gluten and makes the dough less sticky. So with that said, it would make it much easier to work in too much flour and make the pierogi dough more dense. Do a search on the following page for "biscuit" and read the few paragraphs before.
http://www.saltinstitute.org/Articles-references/References-on-salt-use/References-on-salt-use/References-on-salt-in-food
The increase stickiness leading to more flour would make sense, since nothing is measured and you can't work with sticky dough.
The Salt Institute is closed, and this link is dead. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/03/30/707747077/after-a-century-a-voice-for-the-u-s-salt-industry-goes-quiet
In the bread book I have, by Swedish baker Jan Hedh, most of the recipes call for mixing the dough for several minutes at low speed before adding the salt, and then for a few minutes more at higher speed with the salt. So unless Chef Hedh is also imagining things there appears to be something going on, although I am not sure exactly what. When I get home later tonight I will check the book and see if he mentions anything about why this is necessary. I found one of his recipes online (in Swedish unfortunately) where the times are as follows:
Knead/mix at low speed for 13 minutes without salt.
Add salt.
Mix for 7 minutes at maximum speed.
Here is the recipe for anyone interested:
http://svenska.yle.fi/matochfritid/matartikel.php?id=2414
it might have to do with a chemical reaction between the salt and other chemical compounds, just a guess, but kitchen chemistry has taught that reactions can be very important. sort of like backing soda and vinegar making bubbles. so salt interacts with the flour making it less sticky, so you don't add as much flour. then it less tough
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.118163
| 2010-12-25T06:34:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10489",
"authors": [
"Armunin",
"BIBD",
"Dave",
"Fenrah Greenleaf",
"Megan",
"RalphMudhouse",
"Stefan Mohr",
"asmeurer",
"chrissie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"velcronomicon"
],
"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
}
|
44628
|
Holding sugar syrup at a consistent temperature
Can I hold a corn syrup and sugar and water syrup at 260°F (126°C) for a few hours and still maintain it's soft ball stage. Evaporation of the water would be my concern. Maybe I could cover it with a lid?
It may help to know why you need to maintain to maintain the temperature for so long.
I'm sure you can, but like Chris, I'd like to know why you'd want to?
A fascinating topic for all those interested in sugar-work! Though it looks like OP has abandoned the question, I'm still interested. :)
Specifically, refinements to your question might include:
Why a temperature of 126C? Aside: at that point you're more like at hard-ball stage (you say soft-ball). Are you working with it after, expecting its properties to be like that? If so, why not do this in batches?
Why for hours? Demonstration? Funsies? Coating tens-of-thousands of objects in sugar?
Assuming nominal conditions (pure sucrose-and-water, sea-level pressure, that you started with a water-sugar mixture that you haven't already been boiling it for hours, etc.), your sugar syrup will be about 92% sucrose and 8% water (you'll get to pure sugar at about 200C). That is, the boiling point of a solution of water and sucrose of that concentration is 126C. Many references available, such as this one. After reaching that point, your water will continue to boil off, the sugar concentration will increase, the syrup's properties will change (e.g., temperature / boiling point will continue to increase), and it will continue to caramelize.
Any time you add other things (corn syrup, invert sugar, acid, fat, heat, ...) you'll change all of the above properties. Other stuff will happen: caramelization, inversion, etc... so you'll need to find what works for your application, your kitchen, your ingredients, your skillz, ...
A few brainstorm thoughts, basically revolving around the question: how about something besides pure sugar syrup?
Try isomalt, which has better tolerance at higher temperatures (read: doesn't caramelize). It has a melting point of about 145C-150C; e.g., you can just melt it (i.e., you can, but don't need to, dissolve like sugar). Since there's no water to boil off, and it won't caramelize like sucrose, this fixes two of the problems. I don't know how isomalt responds to hours at that temperature. It also crystalizes more slowly than sucrose and is pleasant to work with. This will give you a hard candy when cooled, but you don't want to eat a ton of it.
Can you substitute something else, perhaps like a candied caramel apple, which may have similar-enough properties, while being able to be handled at a lower temperature for a longer period of time?
Again, further information about the application would produce a better ratio of helpful information over speculation. :) I'm an enthusiast but no expert; helpful comments and critique or refinements welcome...
Lol... It's a little early to call it abandoned. He asked the question yesterday.
@PrestonFitzgerald +1, and I hope you're right! ;-) Responses to clarification request are still are welcomed.
@PrestonFitzgerald I still hope you're right! ;-) Also, other meltable sugar-alcohols such as erythritol -- melting point 121C! -- might be alternatives.
There is no water left to evaporate at 126°C, it is all but gone already.
Sugar does not melt like many other materials, is is breaking down with heat over 110°C ish, and turning into a liquid substance. Continued heating will result in a black mess.
You can keep it liquid and at a particular point (e.g. soft ball) by very careful heat regulation. Experiment with cyclic heat regulation (going from near solid to liquid and back again.
Each batch of sugar will have a slightly different "melting" point, so this is never a trivial exercise
Do not stir melted sugar, tilt the pot to move it if actually necessary.
I think it should be fine for a few hours, but if you go too long, you'll actually run into problems because the sugar will slowly caramelize, which in turn changes the melting point.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28978/what-causes-the-sugar-to-turn-grainy-after-i-have-cooked-it-for-a-glaze-or-cooki for other issues
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.118758
| 2014-06-04T02:01:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44628",
"authors": [
"Black Peach",
"Cascabel",
"Catrina ",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Clyde Thomas",
"GO Shape Nutrition",
"Inlink Systems spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nate Timm",
"Preston",
"TFD",
"WAFFLE NATION",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"jojbgzkkjx_rocketestate724_com",
"shulzi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8919
|
Is it safe to put hot food in the fridge?
I heard that putting really warm food in the fridge right after cooking it is not the right thing to do. It might cause bacterial growth? Is this true?
Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/dining/bending-the-rules-on-bacteria-and-food-safety.html
Two problems:
Hot or warm food will briefly warm up the air and therefore to some degree the food already in fridge, especially items immediately near it. Cycling temperatures does not help fresh food quality or life. Modern fan forced fridges may suffer this problem less.
It is very power inefficient to do this. Just let it cool on the bench until it reaches a cooler temperature and then place it in the refrigerator. Use any of the well-documented and appropriate techniques to cool food quickly and safely if it is going to longer than 2 hours to cool.
I take issue with your second suggestion; for many foods it's not safe to let it "cool on the bench". Typically if you need to cool a really hot food before putting in the fridge, then you do as GUI Junkie suggests - submerge the container in an ice-water bath. And if the food is in an untempered glass or aluminum container that might crack or warp, then transfer it to a stable container first.
Sure, cooling food faster is sometimes better, but there is a huge energy cost to doing this regularly, and what difference does it make anyway? Try it yourself, next time you do a big cook, put half on the bench to cool (labelled A), the other half on an empty freezer shelf (labelled B). Some months latter serve a portion of each to your family and see who can spot the difference?
What kind of test is that? Not only are we talking about refrigeration, not freezing, but taste tests have nothing to do with food safety. Some foods really need to be cooled quickly. Leaving your homemade stock to cool for an hour on the countertop is inviting disaster.
In the commercial kitchen there are special coolers and they are really expensive. Have you heard of the heat-chain - cool-chain? A food item should be kept cold. When you cook it, you should heat it fast, then if you should maintain the food warm, it should be at a sufficiently hot temperature, or if you cool it down, it should be cooled down fast. Within two hours below 4ºC (if I'm correct).
If you simmer a liquid up for at least ten minutes how much live bacteria is left? Leave it to cool in the cooking container with the lid on. Don't leave it out overnight, just long enough to come down to near room temperature
"Long enough to come down to near room temperature" can be a substantial amount of time depending on what you are cooling, and all throughout that time your food is in the danger zone. Some foods are certainly OK to cool this way, especially if they don't contain meat or dairy products, but one shouldn't rely on generalities when talking about food safety. The fact of the matter is that you've recommended a practice that is less safe (albeit more energy-efficient) than the practice you are recommending against. Worse, you're arguing about it instead of making a simple edit.
@Aaronut, if your stock can't survive a couple of hours at room temperature, there's something wrong with it.
@Marti: Sure, it's not going to go bad within a few hours. But you understand that it is cumulative, right? Stock that might have lasted 3 days in the fridge might only last 2 days if you left it sitting out at room temperature.
@Aaronut I think there is a lack of science here. "..especially if they don't contain meat or dairy products.." is an old wives tale, all "wet" food spoils, or more often is contaminated. It's not the meat dish that kills you, it's the splashes of meat juices growing bacteria on the salad greens. Freshly cooked food in closed containers should be much more sterile than raw food. And a couple of hours on the bench cooling will therefore not be a health risk
The only lack of science here is your own. A pot of chicken stock is clearly going to be harbouring more bacteria than a single lettuce leaf that happened to get a splash of meat juice. And freshly cooked food is more sterile but not totally sterile. Leaving food out at room temperature for several hours and then refrigerating it for several more days is simply careless, and dangerous.
So there is more bacteria in cooked stock than on uncooked vegetable matter with potential kitchen contaminants? What do you put in you stock, road kill?
In recent history medical laboratory technicians used to make their own agar with blood or meat stock mix to grow bacteria. You poured the agar plates and covered them with their glass lids, and let them cool on the bench. When at room temperature you put them in the fridge. They where spotless for more than a week!
An agar plate is not a pot of stock. Such a small quantity does not take very long to come down to room temperature. If you're going to divide your hot food into small portions that can be cooled within a few minutes, then by all means, cool it for a few minutes on the counter top. As I pointed out in my answer, though, the concerns here are when dealing with a single large quantity of food, and a full pot of stock will take quite a bit more than a few minutes to cool this way. So your point, while interesting, is not actually relevant.
As for your previous question: Yes, there is more bacteria in cooked stock, especially when it's been left out. Even if you killed every single bacteria during the cooking process (which is not the case), it can become contaminated again just as easily as the vegetables, and unlike vegetables, stock sitting around at room temperature (or worse, 60° C or so) is quite literally a breeding ground for bacteria. Unless you're in the habit of vigorously rubbing your broccoli with raw chicken, it's a lot safer than stock.
also, the thing about reheating, you might kill the bacteria that have grown in your food, but they may have already left you nasty waste products in your food that can't be eliminated by heat.
This is a myth left over from the days of iceboxes. Go to any official food safety resource online, like the USDA or FDA, and you will find that they are all in agreement: it's perfectly safe to put hot food in your refrigerator. In fact, unless you are using some more direct cooling method, like putting your food in an ice bath, waiting to refrigerate your food is often a health hazard.
For example, see
FDA — Despite what some people believe, putting hot food in the refrigerator doesn't harm the appliance.
FDA — A lot of people think it will harm their refrigerator to put hot food inside—it's not true. It won't harm your refrigerator and it will keep your food—and you—safe*. (Page not found)
USDA — Hot food can be placed directly in the refrigerator or it can be rapidly chilled in an ice or cold water bath before refrigerating
Washington State Department of Health — Fact: Hot food can be placed in the refrigerator.
Partnership for Food Safety Education — Fact: Hot foods can be placed directly in the refrigerator. (Page not found)
Alaska Food Safety and Sanitation Program — Myth #10 "I can't put hot food into the refrigerator. The food will spoil if I do." —
The food will spoil if it is not quickly cooled! The leading cause of foodborne illness in the United States is improper cooling, such as leaving cooked foods at room temperature … (Page not found)
Florida Department of Health — Hot food can be placed directly in the refrigerator if you divide large quantities into small, shallow containers. (Page not found)
These are just a few links I found in the first couple pages of a search; there are obviously many more. IMPORTANT NOTE: Particular precautions should be taken for large quantities of food; see below for details. But there are three common objections: (1) it will "overwork" the fridge, (2) it will heat up other food in the fridge to unsafe temperatures and cause it to spoil, and (3) somehow, the uneven cooling of the hot food in the container will cause it to spoil. Let's take these each in turn.
"It will overwork the fridge" — False in most cases
Lots of people worry about putting a quart or two of hot food in their fridge, but they wouldn't think anything of filling their fridges with multiple gallons of room temperature drinks to chill them, even if it might require the same amount of energy to cool. Anything that is above the temperature of the fridge will require energy to cool.
Now if you plan on putting a very large amount of hot food into a small fridge all at the same time, it might strain the fridge. If you do it once in a while? Probably not an issue in a modern fridge, as long as it's not excessive. If you plan to do that on a regular basis, you should consider using ice baths or other cooling methods to pre-chill the food before putting it in the fridge.
It will cost more energy to cool hot foods in the fridge. If you are looking for the most energy-efficient method, it is probably to use a cold tap water bath, replacing the water a few times to bring down the temperature as fast as possible to room temperature. Then refrigerate. Chilling with ice water is safer and faster, but it's not the most energy efficient, if that's your concern.
Also, in most cases it probably makes sense to wait until the food actually gets into the "Danger Zone" (below 140°F or so) before refrigerating; there's little safety benefit in putting a boiling pot directly into the fridge. Unless you're monitoring the temperature of your cooling food, though, it still is safest to move it to the fridge as soon as you can.
"It will heat up other food in the fridge to unsafe temperatures and cause it to spoil" — False in almost all cases.
This is the real myth that comes from the icebox theory. In an old icebox, you just had a block of ice, and no air circulation. If you put something hot in there, the ice would melt, the food wouldn't even get cool, and everything else would warm up and spoil.
That just doesn't happen in a modern fridge, as can be found out on reputable food safety websites, such as mentioned above. I've actually tested it myself. I once put a gallon of very hot soup in the fridge just to see what happened. I checked the fridge every 30 minutes or so by measuring surface temperatures of other foods with an infrared thermometer. My fridge is generally around 35–36°F. There was one item which was almost touching the metal pot that maybe reached 44°F or 45°F for a short time—above ideal refrigeration temperatures, but hardly enough to cause a lot of spoilage. All other items in the fridge—even many on the same shelf—stayed within a few degrees of the refrigerator temperature, 40°F at the most.
And this wasn't in some fancy fridge: it was actually at least 10 years old and a rather cheap model. The air circulation is enough to keep most other foods cool, unless you're actually touching them to the hot container. The radiative heat coming off the hot container will raise stuff around it by a couple degrees for a couple hours, but in a fridge kept at a proper low temperature, this should not be an issue at all.
If you have a very old fridge that doesn't work properly, or some weird new fridge that is super energy-efficient and doesn't cool properly, you might have an issue. But for anyone with a normal modern fridge, this is not an issue.
EDIT: Another question was posed in response to my comment here, and I documented there a more detailed experiment I carried out by placing a gallon of boiling water directly into my home refrigerator (admittedly a newer model than in the last experiment). My results, in summary, were that even food items placed within a couple inches on the same shelf of the pot of boiling water were only heated by 3–4° for a few hours. Other items in the fridge (on other shelves, etc.) barely changed temperature, moving maybe a degree or two at most. These temperature fluctuations might be a minor concern around highly perishable foods like raw meats, but it is probably common sense to keep raw meat away from hot food and warm food in general. Other items in a well-functioning modern refrigerator are unlikely to be negatively affected. If you don't believe me, here's another documented similar experiment with a large hot cheesecake put directly into the fridge from the oven.
"The uneven cooling of the hot food in the container will cause it to spoil" — Certainly false, compared to room temperature cooling.
In fact, leaving your container out on the counter at room temperature has a much, much, much higher probability of causing faster spoilage. With some dishes, it is actually quite irresponsible. There's a common belief that cooked food is "sterile," and by leaving it out with the lid on, it won't get contaminated. But there are a lot of microbes that produce spores which can even survive boiling or near-boiling temperatures. Many of them are kept at bay by competing with other microbes during the initial cooking phase, but after cooking, all that's usually left are nasty spores.
Rice, for example, is commonly infected with Bacillus cereus, which forms spores that aren't destroyed during normal rice cooking. Leave a rice dish out on the counter for too long, and you'll start growing a lot of that stuff, which can produce persistent toxins that won't be destroyed during reheating. This sort of thing is actually the cause of a lot of food poisoning from eating things like leftover Chinese food: if the rice was cooked earlier and not held above 140°F, and then was allowed to sit in a take-out container for many hours, it could grow a lot of toxins. It's often more likely to get food poisoning from the leftover rice than from a lot of other dishes that might seem more "dangerous."
Rice and Bacillus cereus are just one example. You really want to get food down to refrigerator temperatures as quickly as possible after cooking. Don't just leave it on the counter.
If you have a large quantity of hot food, break it down into small containers, and then refrigerate. Not all stacked together though; let air circulate around them. Or put your pot into an ice bath or cold water bath. Stirring periodically in an ice bath will make it cool even faster.
It's true that in a large pot of chili or something, the temperature of the center of the food will go down much more slowly and potentially could allow bacterial growth compared to outer layers. That's the reason that large pots of food should be broken down into small containers. But note that leaving a pot of chili out on the counter will make this bacterial growth even worse than if it is refrigerated immediately.
Even if you don't do any of these things and leave all the hot food in one large pot, it's still a safer strategy to put it directly into the fridge rather than leave it out on the counter at room temperature.
Important Edit: For large quantities of hot food, I am NOT advocating the practice of placing a large container in the refrigerator. It may take WAY too long for the large pot to cool completely, and the food in the large container may be unsafe to eat. Either break it down into smaller containers or use an ice bath. However, it's still unlikely to harm the food in the fridge or the fridge itself unless it's in direct contact with the hot container. And it's still safer than leaving the food on the counter to cool.
Your claim that government agencies all make that claim would be more convincing if you linked to their actual claims.
@Joe - Sorry, here ya go -- FDA: "Despite what some people believe, putting hot food in the refrigerator doesn't harm the appliance." USDA: "Hot food can be placed directly in the refrigerator or it can be rapidly chilled in an ice or cold water bath before refrigerating." These claims are repeated a least a dozen times on those sites. If you have a major reputable food safety website that contradicts these sorts of claims, I would be interested in seeing it.
Your FDA link mentions that it's okay for the appliance, but says nothing about the food. That's also in the 'consumer' section, not the 2009 Food Code, which mentions 'rapid cooling equipment', but not fridges specifically ... which is why I asked for your source. Your FDA link is for leftovers, and the USDA link specifically mentions that a large pots of soup or stew should be broken down (suggesting that it should not go directly into the fridge.
@Joe - whether the practice could harm the appliance is actually part of the question I was answering. And look, that was just the first FDA link that came up in a search--there are others, for example: "A lot of people think it will harm their refrigerator to put hot food inside--it's not true. It won't harm your refrigerator and it will keep your food--and you--safe."
@Joe - Also, if you read my answer, I specifically say that I do not advocate the practice of putting large pots of hot food in the fridge. I'm saying that: (1) it won't harm the appliance, (2) it won't harm the rest of the food in the fridge, and (3) even if you do it, it's safer than the alternative that most folklore says you should do, which is to leave it out on the counter to cool. I'm also noting that if you do break down the food properly into smaller containers, it's safer to put it in the fridge with proper air circulation, rather than leaving it out as some people think.
Please note that the question mentions nothing about large quantities of food. It just asks whether it's okay to put hot food in the fridge. Many people believe it is not okay, and instead leave things out on the counter to cool, even for small quantities. This practice is VERY unsafe, which is why the FDA and USDA consumer links say to refrigerate hot food immediately.
In my experience fridge temperature stays elevated for hours if you add a large quantity of hot foods.
@BrandonThomson - I will reiterate yet again that the question here says nothing about "large quantities," and I explicitly give advice for dealing with them at the end of my answer, including ice baths. In response to a separate question about my post here, I did a more detailed experiment with a gallon of boiling water in my own home fridge and found no major food temp change. Feel free to post your own data there if you have had different results.
These are all good points, but if you're rebutting my answer, I'll note that it very specifically mentioned "a very large quantity of hot food" - as in an entire stock pot or dutch oven.
@Aaronut, I wasn't at all intending a rebuttal (or even a response) to your answer. In comments here I was responding to previous comments from Joe and Brandon Thomson. As for my answer, I was just trying to provide a comprehensive answer that considered various objections I've heard/read. I definitely agree with your point that putting lots of hot food in small fridges frequently will probably overwork them, which is the reason I mention different advice for large quantities "on a regular basis." (Btw, if anything, my answer was intended to point out flaws in the couple top rated answers.)
I've always understood the problem to be that you're heating up the refrigerator, which may be unsafe for the other food in the fridge. For the food you're cooling, it's not a problem.
Many newer refrigerators now sport a 'max cool' or 'turbo cool' option which you can activate to keep the fridge cool after you've put something hot inside. Your hot pot of stock still may not cool down fast enough to satisfy food inspectors, but it'll help, and it'll keep the rest of the food from warming up.
Without cranking out the numbers, I don't think this is safe to assume. Support for instance you prepare a pot of stock (4 gallons at or above boiling point on bottom shelf of fridge). If we immediately sequester the stock pot to its resting place, 4 gallons of water will need to cool 130 degrees before a safe temperature is attained. Methinks food in the fridge and the stock could spend upwards of an hour at unsafe temperatures.
If you want to cool food down quickly, just use a cold Bain Marie; Put cold water in the sink (for instance), add some ice, then add the pot you are trying to cool down. Stir.
You can keep on adding more ice as needed.
If it's a large pot of liquid, you can also add also float containers with ice in them in the liquid, so you can increase the amount of surface area available for heat transfer.
@Joe, great idea +1
Beware of doing this with glass containers, as the large heat differential can cause the glass to break (it's happened to me).
@kevins : hot items in glass containers into the fridge can break, too. (I remember a pyrex 9x13 breaking when someone made Jello with only hot water)
I had a pyrex shatter on an electric burner... we've all been young.
@Joe: but keep in mind that the food will be in contact with the outer surface of those containers - which is a possible source of contamination.
One thing still hasn't been mentioned here, and I think it's one of the most important points:
If you need to cool a very large quantity of a very hot food - for example, a fresh pot of stock - then putting it straight into the refrigerator is akin to leaving the refrigerator door open for an extended period of time. It will cause the motor to run constantly and can actually burn it out.
Even if it doesn't burn it out, it puts a lot of strain on the mechanical parts and will almost certainly shorten the refrigerator's life span.
This is, or should, be an equal concern to food safety. For smaller food items, it's really a non-issue on both fronts.
Most modern domestic refrigerator compressors are designed to be run continuously. They have forced air cooling and run at a constant temperature
@TFD: Would you care to provide a source for that? Are you suggesting that if you left the door open overnight, your fridge would be fine in the morning?
@TFD, @Aaronut: Maybe the fridge will be fine in the morning, but it can break in a week or so of running continuosly. I remember the manual for my quite old freezer said I shouldn't use the "run continuously" mode (used for fast freezing) for more than three days, otherwise the motor can burn out. All the modern fridges and freezers I see have the same design motor. So definitely running them continuously is a Very Bad Idea™.
If you must - search the web for Embraco one of the world leaders in compressors. Check our technical spec files and you should not find any reference to duty hours, just maximum operating temperature. As long as the motor windings do not exceed this it can go continuously, and will probably last longer than in typical cycle more. Google noticed this with hard drives (electric motors too), the drives that went 24x7 lasted longer than the drives powered down every night
@TFD: I don't mean to be rude, but I am asking for facts, not vague references and analogies. Different refrigerators have different compressors, with Embraco being no more than 20% of the market share; a hard drive is not equivalent to a refrigerator; and I know for a fact that none of the refrigerators that I or my family or friends have ever owned actually runs continuously, which you would expect if it is actually known to "last longer" that way. Furthermore, many people will have older appliances and I've seen at least a few refrigerator manuals warning not to run continuously.
So did you read up on some compressor tech sheets?
@TFD: Did you read anything that anybody has said to you?
@Aaronut: TFD is at least backing up his argument by citing some sources. What's your evidence that most modern refrigerators are not designed to be run continuously?
Earlier in life, I had the personal experience of cooking up a large batch (2 catering pans) of chicken and pasta in a cream sauce for a party. Once it was done, I put it into the basement fridge to cool overnight and keep until the party. Turns out that the fridge took so long to cool it down that the cream sauce went bad by the late morning. Not just "a little off" but completely spoiled so that it needed to be thrown out and our basement smelled horribly for a week.
As said in earlier comments, a large quantity of hot food in a fridge can take hours to cool down and can certainly spoil as quickly as overnight. There just isn’t enough cool air circulating around a large batch of food to effectively cool it all the way through in a reasonable time.
In my particular case, and for any large batch of stir-able food, the right way to cool the dish would be to stir it with an ice paddle. In a pro kitchen, an ice paddle is a huge water filled stirrer that you keep frozen. When you have a large volume of hot food that needs to be cooled, you stir it with the ice paddle until the temperature comes down enough that it is safe to put the food in the fridge. All the melted water stays contained inside the paddle so the food cools down without being watered down.
I don’t have a real ice paddle, so when I need to cool food that can be stirred I substitute a “cooler insert” for the ice paddle. Well, cooler insert probably isn’t the real word for the thing, so let me describe it. It’s a blue hard plastic container about the size and shape of a book and filled with water. The intended use it to put them in a picnic cooler to keep your food cool without getting it wet. You keep it in the freezer so it’s frozen solid and ready to use as an ice pack or, in my case, a food cooling stirrer.
In a pinch, if you need to cool a tray of food or large pot of soup, you can seal up ice in a plastic bag. Carefully put the bag in your food and stir it frequently to distribute the heat through the dish. If you don’t stir, the food away from the ice won’t cool. The ice should melt inside the bag and the food should cool nicely. Once your food is cool enough, you can pluck out the bag.
I believe the thing you're referring to is an ice pack. Right?
@Aaronut Yes, that is exactly what I am using at home. Thanks for the clarification!
Something I've found helpful when trying to cool off large quantities of soups or stews before refrigerating or freezing: pour into relatively large, flat containers, like roasting pans, to increase the surface area. Yes, it means more pans to wash, but it can reduce the cool-down time considerably. [If I'm going to be freezing the recipe I'll put the hot food into separate containers right away, as the smaller containers will also cool down more quickly than one big vat would.]
I've used ice baths in the past as well, but I like the suggestions to drop bagged or other containerized ice into the food directly to help cool it down; I'll vote that up, and will definitely try it in future!
I don't think it's a good idea to put piping hot food directly into the fridge. The danger zone for bacterial growth in food is between 41 and 135 degrees F. Putting very hot food in the fridge may bring foods that are close-by into the danger zone as others have said.
Food has to go through the temperature
danger zone (41 °F–135 °F) during the
cooling process. Bacteria grow rapidly
in the temperature danger zone, so the
times that food can be at that
temperature has to be minimized to
limit bacterial growth. Important
cooling temperatures and times include
the following:
Hot food must be cooled from 135 °F–70 °F within 2 hours.
Hot food must be cooled from 70 °F–41 °F in an additional 4 hours.
Foods at room temperature (70 °F) must be cooled to 41 °F within 4
hours.
This PDF has some good resources about cooling food and some ideas for cooling it quickly.
I have repaired my fridge freezer twice and the cause of the breakdown has been the same each time; condensation rises and becomes trapped in the thermostat area (poor design maybe?) Then the end of the fridge thermostat (bare metal) rusts. Eventually the fridge breaks down and it has been the rusty thermostat each time, caused by moisture from condensation. I never put hot food in the fridge, maybe slightly warm though. If this causes such a problem, I hate to think of the damage steaming pots of food could do!
Sounds very likely that there's another defect in your fridge here and it's not properly draining condensation - this is going to be a problem regardless of how much hot food you put into it.
Most people are not treating this issue scientifically, including FDA. A dangerous zone of temperatures is a dangerous zone when the food has been explored to open air. If the food is sealed in an air-tight container when it is cooked in high temperature and remain sealed after cooking, it is a different story. Just like jams in a sealed can.
Most western food were cooked in an open cookware or baked in open air. It needs to be ice bathed or put in a shallow container to be stored in a refrigerator. So it can be cooled down below 41 degree in one or two hours.
But, if it is chicken soup or beef stew, or other boiled oriented food (definitely not the stir-fried food), it cannot be easily transported into shallow containers and cannot be easily cooled down in one or two hours in a home refrigerator. The old grandma way to keep it air-tight and leave the entire pot in room temperature overnight will be a smart practice. During the entire preparation and cool down process keep the cookware air-tight until it can be stored in a home refrigerator and easily cooled down to below 41 degree in 1-2 hours. FDA has failed to mentioned that. Grandmothers and several thousand years of cooking experiences have testified it: to open the cover and put a hot pot of chicken soup into a home refrigerator immediately after cooking is as dangerous as open the cover and leave it on counter top over several hours. Our experiences told us if we have opened the cookware after cooking, and store it into a refrigerator, the chicken soup will be spoiled for sure. Because the bacterials enjoy the environment of the pot in a home refrigerator for many hours in the temperatures within dagerous zone. It could be as long as 8-10 hours, for there is no way to cool it down under 41 degree in a mere 1-2 hours for a hot pot of chicken soup or beef stew in a home refrigerator.
I suggest FDA revisit this issue, experiment it thoroughly, and give a solid scientific amendment to current guidelines.
This is of course completely false: food doesn't just get contaminated while sitting around. It can be contaminated already when you seal the container, and then bacteria can grow while you're leaving it at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.119201
| 2010-11-07T02:56:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8919",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdamO",
"Al Crowley",
"Arthur Yip",
"Athanasius",
"Axel Ljungkvist",
"BaffledCook",
"Barry Hanks",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Federico Dorato",
"GERALDINE",
"Guest",
"Harbinger",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Mark Giraffe",
"Marti",
"Novice",
"Rehana",
"Sandi",
"Santaina",
"Sheryl",
"Shog9",
"TFD",
"Tim",
"Tomas By",
"Vikas Prabhu",
"WhiteHotLoveTiger",
"Yoganshu Patel",
"Zach",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"cbeleites",
"gravitation",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/999",
"jgon",
"kdmurray",
"kevins",
"reputationgrinding",
"s3cur3",
"shanodin",
"sharptooth",
"vphato"
],
"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
}
|
29823
|
Will double-action baking powder lose potency if not baked immediately?
I use double-action baking powder to make waffles. If I bake the waffles immediately, they rise nicely. However, if I bake the waffles more than 3 hours after making the batter, they don't rise as well.
How far in advance can I make the batter and still have the waffles rise? Or what can I do to maintain the potency of the baking powder?
Joy Of Baking has an excellent article on how baking powder and baking soda work. It indicates (emphasis added):
Most baking powder used today is double-acting which means it reacts
to liquid and heat and happens in two stages. The first reaction takes
place when you add the baking powder to the batter and it is
moistened. One of the acid salts reacts with the baking soda and
produces carbon dioxide gas. The second reaction takes place when the
batter is placed in the oven. The gas cells expand causing the batter
to rise. Because of the two stages, baking of the batter can be
delayed for about 15-20 minutes without it losing its leavening power.
There are a very few applications using chemical leaveners that can be held longer (such as refrigerator muffins), but the batters tend to be much, much thicker, so that the generated carbon dioxide bubbles are trapped within the dough until baked.
The best way to have convenient access to something like waffle batter right when you want it is to prepare a dry mix of all of the dry ingredients (including the chemical leaveners), and then add the wet ingredients at time of preperation. Here is an example for waffles; or there is Alton Brown's pancake mix recipe.
Also note that not all baking powders perform equivalently:
Baking Powders differ in their reaction to moisture and heat depending on their formulation. Rumford Baking Powder's reaction is approximately 70% with moisture (or in the bowl) and the rest when heat is applied. Clabber Girl's reaction is approximately 40% with moisture and the rest when heat is applied. Some people prefer the Rumford brand because it does not contain the acid ingredient sodium aluminum sulfate.
https://www.clabbergirl.com/Home-Bakers/FAQs
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.121553
| 2013-01-07T10:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29823",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"ChefSwan",
"H Frazee",
"Remi 118",
"Sylvia",
"TiffanyAnnM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69440",
"user69425"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126059
|
How are these positive candy molds used? (if that's what they are)
We bought a large lot of mixed equipment at an auction, and one group of items has us puzzled: they're something to do with candy, but they're positive, not negative. We're not sure if you use them to make impressions in some other material or if you pour something over them or what.
Some of them are loose, most are on a plexiglass backing. Some of the molds and the plexiglass have very small holes, presumably to let air out. I can't seem to find search terms that give me results for the right sort of positive mold, I get only stuff about silicon molds or fungus...
I'm not sure what the material is, some of them look like metal covered in plastic, some seem to be a very dense plastic.
UPDATE:
As mentioned in a comment, "CANDYCRAFT" is a Minecraft mod, so Googling that doesn't get any useful info. But the comments did lead me to try some different searches. The molds are labelled "Pauline Johnson CANDYCRAFT ####" and I found some local (Vancouver BC) results for a company that seemed to exist here called "Pauline Johnson Candy" or (maybe later?) "Pauline Johnson Confectionery" That makes me think the answer about them being masters for making silicone molds is most likely correct.
Loose molds:
Molds on backing:
Your update led me to a chocolate maker that started out at Pauline Johnson‘s company, which apparently made chocolate, (not just candy).
… and the company sells chocolate molds that could very well be made with the kind of positives you have.
I’m not a candy maker, but I’ve seen a lot of ‘how it’s made’ type shows.
To make shaped gummy candies, they put a layer of starch down, then press plugs in to leave a negative space, then pour the jelly into the depression that was made. Once it’s cooled, they scoop the gummies out and shake them to release any extra starch. (The starch then gets passed through a mesh and re-used for the next batch)
It’s possible that there are other uses, as well.
That makes sense, and now that you mention starch, I think I've seen a How It's Made for gummies. But I wonder if there's also something else these are intended for because, e.g. the single figure you can see at the top of the second picture is about 8" tall (50s pinup girl shape).
I can’t read the full info on the mold (looks like part of it is CANDYCRAFT 981), but you might be able to find it online with a description of what it is. Unfortunately ‘candycraft’ is the name of a Minecraft mod, so I don’t have enough to go on right now
To me mold look more like ones for vacuum forming of negative forms (as in the other answer ) - to be useful for making imprints in starch those would need some sort of handle to pull it out - I don't see any way to safely remove shape on the pictures from the starch.
You might want to post a quick pic - Something like this to illustrate; https://chatelaine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DSCF7182.JPG
The plates are definitely not for starch impressioning: why would there be holes around the shapes? Maybe the loose masters are; would need to see the back. Could use them for either casting, vacform, or impressioning. It's kinda strange to have just one of each for casting/vacforming, but if you have a collection that are similar where they'd form a sort of set with similar size and detail (e.g. the 'eggs', the more detailed 'flowers', and the 'toys/stuffed animals'), producing them together might make sense.
Might be as simple as they are durable masters for making molds (e.g. from liquid food grade silicone) that are then used to mold chocolate or candy but which have a limited useful lifetime due to tearing or other degradation as they are flexed to remove the molded item.
I'm fairly sure that's the case for the smaller ones on backings at least
You wouldn't want to use liquid to make molds of the ones on plates/backings, it'd clog the little holes
The small holes in the plates give away the manufacturing process to be used: vacuum forming (aka vacuforming or thermoforming). A sheet of polycarbonate (typical for food applications) is heated above an element until it starts to sag, then when soft it's quickly laid down onto a positive shape and a vacuum pump sucks it down tightly onto the surface. Shown below is an example with ABS (not for food).
The plates are probably meant to be used with some particular former, but as long as they fit comfortably over the vacuum bed, they'd probably work with whatever. Smaller items you can usually put flat down onto the vac bed, which usually has a mesh.
Alex French Guy had a video about creating positive molds and using a vacuformer to make custom chocolate bars. Depending on the overall dimensions needed (the sheet needs to be a bit bigger than your master) the cost of a machine can range from sub-$100 to a few thousand (for one of reasonable candy-mold size...obviously there are gigantic ones)
If you see any shaped piece of plastic with some depth to it, but is of pretty uniform thickness: 99% chance it was made with this process. A cheap rough mold will get smoothed out on the outside, which is often preferred as you get a nice exterior surface finish. Curves and such will be a bit softer, however.
On the other hand, if you're concerned about the inside surface quality, like for molds, the time spent polishing or texturing your master will show up on the end product. If you use a FDM 3D print as your master, you'll see the layers.
Another count heavily implying vacform is on the top plate with the art deco person you can see 'random' bar shapes on the flat areas. When turning the flat sheet of stock into a mold, the bars will add stiffness to the otherwise flat-and-bendy parts, making it more rigid and easier to handle. They would be pointless if used for casting.
If it was for vacuum forming, would you also need holes going through any depressions in the plugs? Maybe it’s just the quality of the picture, but I only see obvious holes around the edges of the plugs. (I’ve only done vacuum bagging for composite work, not vacuum forming, and for that you use fiber mats to ensure airflow above the item, and the form/plug is airtight)
I had a wonderful toy vacuum molder when I was a kid. Vac-U-Form. You bought these plastic squares - 4" or maybe 5" on a side, different colors. And you bought sets of molds - there were creepy crawlys, and little cars and boats and airplanes, all kinds of things. Lots and lots of fun, stayed fun over time as you made more stuff. Dangerous as hell - the thing heated up hot - easy to burn yourself. Which was part of the learning experience and part of the fun.
@Joe the positive masters (plugs) don't usually need vents unless it has a bunch of two-way concave depressions and the surface is very smooth. When the softened plastic drapes over the master, if there are any crevasses (like the cracks in the turtle shell, or even just a gentle), they're usually enough to let the air get pulled out. If there is a problem with the master after doing some runs, you can always drill a vent later. Unlike your composite bagging, the plastic isn't a liquid, so it won't perfectly seal unless your surface finish is extremely smooth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.121798
| 2023-12-10T21:47:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126059",
"authors": [
"Alexei Levenkov",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Nick T",
"Richard",
"Stephie",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"davidbak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96643
|
What is the best way to keep the quality of fried food while being delivered?
How does one keep fried food hot while staying crispy for delivery? There are plenty of heating bags but I need one especially for French fries and other fried foods. Are there any techniques that keep french fries fresh during transportation?
We have a discussion on the closure of the question on Meta: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3544/reopen-request-on-question-about-fried-foods/3545#3545
@rumtscho how is this question a duplicate?
The biggest scourge of fried foods is moisture. What you need is a dry absorbent vessel. I have seen paper bags packed with paper towels and left open to vent steam used successfully for what you are trying to achieve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.122444
| 2019-03-02T01:55:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96643",
"authors": [
"Muze",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67124",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5581
|
How to Peel Potatoes
Whenever I have to peel potatoes, I spend much of the time fighting the slippery, just-washed potatoes and keeping them from shooting out of my hands...what's a good way to peel potatoes more efficiently/easily?
Without scraping your knuckles ;--)
Check out this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6137/fruit-peeling-techniques/6146#6146
This may sound like a silly answer, but it actually isn't: just do it faster. I've worked in professional kitchens, a lot of the time on prep shifts, and although there are lots of great tricks for prepping vegetables, the single thing that helps the most is to simply concentrate and move your hands faster. Build up your speed slowly so you don't cut yourself. And of course be sure you have a very sharp peeler. But mainly, work on slowly increasing your tempo until your hands are a veritable blur, and it won't seem like such a chore anymore.
Or you could just put them into a potato peeling machine and it's done in a fraction of a second. pop, vhvhhvhvhhh, done
I noticed the term "just washed" in the question.
My suggestion is -- don't wash them before peeling. Wash them after peeling.
Water is what makes them slippery -- if anything, dirt adds traction as you're peeling.
(and I tend to do one end, then the length of it, slowly rotating, then the other end ... no idea if that's faster or less slippery ... but for carrots, I always do the fatter end first, as I find it'd harder hold a peeled skinny side while peeling the fatter end)
Good advice. If you plan to peel them at all, then there's really no sense in washing them with the peel still on. And washing with the peel off helps get rid of any loose bits of peel you may have missed.
This is fine for potatoes that come more or less clean. For potatoes that come with soil clinging to them, the idea of the blade against the soil sets my teeth on edge (and will probably blunt the peeler quickly too).
I know this might sound crazy, but is your potato peeler old or dull? Sometimes a nice new peeler does the trick. Also, I'll sometimes hold the potato with a paper towel if it's slipping in my hands.
If the potatoes really are shooting out of your hands, you might try something as simple as loosening your grip. When I peel potatoes, I don't even squeeze with the hand in which I'm holding it. Generally, putting a lot of pressure on anything when working with knives or other sharp implements can be risky.
A different idea, don't peel them at all. I can't think of a dish where I wouldn't rather have the earthy, crispy, chewy skin of a potato. Just run them under water and lightly brush the dirt off, cut out any eyes, and be on your way. This is somewhat of a non-answer, but it's how I approach most tedious cooking tasks.
I also prefer leaving the skin on, and generally prepare them exactly how you described.
You might have good luck with holding the potato similar to how a football is held for a field goal kicker - place one end on the table and hold the other end with the fingers of your left hand (if you're right handed), essentially sitting the potato vertically, and peel down from top to bottom. You'll still have to pick it up to get the ends, but you should be able to get 90% of the potato done this way. To keep the potato from slipping off the counter, rest it on a paper towel.
Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island presents and even easier method in this video. Basically, you score the potato all the way around, put it in boiling water for 15 minutes, then drop it into an ice bath...and the skin will just come off. Very cool! Of course, you'll want to reserve this method for potatoes that are going to be mashed or otherwise need to be softened for one reason or another.
If you don't mind buying a device specifically for this there are some pretty cool potato peelers on the market, but it might not be very cost effective unless you eat a lot of potatoes!
Also, you can hold the potato with a towel, or if you have one, one of those "jar openers" that is just the round silicon grip improver. Those work great!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.122553
| 2010-08-19T21:31:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5581",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris",
"Joyful Baker",
"Mary",
"NPan",
"Robottinosino",
"SconeLady",
"ctogden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"jonse",
"neusuchan",
"newthrash",
"nicorellius",
"param",
"ron pulliam",
"seasoned",
"slim",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5087
|
How is mass egg-frying performed?
I'm currently at a hotel in Spain. We are having a buffet breakfast and one of the meals are sunny-side-up fried eggs. I estimate they probably fry several hundred eggs per breakfast. I wondered how they pull it off in the kitchen, especially the "breaking eggs" part.
I can imagine two extremes:
A cook is breaking eggs manually, taking extra care not to put any shell onto the frying pan.
Some kind of automated process takes place, e.g. eggs are put in some foamy container, the top is cut off and then the whole lot is flipped over the pan.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. Anyone with mass-kitchen experience, care to enlighten me?
lots of junior chefs?
Sorry, but the title does sound like the beginning of a joke... (:
Since you're still there...ask one of the cooks or servers.
@Darin I've been mostly on my way out, but I probably should have asked earlier ;)
Chefs are really fast at cooking. It's what they do. A chef can almost effortlessly crack an egg with one-hand in about a second. Scrambled eggs would be pre-cracked and beaten prior to the cooking-shift.
His question says sunny side up, not scrambled.
@Hobodave Hence the third sentence. It does not specify scrambling. Scrambling is an additional step. Hence the verb 'would'.
As a chef, the bigger question I would have is how are they serving sunny-side up eggs buffet style without them breaking to pieces and making a mess in the chafing dish?
I wouldn't ever put them on a buffet or suggest doing them for a large group but it can be done. Most likely they are baking them on sheet pans in the oven or doing them in what we call "hotel pans" in a convection steamer covered with plastic wrap.
Large volume commercial kitchens will either do scrambled eggs in the oven (pour the egg mix into a greased hotel pan and stir periodically to break up and mix as the curds form) or in a bain marie where they also need very little attention and will cook to a creamy curd without getting crusty.
They had those big aluminium pans (like this one) and those were mostly filled with 1.5 to 2 layers of fried eggs with a lot of oil in between, i.e. it wasn't really difficult to grab one. Breaking percentage was probably around 10-15%, but for the most part, only yolks were broken.
@Rassie: That's what is commonly called a "hotel pan". If there wasn't any browning around the edges of the egg white at all I'd say they were probably done in the steamer. If there was a little bit of browning, then most likely in the oven.
Hmmm, even if the chef and staff were perfectly careful in preparation and presentation, I'd find it hard to believe the guests/customers aren't ham-handed buffoons when loading up their plates. This does seem like a bad idea, unless we're missing something.
Two massive pans (15 eggs in one pan at a time) on a low heat with lots of oil, yes its sounds oily and unhealthy but it makes mass egg cooking possible. Slow cook the eggs to perfection, just make sure to drain off the oil for perfectly cooked sunny side up eggs. I do this every morning and go through about 200+ eggs a day in a buffet style, and people always ask for more.
From personal experiance, I cooked on a flat top with six 8" pans for two to three eggs and three 7" pans for single egg orders. I had one frying pan with an insert for poached egg orders. Avoid electric grills, gas is much better, but a steam griddle like the AccuTemp is best as they hold a uniform temperature much better. Use an IR thermometer to make certain the surface of the grill is 325º to 335º uniformly over the surface. Take the temperature on 8" centers.
Preheat the pans on the grill, take the bottom pan for each order, add the oil, we used a mix of half butter and half bacon fat, then carefully break the eggs into a shallow bowl and gently add them to the pan. Cook to order. I would often have 4-6 orders working at once. One important item: learn to flip the eggs, a hasty spatula will break yolks.
DO NOT set precooked eggs on a buffet. Set up an egg station with 2-3 cassette stoves next to the serving line and have a Petit déjeuner Chef cook to order. Set up a dozen fillings for the scramble and omelet orders, fewer will be disappointing to the customer, but more and they take too much time deciding.
For omelets and scrambles we would break and whip ahead 15-30 eggs depending on the time of day into a gallon cup. For one egg we would measure two and a half ounces of prewhipped egg, for two eggs - five ounces, and for three eggs - eight ounces. The left over prewhipped eggs would be set aside at the end of each hour for the use of the bakery. All omelets and scrambled eggs were made as ordered.
For most days we would use a skillet with a poaching insert due to the low demand. Sometimes we would have two in use. On Sundays we had Eggs Benedict on the menu as a special, and with the high demand in the morning we would use a large poaching frame in a steamer to keep enough being made.
Incidentally my skill level is Certified Master Chef.
The question wasn't "what is the best way to serve large quantities of eggs", but "how did they manage this particular setup, where vast quantities of sunny-side-up eggs were served from hotel pans".
For a large kitchen they would probably use a griddle for this instead of frying pans. There are griddles available about a meter across. As long as the hotel doesn't come down for breakfast en masse I imagine that would provide enough throughput.
I should note that I've never actually worked in a large kitchen. I have a vague recollection from university that the canteen did fried eggs on the griddle.
I suppose they either used a griddle or were baking them, but the amount of oil suggests griddle. I can't imaging doing that many eggs on a normal household pan, even with many of them.
I probably cook scrambled eggs for about a thousand people a day. As well as cook to order fried eggs at the same time. I use a large, deep well, non stick skillet over a gas burner. Each pan pan holds about 3 quarts of shelled eggs. I keep the pan in constant motion and use a flat spatula to stir as the pan rotates underneath. This keeps the eggs from browning and they remain fluffy. The eggs are removed at a very soft scramble as they will continue to cook after put in the warmer pan. Individual fried eggs are made in a tiny omelet pan inbeteeen large scramble batches. Cracking the egg with one hand while again moving the pan beneath to keep the egg from browning. Fried hard are made by flipping the egg and puncturing the yolk underneath and pressing the egg into the pan to cook quickly without browning. I have better control with the pans as opposed to the flat top which I leave untouched all day lol. Besides, our kitchen is open to the “audience” and they love to see eggs flipping through the air and the small “flash fires” this can create. Makes them feel like they’re watching Hells Kitchen or something haha. Every chef is different and will swear their routine is best. This is just what works for me and keeps our customers happy .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.122959
| 2010-08-13T08:41:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5087",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Darin Sehnert",
"James White",
"Jean",
"Jennifer",
"Karla Grote",
"KeithRichardson",
"Kieron",
"Marti",
"Mellissa",
"Nikolai Prokoschenko",
"Nils",
"Ocaasi",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rafał",
"Sam Holder",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9923"
],
"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
}
|
28489
|
What difference does the bar pressure makes in espresso coffee machines?
I read somewhere that 15 bar is enough and any pressure higher than that doesn't make any difference. The standard pressure is 15 bar for home machines and 9 bar for professional machines!
If so, why are there machines with higher pressure (16, 19, 20, 21 bar) and why do these machines cost more money? If professional coffee is made with 9 bar, then why do home machines work with 15 bar?
Brew a standard espresso!
9 bar is the "standard", not 15. This number has been reached after lots of trial/error with other pressures, and is accepted as standard by Italian (page 7) and U.S.A. associations and guilds.
Some guys have even made devices to check how precisely their machines reach that pressure.
Professional (also called commercial) machines can give much more pressure, but control automatically not to give more. They kind of pumps they use are called rotary pump, and due to their construction, the flow rate is independent of the pressure (which will remain quite constant).
Home machines employ the cheaper vibratory pumps. In them, the pressure is indirectly proportional to the flow. To try to have a more constant pressure, and to make it independent of the flow rate, they are added overpressure valves. But they need to have pumps that give more than 9 bar, to assure that those 9 bars will get to the basket in the portafilter.
You can see both rotary and vibratory pumps dismantled in this video.
So, when manufacturers advertise their vibratory pump machines having 15 or more bars of pressure, they are just doing marketing using the not always true motto "the more the better".
But why do I still see many machines high pressure?
One of the signs of good quality espresso is the crema. If the coffee is good it will have a nice layer of crema on top. The marketing guys know you'll think If my espresso has crema it will taste good (which is not necessarily true). So they added a pressurized filter to produce crema even with stale coffee that was grinded one month ago. As their name shows, pressurized filters need more pressure than a 9 bar standard one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.123676
| 2012-11-18T13:58:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28489",
"authors": [
"Charlie",
"ElmoVanKielmo",
"Jackduma",
"Maria",
"Nick Veys",
"Si Yifa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66072",
"johvanahD",
"remco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6145
|
Why buy a more expensive kitchen scale
It seems about time for me to give in to peer pressure and get a kitchen scale like everyone else. It seems like they would give my cooking more consistency if nothing else.
I've payed attention to scales as I've been in various stores. Their prices seem to range widely- from $20 at Harbor Freight to a couple hundred at Bed Bath and Beyond.
My question is two-fold:
What processes benefit most from the use of a scale?
How much should I expect to pay for a decent scale? Is it worth saving up to get the top of the line or will the bottom of the line work just fine?
Alton Brown is always using a scale for measuring his ingredients. Every time I am tempted to get one. Measuring meat seems like one place you can benefit most.
@Chris - it's really measuring flour for baking that helps you benefit. A cup of flour can vary between 4.5 oz. and 6 oz. depending on how it is measured out. That becomes huge when you are working with 4 or so cups. With sensitive recipes in baking, a scale is immensely helpful.
@justkt I agree but I leave the baking to my girlfriend as she is much better at it. :-/
I convert all my recipes to weight and use one of those electronic scales. Being able to zero after adding each ingredient is very helpful. No measuring cups or sppons to clean up. It also helps me adjust recipes for my ingredients and appliances.
@papin - I'm in the process doing so, but I'm still learning things like what my average cup of is.
You can always use wolframalpha. They use the USDA SR22 dataset, so some things are a bit off, but you can type things like 1.5 cups of lettuce and get a Nutrition Facts label, which includes the weight in grams.
Although I've come to find a lot of uses for my kitchen scale, the ones that immediately pop into mind are:
Exact measurements. When a recipe
calls for a cup of baby spinach, for
example, that's going to be hard to
measure. Not going to be a problem
if you're dealing with weights. This is extremely important with baking, where exact measurements are absolutely necessary. Ideally, the recipe would have both,
but if not you can often convert via
the nutritional info on the bag -
it'll say something like 1 cup (28g). A cup of flour varies wildly depending on various factors, for example whether or not it was sifted.
Portion control. I helped my wife do
Weight Watchers before our wedding,
and I can't imagine trying to figure
out 1 portion (3oz) of lean meat without it.
Learning. I'll weigh a piece of meat
before and after cooking it to see
what kind of weight loss I get from
moisture, for example.
When buying, you want to think about the following:
Capacity. Cheap models often only go to 5lbs, whereas more expensive can hit 10 or 15. Becomes important when you're cooking in bulk, may not be important depending on your cooking habits.
Digital vs balance. I don't trust balance (analog) scales, they're too easy to have become uncalibrated, and I don't want to be calibrating every time I need to use it. Digital scales are easier to read, and very easy to go between US standard and metric measures. Also, digital scales have a tare feature, which is invaluable (as KeithB pointed out).
US standard/metric. You definitely want a scale that can do both, recipes may have either. Most scales should handle this.
Plate/bowl. I find that scales that come with a bowl are unnecessary, I prefer one with a nice large plate that I can put my own bowl onto. With the tare feature that almost all digital models have, you can zero out your weight so you can pick any bowl to meet your needs. The larger the plate, the better, so you can fit more stuff on it if you're not using a bowl.
As far as price goes, I think $20 is too cheap, and is likely to become unreliable quickly, if not immediately. That said, I think over $100 is too much as well, that's likely to be based on design or name. My current scale cost me about $50 and works great, and I check its calibration regularly and haven't had a problem yet.
One specific example from our house - I make smoothies every morning from 20 oz frozen fruit, 10 oz soy milk, 6 oz greek yogurt. My wife is following a very specific nutrition guide right now, so I then split it into 12oz for her, 24oz for me. Getting her nutritional info right without a scale would be all guesswork (and I've come to learn, through using my scale, that my guesswork used to be pretty far off - it's much better since I started using the scale regularly).
Something with a tare feature is a must. It is great for weighing multiple ingredients into the same bowl. Add one, retare (set scale back to zero), add second, retare, repeat as necessary.
@KeithB - I can't imagine a scale without a tare feature!
Baking benefits immensely from a scale. A cup of flour can vary between 4.5 oz. and 6 oz. depending on how it is measured out. That becomes huge when you are working with 4 or so cups. With only three cups of flour you can literally vary in an actual cup amount between people.
Measuring meat is also helped by a scale. Instead of eyeballing one pound of ground beef, turkey, or sausage, or whatever your recipe calls for or guessing how much your steaks weigh, you can know precisely. I use my scale to measure out half pounds of ground beef for freezing in individual portions when I buy a large pack.
I originally acquired a cheap digital scale in college during a kinesiology course where students where the lab for learning about exercise and nutrition and I used it for portion control with my meats and nuts. This scale is not terribly precise (I frequently get frustrated trying to guess what .19 oz. of salt would be for some of my bread recipes when my scale's options are .15 and .20 oz.) and has probably gained many inaccuracies over years of use, but it does the trick. When it finally breaks I will be getting one that is more accurate and precise, but I have gained benefits from even this cheap scale.
Great point about portioning for freezing. I completely forgot to put that in my answer, we do the same thing at my house.
In doing research for a scale for molecular gastronomy, I found that most kitchen scales were accurate to 3.5g. So these would never be able to measure accurately in the less than .20 oz range. You'd need a much more precise scale to handle those measurements.
@yossarian - thanks, that's helpful to know. I guess doing everything in BBA precisely by weight is probably out of my range, then.
@justkt, you'd be surprised. A .01g scale (i.e. accurate to 1/100th of a g) is only $12 on Amazon. Just be careful never to put more than 100g (aprox 4 oz) on the scale or you'll break it (this includes downward pressure from your hands). I got one for molecular gastronomy and it works great, even to a 1/10th of a gram.
@yossarian - interesting. A separate scale for small quantities might be a bit more than my tiny amount of storage space can handle now, but good to know.
@justkt, they're very very small. You wouldn't have any trouble finding a corner to tuck one away in.
The primary benefit of a scale is fairly obvious, precision in measurement. If a recipe says two medium tomatoes, there's some ambiguity there, but there's none in 5oz. Using a scale allows you to get exactly at the intent of a recipe. Of course, that's assuming the the recipe uses weights as a unit of measurement (a lot of internet ones don't, for instance).
If you find yourself regular seeing recipes that use weight and think to yourself, "I wish I knew how much 10oz of Okra was" then you should get one. If you find you're never really bothered, then you don't need one. I think it largely depends on the type of cook you are. That being said, there are some uses (i.e. molecular gastronomy or following a Thomas Keller recipe) that require the scale, but at that point you'll quite obviously be bothered by not knowing.
Close to the bottom of the line will work fine. I use a scale pretty regularly in the kitchen. We spent about $40. I don't think there's any need to pay through the nose for one. My experience was that the cheapest ones felt shoddy, like they'd fall apart quickly. They were also ugly. We got the cheapest one that looked nice (it's always out) and felt decently constructed.
Two paragraphs of personal experience, skip if you want:
I'm a bit mixed on the need for one. We got a scale for our wedding and didn't use it for a long time. As a fairly experienced cook, I've always enjoyed tinkering with recipes and the scale implies an amount of precision that I didn't feel necessary, especially when making a dish from a recipe source that I don't consider to be a "bible".
However, about 2 years ago, my wife and I got much more serious about cooking, getting in to molecular gastronomy, sous vide, and following some of the worlds best chefs with a bit more interest. With molecular gastronomy, the weights need to be quite precise so a scale is a must. We also started cooking Thomas Keller and Grant Achatz recipes and I was suddenly faced with books that measured everything in grams with no tsp, tbsp, or cups. So not only did I have to use the scale, but I also trusted the chef enough to want to get as close to the original recipe as possible. Since then I've used the scale more in regular cooking to get a base line when a weight is used, and adapt from there, but I think that's more a convenience than a need.
+1 for bottom of the line working fine. Our scale has lasted 4 years with only one change of batteries, and I use it almost every day. Ours is almost exact to this one: http://www.amazon.com/Salter-Housewares-Stainless-Electronic-Kitchen/dp/B000JNXRBC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1282924742&sr=1-7
I tend to use cheap digital ones and just replace them when they break ... if you are paranoid about accuracy, get two from different brands and occasionally compare. For testing, just find some unopened ingredients packaged in light, labelled bags and weigh them... one might be off but not all of them (unless they are all hygroscopic and you stored them in very moist conditions :).
A few annoyances I had with cheap ones, to take into consideration:
-Display can be too near the weighing surface, and become hard to read when something large is put on top. Also, always choose one with a backlit display.
-Badly designed Tare buttons which add your actuating force to the weight.
The latter two are even worse with the type that has a flat all-over glass surface with touch sensors... but these are a breeze to clean.
-Loose battery contacts/doors
-Electronics that try to zero out small, slow changes... eg you are trying to dose 8g of baking powder, display goes 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 8....
I've been using a 15 Eur model for years now, and I am very happy with it. By the way, my brick and mortar store sells the same model for 30 Eur.
I have a calibrating weight, and I can tell that the scale is still as accurate as ever.
I only use one feature (tare), and all scales I have seen have it. The scale has a resolution of 1 g and can measure up to 5 kg, but this is normal for digital. If you need precision in the sub-gram range, you don't get a single scale which can do both small and large amounts, you get a second cheap scale which is accurate for small amounts. The ability to switch between grams and ounces is also not connected to price (mine has it despite being cheap).
Bottom line, with a digital scale, there is no need to pay for an expensive one. Get the cheapest which has the resolution you need, and it will work just like the expensive one.
Cheapest with the caveat that kitchens being messy, you want something with well sealed innards, and an easy to clean weigh surface. If you're weighing spices or ingredients for Gatorade or the like, you'll want a second scale with accuracy to 0.1 gram. The multi-pound scales (1 gram accuracy) drift too much for that sort of work.
Oh yes, before buying, check the type of batteries the scale uses. A 9v is good as are AA, AAA, but some of the cheaper scales run off of 3 X AG13s or the like, which'll run you 15$ to replace. That's nearly the price of a new scale.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.123903
| 2010-08-27T12:24:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6145",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"JustRightMenus",
"KeithB",
"Kristen",
"Laura Frymire",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91358",
"justkt",
"papin",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6213
|
What are the costs to consider when making jam?
I am trying to dertermine what kinds of jam are particularly cost-effective to make at home.
I have been given a few bits of equipment for jam making, and am looking forward to getting started.
We don't have a garden at the moment so can't grown our own fruit. I have seen blackberries growing wild near us so I will be trying that, but I would also like to try other kinds of jam.
@Bluebelle, questions that call for a "list of X" should always be created as community wiki. I changed this for you.
Separately, I don't think this is a suitable question for this site. Cost efficient is entirely subjective, and localized to wherever you live. I'll wait for more feedback, but will likely be closing this question.
@hobodave - That kind of comment really puts a damper on the conversation. :)
@Sobachatina: It's the only method I have to indicate that I think this should be closed short of outright shutting it down.
@Soba: Also, this isn't a place for "conversations", but objective questions/answers. :)
@Bluebelle (and @hobodave ) Since the cost of materials will vary depending on location, perhaps the question would be better as: What are the items needed for making your own jam, including recurring and one-time costs? Answers would then list items rather than prices - for example, canning pot, jars, etc. Then, you could fill in your own numbers to determine if it would be cost-effective for you. Perhaps someone could even let you know how long it takes them to make jam, so you can see if it's worth your time. What do you think?
@hobodave - touche.
What's going to be 'cost efficient' is dependant on what's either available free or cheaply, which is a function of location, season, what grocery stores are trying to get rid of, etc. (then compared to what's being trucked in, because if you can get blueberries cheap, odds are other people can, too, so the price of blueberry jam in your area would be supressed, too.)
@Just: That seems like it would be a much better, and objective question.
@Bluebelle - I agree that in its current form, this question is off-topic. Please edit it to be less subjective (b/c cost-efficiency depends on too many factors) or I will either 1) edit it myself or 2) close the question.
Costs to consider when making jam:
One-Time Costs
Pressure canner
Water-bath canner
Large pot for making jam in
Strainer (can use a colander-type item or something like a Squeez-o)
Jar rack that goes inside the canner
Jar lifter
Funnel
Jars
Freezer-safe containers
Jar rings
Recurring Costs
Jar lids
Fruit (you can often get pretty cheap fruit in bulk from an orchard)
Pectin
Sugar
Spices
Energy usage (stove)
Compare costs for freezer jam (no canner required), pressure-canned jam (pressure canners are expensive), and water-bath canned jam. Also compare for recipes that do vs do not contain pectin.
If you can get a lot of the one-time cost items free (from grandma's attic, most likely), and if you can get the recurring cost items on sale (or from your own garden), then you can probably come close to commercially priced jam.
Personally, here's what I look at:
A) The cost of the item I would normally buy at the store - generic, cheap brand. Let's call that price X.
B) The cost of the item I wish I could buy at the store - the really good stuff. That price is usually about 2x to 3x.
Then, my goal is to be cheaper than 2x.
Another Cost Consideration
If you give homemade jam as holiday gifts, spending less than you otherwise would on a gift, there's additional savings for you.
As a footnote: for me, apple butter is the cheapest. I was given most of the equipment free, and I can get super-cheap orchard apples (30 cents per pound, bought by the bushel). Then, it's just the cost of lids and jars. Bonus: I give it out as Christmas presents and then do not buy a present for those people.
This is interesting, but I was really just looking at how cost efficient different fruits are. As shop bought jam is obviously cheaper than making your own, I was just interested in comparative cost efficiency.
I think your footnote is the kind of answer I was looking for! Thanks!
Jars are very expensive but they are a one time cost (if you don't break them or give them away). If you ever see them on sale or at a garage sale snap them up.
Pectin is a relatively expensive reoccurring cost. There's no way around this one. It doesn't go on sale. Ever.
The fruit can be expensive or not. Use what you have available. Fruit that goes on a very good sale or that can be gathered in your area is obviously the best.
I gather wild grapes and dewberries here in Texas. I also have a peach tree. We will sometimes go to strawberry farms that let you pick your own and do that.
As for economy- unless you get the fruit for free, store bought jam will be cheaper. We make jam often because we can make homemade jam that is better than anything in the store. For example- when we pick our own strawberries it ends up being more expensive that cheap store brand strawberry jam but we get to pick all over-ripe berries and make a jam that makes the store bought inedible in comparison.
Blackberry jam is very easy to make and the recipe and directions that come with the pectin are sufficient. When you cook down the fruit into syrup strain out a bunch of the seeds. Delicious.
Here is Washington State it is now BLACKBERRY TIME! Most of the year I hate them, trying to kill back the vines (this year the Himalayan blackberries went nuts, probably some vines grow a foot every night--of our 2 acres, over a half acre is no inaccessible because of them). HOWEVER, right now the berries are ripe! So if you can get the berries for free, especially in large quantities, perhaps it is more cost effective. I say this because the high-quality 'boutique' jams you see in the store for $4-$6 / small jar can be duplicated with really good freshly picked fruit. Overall expense may exceed buying it in the store, but there is nothing as good as jam made from truly ripe good quality fruit.
I grew up helping my grandmother make the hot-water bath canned jam. Wonderful.
edit: I should add, you might be able to get the overall cost below what you would pay in a store if you can create a large enough batch, especially if you can get some supplies through (ahem) C****sList for cheap.
one more edit: someone mentioned using these as gifts, which can be a truly wonderful thing. If you spend $5 at a store for a trinket, and give as "the" Christmas gift, it would probably be pretty cheesy (and received as same). Spend $4 and some labor of love making a half pint of personal label designer jam--with no label, frequently--and your loved ones will be thrilled. It especially goes a long way for giving at extended family parties, where you are expected to bring something for lots of people you rarely see.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.125048
| 2010-08-27T19:01:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6213",
"authors": [
"Bluebelle",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Sobachatina",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5779
|
Do all blenders have the problem of food sticking to the side away from the spinning blades?
We have a fairly cheap (50$) blender and when we puree food the food constantly sticks to the sides so we have to stop the blender 10 times to push the food back down so that the blades hit it. Is this common, or would a nicer/more expensive blender solve this problem?
How full is the blender? Could you give the full capacity of the blender & also the amount you typically blend at a time?
The ratio of food to size of container will make a large difference as well as the the texture of the item being blended.
This has been a problem for me with traditional blenders. I've found that an immersion (stick) blender helps tremendously with this in two specific ways:
First, with a stick blender, you are basically holding the blade and can move it around, preventing food from separating and sticking to the sides.
Second, most immersion blenders come with small bowl accessories that in essence give you a "mini blender". Since the bowl is smaller in size, food separating and sticking to the side isn't as much of an issue.
Immersion blenders are pretty cheap -- you can get one for as little as $20. I have the Braun model. It's amazing but I think they stopped making it. The best one on the market now is the KitchenAid.
I use mine for hummus, soups and pestos. It's without a doubt one of the most useful tools in my kitchen.
In short, if you have enough liquid then a good blender shouldn't get stuck and you shouldn't have to scrape it down. Read the answers to my question here - Blender Buying - Square vs. Round Container - that basically addresses the same thing.
Go for a square, glass container with ridges.
While the material of the blender may be partially at fault, this is most likely to happen when blending foods without enough liquid. So yes, it is fairly common and will depend to a large degree on what you are processing. Depending on your desired result, you can also add some liquid such as water or oil to loosen things up a bit.
A similar result with chunky foods is to end up with an air pocket around the blades where they spin freely and the food will not fall down into the blades to be chopped further.
Another cause might be the shape of your blender. A round model will create more of a perfect vortex which will push the food to the sides, even if it has small ridges along it. When buying a blender, I always recommend one with a more squared-off glass.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.125571
| 2010-08-22T20:25:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5779",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"JustRightMenus",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"infoholic_anonymous",
"jaypb",
"jen",
"mary",
"nodokodo",
"odrm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6158
|
What should I look for in a good, multi-purpose chef's knife?
If I want to buy a good multi-purpose chef's knife, which characteristics should I look for?
@kiamlaluno - what's your price point? That makes a huge difference.
@justkt: We probably live in different countries; the price would not be a good parameter.
I could swear I've seen this identical title before, but I can't seem to find the duplicate. Anyone?
@Aaronut: I thought the same, but couldn't find it. I know I've given a similar answer to another question.
I know where I saw the question before to ask it; I searched for the question here, and I didn't find a similar question, so it should not be in this site. Did you see it between the Area 51 example questions?
Looks like it was on Area 51, good call @kiam: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1288/food-and-cooking/3348#3348
One of the most important things is a full tang. The tang is an extension of the metal of the blade into the handle. In knives with a full tang, it goes all the way through the handle. This improves stability, control, and durability. Cheaper knives with partial tangs will have the handle break off over time.
In a chef's knife, you want a blade from 8 to 10 inches long, whichever is more comfortable.
You can also either get a forged or stamped blade. I suggest reading this article on the differences. To summarize, forged blades are softer, easier to sharpen, heavier, and have a bolster. Stamped blades are sharper, harder to sharpen, lighter, and have a welded on a bolster if any. With current manufacturing processes forged is not necessarily better than stamped. You should make your own decisions. All crap knives are stamped, but not all stamped knives are crap.
This brings me to one of the most important points: It must feel good in your hand. Don't buy an expensive knife just because it's expensive, or you recognize the name. Go to a store that will let you use the knife, Williams-Sonoma will do this. If you can, bring a carrot in your pocket and actually cut that in the store.
I'll do some research on steel quality and update this later.
I'd also add that a forged blade over a stamped blade is important for durability. In-store Williams-Sonoma tests are great for testing the varying feels of different knives.
I would disagree with you that a full tang is a marker of quality, I have many extremely high quality Japenese knives that have rat tag and wooden handles. Indeed these knives are made in such a way that it is easy to change the handle should it become worn / damaged, or you simply would like a different material for the handle. I agree with everything else you said though :-)
It's been nearly 2 years; any updates on steel quality? :)
Full tang is a quality indicator in western and yo-style japanese knives. Wa-style knives have no full tang, and if correctly used, do not need one.
It's been 11 and a half years; how's that steel quality research coming along? :)
Besides a good sharp blade and a solid comfortable grip, your preference for heavier vs. lighter blades will determine your choice. That said, over the years CooksIllustrated / America's Test Kitchen has reviewed knives and consistently recommended the inexpensive Victorinox (Victorinox Forschner) Fibrox 8-Inch Chef's Knife, particularly if the question is "what one knife should i buy?" Top-quality at a bargain price.
Even when reviewing more expensive "innovative" chef's knives, they still found little to justify the additional cost. Reviews of hybrid chef's knives produced some standouts, for a cost. The final results are on the pay side of their site, but you can get the jist of it from the free articles.
What to look for? From the reviews:
We want one that's versatile enough to handle almost any cutting task, whether it's mincing delicate herbs or cutting through meat and bones. We want a sharp blade that slices easily, without requiring a lot of force. We want a comfortable handle that doesn't hurt our hands or get slippery when wet or greasy.
and
A good handle should virtually disappear in your grip, making the knife the oft-cited "extension of your hand."
I loooooooove my Forschner blades!
+1 for Victorinox Fibrox. My 8" Victorinox Fibrox chef knife is fantastic, a treat to use, and currently running on more than 8 months without sharpening in a professional kitchen. It is still so sharp that it draws comment from other cooks.
Consider stainless vs. high carbon steel
Stainless knives are nice because the edges might be more stable because they won't rust and tarnish. They can be dishwasher safe (as long as some care is taken so they don't bang into other things), and are a bit more durable.
High-carbon steel is better at keeping an edge because the steel is harder. The edge will remain sharp for more cuts than the stainless. The downside is that the steel can corrode if lots of acidic things are cut, or the knife is not cleaned after use. Stainless is considered more difficult to sharpen properly than steel, but you probably shouldn't sharpen your own knife anyhow (honing, on the other hand, you can and should do).
Some manufacturers make a laminated blade, in an attempt to balance the benefits of both. I've only seen this in Japanese knives that are fairly expensive, but it seems a good idea: a thin sheet of very hard steel is sandwiched between a pair of soft stainless pieces. The hard steel is too brittle to make a blade from, but keeps an edge very well. The stainless adds strength to the knife, and keeps everything shiny.
Blade shape
Knives come in a wide range of shapes, from a blade that barely extends down from the handle to the large rounded (Japanese-inspired) shapes with a flat blade. This is a matter of personal preference. I do a lot of chopping, so I prefer a flatter, wider blade that gives my knuckles some clearance over the board while chopping.
I find the scalloping along the blade, which is fashionable these days, to be unnecessary, but others seem to disagree on this. I don't slice enough delicate things to notice any effects.
Other Notes
Knives come in hundreds of shapes and sizes. For a chef's knife, you probably want a 8-10" blade, no serration (that is important), and it must be comfortable in your hand. I have known people who do most of their cutting with a large Chinese-style vegetable cleaver, and they are perfectly able to do anything I could do with an agile 8" chefs knife.
For a good quality knife, you want to avoid stamped blades. Stamped blades are usually thinner, made of cheaper steel, and are more flexible. Forged blades are heavier, more durable, and easier to sharpen. The knife sets sold for $10 at Walmart are stamped and suck. Avoid them. A forged blade will be thick on the dull edge, and will taper more or less uniformly to the bevel of the cutting edge.
If you plan to put the knife in a dishwasher (not recommended--they get banged into other things in the dishwasher, dishwasher detergents damage non-stainless steel), get one with a plastic handle. Wood doesn't like dishwashers.
You will want a honing steel. This is used to correct the edge (it bends a bit during use, the steel straightens it out). They are usually rods of hard steel with a handle.
Here is my favorite cheap knife. Only $30 and it is awesome.
I'm a fan of carbon steel for a utility pocket- or belt-knife, but for cooking? I use way to much acidic stuff for that to be a good idea.
"in a dishwasher (not recommended)" - I would strengthen this statement to "Don't ever wash a nice knife in the dishwasher". It will even void the warranty on some expensive knives.
Far to much acid and water in a kitchen to use a carbon steel knife unless you like that patina look. You can also find stainless that rivals or bests common carbon steels for edge retention.
You could also mention that there are carbon/stainless hybrids (carbon core, clad with stainless) which perform extremely well. Also as regards stamped knives - there is a brand/knife called the Misono UX10 that is stamped, and is exteremly high quality. The sell them in Korin in N.Y.C as well as online.
Some of the highest quality knives use stamped Japanese-steel blades. Global and Shun are known for this. Also, with modern alloys nobody I've seen uses carbon steel anymore; high-carbon stainless can hold an excellent edge, and it resists staining pretty well. It's just much lower-maintenance than normal stainless or high-carbon steel.
I worked in a professional kitchen, so apologies if I go on at some length about knives; when you use them for hours every day, you tend to care deeply about what you're using.
Shape
For general use, you want a 7"/17.5cm santoku or 8–10"/20–25cm French-style chef knife. These blade shapes provide the most flexible kitchen use, and these sizes offer a good balance between cutting area and ease of use. Santokus are slightly easier for chopping and vegetables, while chef knives have an advantage for detail work, slicing, and meat. Some people also swear by smaller Japanese or Chinese cleavers, which take a little more practice to use, but fill the same role.
Care and Sharpening
People reviewing knives never mention the most important part of buying a knife: caring for it! After 6 months, how you maintain and use your knife matters more than which one you purchased. Proper care, honing, and sharpening are the difference between effortlessly cutting slices so thin you can see through them, and mashing tomatoes rather than slicing them. Let me give you a couple extreme examples from personal experience:
My executive chef used Global knives, which are well known for quality steel. He rarely sharpens them, and is not skilled at sharpening. The result is that half the time you could slice onions better with a $5 steak knife than his $100+ chef knife.
One of the cooks used a cheapo Japanese-style mini-cleaver for almost everything. It cost under $20 and uses cheap steel, but has an excellent edge. Why? He sharpens the knife regularly and hones before use.
If you're buying a quality knife, then you ought to be buying quality tools to maintain it. A smooth steel or ceramic sharpening/honing rod is absolutely critical, and costs under $30. The knife should be honed regularly at an angle slightly steeper than the primary bevel. generally daily or before a major task. Regular honing prevents the edge from coming out of alignment and folding over, and a ceramic rod will slightly sharpen it. Cheap and grooved butcher's steels can rapidly worsen a knife, by chipping it away with their coarse surface. This is especially a problem with harder Japanese steels.
When the knife becomes dull enough that honing won't restore it, after a year or two, get the knife sharpened by a professional, or invest in a professional-grade sharpening system. Putting a more acute angle on the knife (15 degrees per side instead of 20-23) will produce an even sharper result than normal; in many cases this will produce slicing power superior to the original factory edge.
Steel
The primary quality here is hardness, as measured with the Rockwell C hardness test, abbreviated HRC. Hardness determines how acute an angle you can sharpen the knife to, which in turn determines how sharp it will be. Superhard steels can go as low as 8 degrees per side, while softer steels may be better served by a comparatively dull 20 degrees per side. Harder steel also will retain an edge against wear for longer.
Japanese steels are known for being harder but more brittle than German steels. This trade-off means they require special care to use and sharpen; I've heard of a tortilla chip taking a chunk out of a particularly thin and hard knife. Japanese knives should NEVER be used to cut hard materials, particularly bone, or to pry at things. They can even shatter when dropped. In contrast, softer German steels are easier to sharpen, and more forgiving. They tend to bend rather than breaking, and can be restored more easily with honing. As I said before, edge maintenance matters more than steel. In the hands of a gifted sharpener, low-grade stainless steel can become quite sharp; however, a better steel will allow them to refine the edge to an unbelievable result.
Construction: Forged vs. Stamped Knives
Blades may either be forged or stamped. In the past, stamped knives were generally of inferior quality, but improvements in manufacturing mean that extremely high quality stamped knives are now available. Stamped blades are generally lighter and thinner; due to their thinness they may cut more easily than thicker forged blades. Common manufacturers of stamped blades include Global, Victorinox, and Shun. If you want a knife that is easy to maneuver, precise, and not tiring to use, a stamped blade is for you.
Forged blades are generally heavier and more durable, and some people find the edge is easier to sharpen. The thicker blades survive wear and sharpening longer than thinner stamped blades. Wusthof and Henckels are traditionally known for their forged knives. Forged knives often feature a bolster, a raised ridge between the blade and the handle. A bolster makes the knife considerably stronger, but also more difficult to sharpen, and it reduces the usable knife area slightly. If you want a knife that is heavier, with some momentum to help your cutting, and durable against punishment, a forged knife is for you.
It is a personal choice whether to use a stamped or forged knife. With proper care, both types will stay sharp and last a lifetime. There is also some crossover; stamped knives may also have a bolster welded on to them, and some manufacturers will produce both stamped and forged knives. The forged version is generally more expensive, due to higher manufacturing costs.
Personal bias: I prefer the sharpness and lightness of stamped knives. They let me do 15 or 20 pounds of julienne onions without fatigue.
Construction: Handles and Balance
A knife should be evenly balanced when you wrap your fingers around the handle and pinch the blade with thumb and forefingers. If the knife tips toward the handle or the blade, it is off-balance and will be less comfortable to use. As far as construction, "full-tang" knives are preferred; these have blades extending fully into the handle. This makes the knife slightly heavier, but provides a stiffer, more durable construction, and makes it much harder for the handle to break off the blade.
Handles come in a variety of materials, including plastic, wood, steel, bamboo, and bone. There is often some texturing to help grip a handle; this can literally be a life-safer (or at least finger-saver) if you work with greasy, slippery sides of bacon, meat, or fish. In my experience, the Victorinox Fibrox handles have fantastic grip even when oily, and absorb impacts. In contrast, the dimpled steel handles of the Global knives are worthless and should carry a "slippery when wet" warning. The most common wood or synthetic handles fall in between, with Wusthof's Classic line being more or less the standard.
Wood and bamboo handles deserve special mention: although these are beautiful, they also require special care to avoid wearing out or splintering. They should not be washed in a dishwasher or allowed to sit in water; although this is true for any quality knife, it goes doubly for these materials.
Specific Knives and Reviews
Cooking for Engineers and Cook's Illustrated both did excellent knife reviews. My main knives are a 8" Victorinox Fibrox and a MAC MTH-80 granton-edge. Both definitely deserve their strong reviews; the Victorinox is a phenomenal value, and the MAC takes an absolutely unbelievably edge. I've met duller razor blades.
This is the best info I could find.
Also look at Kitchen-Confidential-Adventures-Culinary-Underbelly from Anthony Bourdain:
How to Cook Like the Pros Unless you're one of us already, you'll probably never cook like a professional. And that's okay. On my day off, I rarely want to eat restaurant food unless I'm looking for new ideas or recipes to steal. What I want to eat is home cooking, somebody's - anybody's - mother's or grandmother's food. A simple pasta pomodoro made with love, a clumsily thrown-together tuna casserole, roast beef with Yorkshire pudding, all of this is pure exotica to me, even when I've been neck-deep all day in filet mignon and herb-infused oils and all the bits of business we do to distinguish restaurant food from what you get at home. My mother-in-law would always apologize before serving dinner when I was in attendance, saying, 'This must seem pretty ordinary for a chef . . .' She had no idea how magical, how reassuring, how pleasurable her simple meat loaf was for me, what a delight even lumpy mashed potatoes were - being, as they were, blessedly devoid of truffles or truffle oil.
Let's talk about tools first. What do we have in our kitchens that you probably don't? The joke is that many of our stock items - herb oils, crushed spices, chiffonaded parsley, pured starches and veggies - are often made with home-model equipment, just like yours. I may have a 25-quart professional Hobart mixer and an ultra-large Robot-Coupe, but chances are I used a home blender to make that lovely roast red pepper coulis dotted with bright green basil oil drizzled around your plate. So, what do you absolutely need?
You need, for God's sake, a decent chef's knife. No con foisted on the general public is so atrocious, so wrongheaded, or so widely believed as the one that tells you you need a full set of specialized cutlery in various sizes. I wish sometimes I could go through the kitchens of amateur cooks everywhere just throwing knives out from their drawers - all those medium-size 'utility' knives, those useless serrated things you see advertised on TV, all that hard-to-sharpen stainless-steel garbage, those ineptly designed slicers - not one of the damn things could cut a tomato. Please believe me, here's all you will ever need in the knife department: ONE good chef's knife, as large as is comfortable for your hand. Brand name? Okay, most talented amateurs get a boner buying one of the old-school professional high-carbon stainless knives from Germany or Austria, like a Henkel or Wusthof, and those are fine knives, if heavy. High carbon makes them slightly easier to sharpe! n, and stainless keeps them from getting stained and corroded. They look awfully good in the knife case at the store, too, and you send the message to your guests when flashing a hundred-dollar hunk of Solingen steel that you take your cooking seriously. But do you really need something so heavy? So expensive? So difficult to maintain (which you probably won't)? Unless you are really and truly going to spend fifteen minutes every couple of days working that blade on an oiled carborundum stone, followed by careful honing on a diamond steel, I'd forgo the Germans.
Most of the professionals I know have for years been retiring their Wusthofs and replacing them with the lightweight, easy-to-sharpen and relatively inexpensive vanadium steel Global knives, a very good Japanese product which has - in addition to its many other fine qualities - the added attraction of looking really cool.
Global makes a lot of knives in different sizes, so what do you need? One chef's knife. This should cut just about anything you might work with, from a shallot to a watermelon, an onion to a sirloin strip. Like a pro, you should use the tip of the knife for the small stuff, and the area nearer the heel for the larger. This isn't difficult; buy a few rutabagas or onions - they're cheap - and practice on them. Nothing will set you apart from the herd quicker than the ability to handle a chef's knife properly. If you need instruction on how to handle a knife without lopping off a finger, I recommend Jacques Pepin's La Technique.
Okay, there are a couple of other knives you might find useful. I carry a flexible boning knife, also made by the fine folks at Global, because I fillet the occasional fish, and because with the same knife I can butcher whole tenderloins, bone out legs of lamb, French-cut racks of veal and trim meat. If your butcher is doing all the work for you you can probably live without one. A paring knife comes in handy once in a while, if you find yourself tourneing vegetables, fluting mushrooms and doing the kind of microsurgery that my old pal Dimitri used to excel at. But how often do you do that?
A genuinely useful blade, however, and one that is increasingly popular with my cronies in the field, is what's called an offset serrated knife . It's basically a serrated knife set into an ergonomic handle; it looks like a 'Z' that's been pulled out and elongated. This is a truly cool item which, once used, becomes indispensable. As the handle is not flush with the blade, but raised away from the cutting surface, you can use it not only for your traditional serrated blade needs - like slicing bread, thick-skinned tomatoes and so on - but on your full line of vegetables, spuds, meat and even fish. My sous-chef uses his for just about everything. F. Dick makes a good one for about twenty-five bucks. It's stainless steel, but since it's serrated it doesn't really matter; after a couple of years of use, if the teeth start to wear down, you just buy yourself another one.
Also look at this online resource for knife choices.
Global knives: fantastic, award-winning steel and blade, failure of a handle. Seriously, I've never held a knife that needed a "slippery when wet" warning before, but Globals really do. It's very much love-hate. MAC brand knives have similar steel and blade profiles (Japanese-style) but a more comfortable and less-slippery Western-style handle.
@Bob, We don't have Globals around here. After following your link, I just had to sharpen all of my knifes.
Most important thing is comfort of the grip. If it's not comfortable, you will not want to use it. If you don't want to use it, you have wasted your money. A "fancy" knife that doesn't get used is a paperweight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.125943
| 2010-08-27T14:36:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6158",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"DHayes",
"Flimzy",
"JNat",
"Josh K",
"OJFord",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"avpaderno",
"calumbrodie",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hobodave",
"houninym",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79735",
"justkt",
"kalhartt",
"rackandboneman",
"sriinnu",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6166
|
What is the difference between "mince" and "dice"?
Some recipes use the term to dice, and other recipes use the term to mince.
What is the difference between to dice, and to mince used in culinary?
Please see our cooking terms glossary on meta.
Mincing produces smaller, more irregularly-shaped items than dicing.
Dicing is generally uniform, usually 1/8 to 1/4 inch on all sides, kind of like a tiny cube.
The best way to explain the size difference is visually, check out this link for a great picture near the top.
From Cuisine at home:
For chopped food, think of gambling dice, roughly 5/8-inch cubes. It’s a good cut to use when making dishes that cook awhile, like stews, soups, and stocks.
When dicing, keep the size of a pencil eraser in mind. You want cubes 1/4- to 3/8-inch on a side. If an ingredient is to be sautéed for short periods of time or eaten raw, as in salsa, then dice it.
Mincing is just cutting food into tiny bits. When you mince garlic or shallots, the small pieces spread throughout a dish, permeating it with flavor. To mince, first roughly chop or dice the food, then rock your knife back and forth over it until it’s small.
It may be an issue of locale - in British English recipes, minced would be synonymous with ground from a American English recipe. Diced stays the same (British recipes may clarify with "finely diced" or "coarse diced")
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.127608
| 2010-08-27T15:07:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6166",
"authors": [
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2483
|
How can I avoid my knife from "dragging" across my unbaked bread when making slashes to let steam escape while baking?
My slashes seem to be OK (not great) before I put the bread in the oven but never really open up during baking. I'm thinking the slashes aren't deep enough but since I use a no knead method, I'm reluctant to press any harder.
Is there a trick to help the knife move more easily? I use a serrated knife.
Professional bakers use straight razors. Chances are they are sharper than your knife, and easier to keep that way (or cheaper to replace, at least).
Also: wet the blade before making slashes. This helps lubricate the blade as it cuts, and keeps the cut bread from sticking.
Professional bakers do not use straight razors, they use a double-sided safety razor insert attached to a special holder called a lame.
Thaaaat looks like a prison shank.
I noticed a much bigger expansion and fluffier loaves when I switched to slashing before or during the last rise instead of right before baking.
As far as drag, it can come from a dull edge, a serrated edge, a dry blade, and a large surface area in contact with the bread. Use a knife that has a straight blade, is thin, extremely sharp, and lubricated slightly.
That's an interesting idea. I suppose rising would force the slits open further.
I had a successful experience with getting expansion, but then I didn't end up with the color change between where the slash was and the rest of the crust. Maybe this was just me.
A very sharp serrated edge can work quite well.
I use disposable carpet cutter blades, very sharp, longer and thinner than utility knife blades, and one side lasts me a whole season (don't do sourdough in the hot weather). And I don't get them wet, rather I dip the cutting edge in fresh flour before each cut....and don't slice the loaf too quickly.
Just read your question again, you may need to cut deeper. I sometimes make 'X' cuts, and if I've timed the loaf right I get blooms at each X. Very nice stuff.
You're right in hesitating to put pressure on an unbaked loaf, but there isn't really a trick to the slits. If your knife isn't cutting it (haha!) get a sharper knife.
Try a very sharp non-serrated knife.
While knife type and wetting can help, they will not correct technical errors in baking. I've made these mistakes myself, so I will air them openly.
If the dough is too well hydrated then the blade will stick no matter what. If the dough is too well proofed, then the loaf will fall no matter how good your scoring technique.
In my experience (assuming your hydration level is correct), the final proofing should be done in relatively lower humidity than previous proofings to allow a skin to form. Using a cloth or permeable media to cover instead of cling wrap will yield much better results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.127772
| 2010-07-20T22:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2483",
"authors": [
"Callithumpian",
"Frankie",
"Lenik",
"Michael Lamb",
"Mike Yockey",
"Preston",
"arcticfox",
"cledoux",
"ereOn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"justkt",
"mirzu",
"tamasd"
],
"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
}
|
3396
|
Does vanilla powder really prevent melted chocolate from seizing?
Don't want to mention the company, but they have a product that is pure powdered vanilla (contains maltodextrin, whatever that is). They say it prevents melted chocolate from seizing. Does that sound right?
Thanks
I just reviewed the Nielsen Massey website and under their FAQ's they suggest that vanilla powder be used for "liquid sensitive products". The powdered nature of the vanilla would allow you to add it to melted chocolate without causing the melted chocolate to seize up. While vanilla has a unique and characteristic flavor of its own, it also helps to heighten and intensify other flavors, chocolate being one of them.
When chocolate seizes the emulsion of cocoa butter and cocoa powder has been interrupted by the introduction of a small amount of moisture. You either need to keep all liquids out of melted chocolate or add in a significant amount.
So...it only prevents it from seizing if you were going to be adding vanilla in extract form but no other liquids. It would not be something you add as a preventative measure.
Prevent the seizing through proper procedures in the first place:
Do not allow water in the water bath to touch bottom of the bowl that you're melting chocolate in.
The steam produced by the water is what's doing the melting so as long as wafts of steam are rising from the surface it's hot enough. The water doesn't even need to be simmering - cocoa butter starts to melt around 83-85 degrees F.
Make sure all utensils are dry so water droplets aren't introduced
Make sure the bowl you're using is large enough for the edges to flare out beyond the edge of the pot. If the edges just meet the edge of the pot then steam will condense on the edge and get into the chocolate causing it to seize.
Thank you for the tips on preventing seizing. Your responses go that extra step and I appreciate it.
@Cinque: You're welcome. Thanks for the feedback on the responses. I figure more information and background is better than assuming people already know. Even if the person asking knows, chances are others will not.
I'm not familiar with the anti-seize property, but I can tell you what (tapioca) maltodextrin is. It is a modified food starch with the amazing property that it thickens fat instead of water-based liquids. If you have ever eaten at a restaurant that does the molecular-gastronomy schtick and had a powdered olive oil or coconut oil, e.g., that is how it is made.
This sounds like an interesting experiment to try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.128066
| 2010-07-27T03:19:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3396",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Karen",
"Michell Min",
"avpaderno",
"bensnider",
"cmplieger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"papin",
"victoriah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6162
|
What is the correct water to pasta ratio?
I have heard one should use a lot of water when cooking pasta; how much water should I use?
@roux, @attila, I disagree that it is a repeat question. It turns out that the answer to this question exists in another Question (thanks, roux), but the question itself is different. If I were looking for how much water to use, I would not check a question about water temperature for that answer.
This question was answered to some extent in another Pasta cooking question by Roux. This answer, which is basically just a link to a series of experiments by an MIT grad / Chef, dispels a number of myths about cooking pasta. For instance:
Water will return to a boil in the same amount of time regardless of how much is in the pot prior to pasta being added.
Pasta won't get sticky with smaller amounts of water. It only gets sticky because of reactions in the first few minutes of cooking, and the solution is to stir it. This is necessary even with lots of water.
You do not need a lot of water to cook pasta.
Water does not need to be boiling to cook pasta. It simply needs to be above 180°F/82°C.
Some really interesting stuff in the article that debunks quite a lot of kitchen lore about cooking pasta. I have tried this at home with great success.
So in answer to your specific question:
No, you do not need a lot of water, it simply has to cover the pasta.
The amount of salt is heavily dependent on the amount of pasta, the amount of water, and your own taste. You need to find a consistent way to cook pasta and then experiment.
It is important to note that the article you link to states outright that for fresh pasta or for long-shaped pasta (such as spaghetti), the "less water is fine" rules do not apply.
The only other argument for using more water is that less water is more likely to cause the pot to boil over. Basically the starch in the pasta makes it easier for the water to form bubbles that collect and spill over when not paying attention. I've found that with a very low pasta to water ratio can end in a messy kitchen.
@Tim: But the reason given is that the long pasta won't be completely submerged. It only takes 20-30 seconds to get full-length spaghetti to soften enough to bend and submerge. I've cooked plenty of long pasta in minimal water. (You may want to start with the water boiling rapidly, but you can reduce the heat half a minute later with no problems.)
I have been using the no-boil method for several month, even for long strand pasta like angel hair. I use cool tap water that will cover the amount of pasta I'm intending to cook, add salt, put on stove on high and stir throughly. I do snap the long pasta in half before throwing it in, to make sure it's entirely covered. Often the water will have just come to a simmer when my pasta is done, which uses less energy and keeps my kitchen cooler in the summer. I can't believe it works, but it totally does.
I prefer to use more water than is likely necessary, simply because when you add the pasta to the water, the temperature will drop some. The less water you have, the lower it will drop/the faster it will take to bring it back to a boil. Edit: This very likely may be a disproven myth, please read comment below.
Unfortunately I eyeball it based off how much pasta I have, so I can't give you an exact ratio. But I would err on the side of too much. Edit: I just eyeballed and then measured a pot, it looks like I use about 5 quarts of water for a lb of pasta. I still recommend erring on the side of too much, but now only because you don't want to lose too much to evaporation and end up running low on water halfway through cooking. Just enough to cover the pasta a little bit seems to work fine at our house.
This isn't actually true. It takes the same amount of time to come back to a boil. However, the larger pot will have a smaller temperature decrease than the smaller pot. They'll both get back to a boil at the same time though. Think about it: the pasta has a certain amount of energy to exert to decrease the temperature. It's the same for both pots. The difference in volume affects how far the temp swings. But the burner also exerts a fixed amount of energy to heat it. Because the smaller pot has less volume it increases temp faster. The total energy change to both pots is exactly the same.
Wow, I think you just made my head explode a little. I guess I never sat and thought about it before, but based on simple physics that makes perfect sense. Great comment! Updated my answer.
I thought the exact same way you did, but the article that Roux linked a while back that is the basis for my answer in this thread dispelled that. It makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure it's obvious. I hope you didn't get any exploding head on your keyboard.
I have found that enough so that upon evaporation, you don't run out is the correct amount. But then again, using too much takes longer to boil. I try to find an optimum based on these two factors.
My rule of thumb is 4 qt. of water per 1 lb. of pasta. This comes from a Cooks Illustrated article (I think from around '00) that suggested that this was the best way to keep pasta from sticking to itself.
1 cup of water to 4 cups of pasta.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I think that's the other way around, no?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.128441
| 2010-08-27T14:46:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6162",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Cascabel",
"Jeannine Mossett",
"Katey HW",
"Mark",
"MeltedPez",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Susan Holton-Paschall",
"Tim Sullivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"logophobe",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
979
|
Is zesting lemons effective when making lemonade?
It's too hot. The air is oppressive and sticky, and it just keeps getting hotter... I need a nice, cold glass of lemonade.
Fortunately, I have a bag of lemons and plenty of ice! So now the question becomes one of technique. Keeping in mind that I'm hot (and consequently lazy), is it worth taking the time to zest the lemons before adding sugar and ice, or will the sugar alone suffice to extract those refreshing oils from the rind?
Apparantly this is off-topic. :( (http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121/are-questions-on-alcohol-beverages-allowed)
The meta topic you linked to is about Alcohol. What does that have to do with Lemonade?
Use a vegetable peeler to peel of large strips of rind. That way, it'll be easier to remove once you're done steeping. If you don't mind it being mildly alcoholic, steep them in vodka and then strain the vodka into the lemonade.
I had to let them steep for the better part of a day... but this worked great in the end - the flavor was intense. Next time, I'm going to do my usual pureed zest for speed, letting the results steep just until ready to serve.
You'll get a strong/different flavor using the lemon zest. I personally like it.
That said, if you mash/muddle the lemons you'll probably get much the same flavor as zesting.
I wouldn't bother myself. Just throw the whole rind in after you juice the lemons: the acid from the juice ought to leach out everything from the peel. I've always thought the whole point of zesting was to get the rind small enough to hide in regular food, more than to bring out flavor.
When I used to hike a lot, we'd put orange rind (no juice) in our water bottles to kill the iodine taste, and the flavor of oranges was pretty evident in the water after half an hour or so, so you might not even need the juice to help.
The whole rind can add bitterness.
You can extract much of the oils from the lemon by muddling (which is often much faster than zesting), and happens immediately as opposed to waiting for the zest to steep:
If your lemon has little stickers on it, take 'em off.
Slice the lemon in half.
Juice the lemon into the cup **
Toss the lemon halves into the cup
Add granulated sugar to the cup (not superfine)
Muddle
Add water & ice.
Stir
Drink
Muddling is basically beating / grinding the stuff in the bottom of the cup. In this case, you're using the sugar to grind the outside of the lemon peel to release the oils. As you're not letting the rind steep into your drink for a long time, you won't get too much of the bitter qualities from this.
** Note that you might want to strain the juice, or you have to sip more carefully to avoid swallowing the pits. Straining is more work up front, and involved cleaning something else, so might not qualify as lazy enough.
I like one lemon to a 16-24 oz glass is about right for me. (if you have cold water and won't need ice, go with the 16oz ... if you're planning on adding lots of ice, use something larger. I use a sugar pourer and don't really know how much sugar I add ... maybe 1TB ?
(and to give proper attribution -- I learned this technique from a stand selling lemonade at the Pennsylvania Rennaisance Faire ... probably 15-20 years ago)
If by effective you mean which drink is more quivering, then adding the lemon zest doesn't make much difference. I think it depends from personal taste.
I am used to add lemon zest in some recipes to add a different taste to meat; I don't add to drinks. If I have to choose, I prefer to add lemon juice in drinks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.128919
| 2010-07-14T19:52:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/979",
"authors": [
"George V. Reilly",
"JlSchilling",
"John at CashCommons",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Nick",
"Shog9",
"Swati",
"Will",
"danlefree",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"plor"
],
"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
}
|
45226
|
What is the difference between a prawn and a shrimp?
Are prawns and shrimps the same thing or are they different? Basically, I think they're the same but one of my friends was arguing that they're similar but definitely not the same thing and they differ in size.
Biologically speaking, they are different species, but the names are so commonly used interchangeably as to completely muddle the distinctions. For example, spot prawns are actually shrimp, while ridgeback shrimp are actually prawns.
Prawns have claws on three of their five pairs of legs, shrimp have claws on two of their five pairs of legs. Their gills and body shape are different, too.
As far as cooking them goes, they are virtually identical and interchangeable.
Source
Great answer, being Australian I thought it was mainly a terminology difference but I can see now looking at the diagrams I've never actually bought any shrimp at least not fresh.
Is there any difference in taste?
@Divi Nope, none that I can sense anyway. To me the thing that influences flavor the most is whether they are wild or farmed. I find the wild to be far superior.
This is what I came across. These two differ in their:
Physical structure: Prawn has three pairs of legs while shrimp has only two (easy way to differentiate)
As far as nutrition goes, they are almost the same with prawn having 20g of proteins & shrimp having 24g of proteins.
As far as taste goes shrimp tastes buttery while prawn tastes a bit like chicken
These two links will give you more descriptive answers:
Prawn vs. Shrimp
Difference Between Prawn & Shrimp
no, one does not have 2 pairs of legs and the other 3 pairs. both are decapods (10 legs). the difference is "claw-like" legs. shrimp have two sets of claw-like legs, while prawns have three. prawns are almost exclusively found in fresh water, while shrimp are saltwater creatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.129267
| 2014-07-01T07:24:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45226",
"authors": [
"Chicago Shredder",
"Divi",
"J M Allen",
"Jand",
"Jane Lovatt",
"Jolenealaska",
"Melbourne Pallet Supply spam",
"PeterJ",
"Spammy Spam SPAM",
"TheHollyRoller",
"VN88 Rezence spam",
"circe801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79275",
"justbrowsn",
"user107666"
],
"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
}
|
13756
|
How is beer classified into different types?
How is beer classified into different types?
Can the types of beer be arranged in a hierarchy with "ales" and "lagers" at the top? Are there beers that do not fall under either category or some that fall under both?
What are the divisions under these categories?
What are the defining characteristics distinguishing one type of beer from another?
Semi-related: KT had a really good list of links of how flavors commingle with beer if you're interested
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/101/ has a vast amount of information on beer styles.
To answer your specific question, an ale is top-fermenting whereas a lager is bottom-fermenting. Lagers are generally fermented at lower temperatures than ales.
I believe that lambics would constitute a third category, since they are traditionally fermented by wild yeasts, but opinion may vary on this, I don't know.
There are dozens of styles of ales and lagers and a few different lambics, but the method of fermentation is the main distinguishing characteristic between the three types.
All (or at least most) of the fruit beers belong with the classification of lambics.
Another Beer Advocate link: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/style
Those folks make a three-level hierarchy:
Yeast Type
Origin
Style
You can see another structure emerging within theirs, however, in which descriptors are tacked on to a style. For example, you have an ale, a pale ale, an imperial pale ale, a double imperial pale ale, an american imperial double pale ale, etc.
This is the most meaningful structure to categorizing the beer itself. The yeast will frequently tell you the most about how it will taste up front. The origin/style will tell you a lot about the mouth feel of the beer and what to expect for the majority of the time you're tasting it. Knowing a brewery also often will tell you a lot about a beer (in paticular if you're not referring to American watery-ales).
The classification of different beer types comes from how they are made. The first distinction is top-fermenting vs. bottom-fermenting, i.e. does the yeast get thrown in on top and work its way down the mash, or is it the reverse.
Top Fermenting = Ale
Bottom Fermenting = Lager
In general, lager yeasts are more sensitive to temperature control during brewing and result in a subtler and cleaner flavor. Pilsners and most German beers are of this type. Ales tend to have a larger variety of yeast strains used, so don't have as consistent a profile as lagers. (There's exceptions of course, Schwarzbier is as dark and malty as they come.)
All other styles are a result of their ingredients, locations and histories. Most have a specific quality such as Labmics, which are a sour beer that uses spontaneous fermentation. Rauchbier (also known as Smoked Beer) have a distinctive smoky flavor and sometimes are actually smoked before bottling. (And, frustratingly, can be either a lager or ale before being smoked).
Beers that use Wheat as one of their malts tends to make another broad category of ales such as the Hefeweizen and Whitbier.
Not every category is so easy. You'll be hard pressed to find a beer expert who can quote the differences between a Porter and a Stout without speaking in generalities and flavor profiles. Similarly, since the naming of beers isn't regulated everywhere in the world what is one breweries "American Pale Ale" is an others IPA.
Another aspect are the hops -- lambics don't use hops, which is why they're typically the only beer I'll drink.
Ale was traditionally weak, but the description has more to do with the light style than the strength today. Porter was once a weak red beer, weaker than mild, originally designed for quenching thirst. In France, the only place still making porters of significance, the porter is around 5% nowadays, and the only red one still available is Killian, made according to the original Irish recipe of George Killian Lett. The Lett family ceased production of Lett's Ruby Ale in 1956 and live on the royalties from France. I remember a glass of Guinness porter in Dublin 1970 - can't get that now.
In order of lightness/colour, with the palest at the top
lager, yellow, taste dry and light (yes please)
ale, brown, taste earthy and richer (yes please)
stout, black, tastes like ashtrays (no thankyou, well ok sometimes a guiness is required)
More here
There are more types, for instance, wheat and rye beers.See http://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/351/ and http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/12/ .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.129492
| 2011-04-05T00:24:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13756",
"authors": [
"Didi",
"Dr. Henry Doig",
"GHS",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"ROBERT POMFRET",
"Twinkles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"klypos",
"mfg",
"michael.greenwald",
"skin hydration",
"user2870744"
],
"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
}
|
13336
|
What is a good pine nut substitute for pesto?
I'm allergic to pine nuts, is there another nut I can use to make pesto?
Almonds and walnuts are good alternatives as they have a similar texture and relatively subtle flavour. I'd go with almonds personally, as walnuts can be a little bitter.
As I was writing nearly the same answer it alerted me that your answer was posted so I canceled mine :) The only thing I would add is that toasting the almonds or walnuts will make a big difference and I recommend doing that. I also have heard of people using cashews but I would stick with toasted/roasted almonds or walnuts.
Toasted pecans work great. They have the fat content and texture of walnuts, but lack any bitterness.
I have substituted roasted walnuts and roasted cashew nuts on occasion: frankly the difference in taste was much less than I would ever have expected. The garlic and the basil are so overwhelming that the pine nuts don't add as much as you might think. If you make your pesto with Parmesan, you taste even less of the pine nuts.
What is put traditionally is walnuts.
I'm not sure that these other nuts match the taste well.
It's not even necessarily a substitution, as pesto is just a type of sauce made from a pounding up herbs and other stuff in a mortar & pestle.
It's just that most pesto that people see is the traditional 'basil pesto' aka 'pesto Genovese' which is garlic, oil, salt, basil and pine nuts, so they assume that it's the only 'pesto' ... you can find plenty of recipes searching for:
Pesto Sicilian
Pesto Trapanese
Pesto Rosso
Pesto Pantesco
Pesto Calabrese
In terms of nuts, I've seen recipes calling for hazelnuts, almonds, pistachios, pine nuts, walnuts, or even a combination of multiple nuts. I'm guessing they'd use whatever is abundant and in season in that particular region.
I've seen anchovies, capers or olives in place of straight salt; plenty of types of herbs, or even greens like spinach or arugula (aka rocket for the Brits).
(And on Good Eats, Alton Brown was a fan of pistachios in pesto; if I recall correctly, part of the argument was they were already green.)
+1 for pistachio pesto (great with lemon zest too), or hazelnut (try with some orange zest). Delish.
To be honest, if you are in Italy and talk about pesto, people will "default" to basil pesto, by far the most used one. All of your others examples do exist, of course, but people will specify that they are referring to a non-basil pesto in that case.
I've used sunflower seeds in my home-made pesto for ages.
Salted or not as you prefer, they add the right little bit of crunch at a fraction of the cost of pine nuts.
Yes, this is a good substitute! (The type without shells, obviously!)
Seconded... This works really nicely, without corrupting the flavor like something stronger would.
I also use sunflower seeds on my pesto Genovese. Pine nuts are quite expensive where i live.
I've used raw (shelled!) sunflower seeds, lightly toasted, when nut-allergy issues are a problem.
Agree with the above (mainly on cost and availability reasons for me). You could experiment with adding sesame seeds (about 1/4 or 1/3) of the total seeds for a bit different taste and a bit coarser mouth feel (depending on whether you pulse or puree or use a pestle).
Commercial pesto brands seem to quite often use cashew nuts, seemed odd to me, as cashew nuts are quite expensive.
Or you could just not use the nuts at all - would be more like a french pistou, but still good with pasta.
In a pesto cashews are a close replacement. In other things not
Pine nuts are generally more expensive than cashew nuts here in Italy.
It's very likely that someone allergic to pine nuts would also be allergic to walnuts and almonds (I am allergic to all of them, cashews, too).
I have used unsalted sunflower seeds, but most of the time I leave the pine nuts out and add more cheese or bread crumbs :)
Made pesto with oven toasted sunflower seeds, tasted great!! Was not as creamy or buttery as pine nuts...but was a great and economical substitution!
I normally use toasted walnuts, but have had success with macadamia nuts as well. I find pine nuts actually a bit low in flavor, in comparison to walnuts or macadamia nuts.
Pine nuts are not actually nuts. They are seeds found inside the structure of the pine cone. Technically, sunflower seeds would provide the most similar flavor when looking for a pine nut substitution in traditional recipes. Sesame seeds would also offer a solution to those with nut allergies that don't have pine nuts on hand.
On occasion I will throw in some sesame seeds (hmm... I wonder how tanini would work out?), but simply leaving out the nut component of a traditional basil pesto will yield a satisfying result, especially if all the other ingredients are fresh and top-shelf.
Cashews are much cheaper than pine nuts when bought in large quantities.
I usually make my own pesto (from pine nuts, though) and I'd recommend almonds or cashews (depending where you get them), cashews if you want a more subtle taste.
Back on topic: Cashews are cheaper than pine seeds, that is why most commercial pesto brands contain only just enough pine seeds to be able to write it on the ingredients list, if any. IF you have to buy pesto, look at the ingredients.
In addition to all of the great suggestions above, hazelnuts also work well. Peel them first by toasting them and then using a towel or silicon pot holder to rub the skins off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.129918
| 2011-03-21T15:23:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13336",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Catalyst",
"Cerberus",
"Federico Poloni",
"Harlan",
"Jens",
"KimbaF",
"Lori AO",
"Manish Singh",
"Morts",
"TFD",
"alan2here",
"evelgranny",
"frIT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"justkt",
"nico",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23542
|
How can I remove the skin from peanuts?
I will be making Ban ban ji chicken for tonight's dinner, and have picked up some shelled peanuts. The peanuts are still in their skins, and I was wondering: what is the best way to remove the skins from peanuts?
Take a clean kitchen towel (not a terry towel, a dish towel), place the peanuts on it, fold it up, then rub the peanuts vigorously through the towel. The friction should remove the skins. You can then pass the whole lot through a colander to winnow out the skins.
No problem, happy to help.
Stir the peanuts in a pan (preferably a non stick pan) on a low flame for 5 minutes making sure they don't stick to the pan. Then take it off the stove and allow it to cool. Rub them with your hands to remove the already loosened skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.130404
| 2012-05-03T06:52:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23542",
"authors": [
"Don King",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Piano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57351",
"joe Shmoe",
"jurij",
"user53311",
"wide_eyed_pupil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21946
|
What is the best way to catch wild yeast for sourdough?
What is the best way to catch yeast? I just heard you can do this and I had no idea that you can do this. Do you grow and catch or just catch? This is to make sour dough bread.
Feral little buggers always scurry away when I run up with my butterfly net
I don't know enough about breadmaking to determine if the sourdough criteria distinguishes this question at all from What are the optimal conditions in making wild yeast starter? Can anyone comment?
Right, I would agree that the "sourdough criteria" isn't necessary but I'm more interested in catching the yeast versus making the yeast.
What do you mean by "catching"? Yeast grows in a nutritive medium. You can't pluck microorganisms from the air with your fingers. And in a starter, you are not "making" it, you are letting a colony of it grow.
Aaronut, the questions are effectively identical.
Still not convinced that this is an exact dupe. If community members want to vote to close then that's fine; to me it's just similar, not ientical.
There are two schools of thought as to where wild yeast comes from for a sourdough starter. One is that is in the air, the other that it is present in flour.
Having made a few starters myself and trying different methods, I am of the opinion that the latter is more likely. I have had just as much success with starters I have simply mixed and put in a sealed jar as with the ones I have walked around the kitchen, vigorously stirring with my hands and so on.
You can maximise your chances of having plenty of yeast in your flour by buying organic, as there will have been no chemical treatments which might destroy the yeasts, but any decent flour should have more than enough yeast naturally present to make a starter with.
Yeast, however, is just one aspect of sourdough - you are also looking to cultivate various Lactobacillus species which produce lactic and acetic acid, which is what makes sourdough sour. These are everywhere and so there is no problem with finding them.
However, there are also 'bad' bacteria species that can make your starter go bad. To minimise the chances of this bad bacteria multiplying, it's a good idea to lower the pH of your starter, and for this reason I have had much more success with starters that use pineapple juice. Follow the recipe in this blog, replacing the water on days 1 and 2 with normal, unsweetened pineapple juice, and you'll be on your way.
This is a great answer. I didn't notice this question before, but I also provided some further details in my answer to a similar question.
There are several great articles from catching yeast. Apparently is very possible.The wild yeast you catch in the air does rise considerably slower than it's commercial counterparts.
Nonetheless, if you have time to invest you can catch your own wild yeast to make sourdough bread.
How stuff works has a good simplified write up about how to catch yeast. The article says that you just need the following:
A pottery crock, plastic container or glass jar, preferably with a loose-fitting lid
A wooden spoon
A piece of cloth
Some flour (preferably without any preservatives in it) and water
With some time, yeast should build because yeast is everywhere and especially in kitchens where baking. Make sure that all the materials are clean and sanitized.
How stuff works provides some instructions on what to do with your sanitized materials:
To start a culture, mix two cups of flour and two cups of water in a
glass or pottery bowl (in the old days, a baker probably had a special
clay crock for starter). Lay a cloth over the top and let it sit on
the kitchen counter. It turns out that there is yeast floating in the
air all around us all the time, and some of this yeast will make its
way to your flour/water mixture. It will then start growing and
dividing.
After 24 hours, you pour off about a cup of the mixture and
feed it with another cup of flour and another cup of water. In a few
days, the mixture will become frothy as the yeast population grows.
The froth is caused by the carbon dioxide that the yeast is
generating. The starter will also have a bacteria, lactobacilli, in
it. This lends to the slightly acidic flavor of the bread by creating
lactic acid! The alcohol that the yeast creates and the lactic acid
together are the source of sourdough bread's unique flavor!
There seems plenty of advice about how to grow yeast cultures, but not about how to catch it in the wild. While it is true that yeast is floating about in the air and you can catch it that way, it is far more efficient to collect it from a place that has been catching and growing it for you for some time before you go looking for it. I'm talking about the surface of some leaves and berries, they tend to have a little sap and be slightly acidic so the yeast that lands has good conditions to start growing and outstriping the other organisms that you don't want such as bacteria or mould. You can usually even see the colony because the fruit has a white dusting that is not natural. Sloes, Plums and Damsons are good examples. Autumn is a good time because the air is cool and damp, which helps the yeast grow. But you should be aware, some plants produce a white dusting called farina that is part of the plants growth, this not yeast (primulas and poplars)
So how do you use that yeast exactly? Do you put your dough close to those berries and leaves, or do you put the berries and leaves in your dough? Or is there a third option?
I'm trying right now to catch some yeast from some organic blueberries. I mixed equal parts flour and water with a little bit of sugar to help boost it and have left it uncovered over night next to an assortment of fruits and vegetables all well ripened. I heard that in medieval England bread was made to rise by placing flour and water in the middle of a field over night and that by morning yeast would be present. I also have done some research into the discovery of leavened bread, and it came down to bakers reusing left over dough from the day before with the discovery that it would lead to a fluffy loaf. the longer you keep the left over mix the stronger the flavour will become turning a regular loaf into sourdough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.130651
| 2012-03-03T06:04:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21946",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Athanasius",
"FuzzyChef",
"Irina Otubela",
"Karen",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9335",
"mfg",
"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
}
|
22008
|
Can I prepare instant noodles in the microwave?
I want to prepare instant noodles in microwave. The instructions on the pack clearly mention a gas stove to be used, but I don't have access to one.
The instant noodles I am talking about are Nestle's maggy 2 minutes (that's how they brand it in India). Have a look at the the following Google image search link if it still doesn't ring a bell.
http://goo.gl/tBwF0
The Maggi noodles you link to are just average ramen noodles, so can be cooked in the microwave quite easily.
Boil a kettle of water
Place the noodles in a microwavable bowl. You may need to break the noodles into pieces, but if you're careful with the boiling water you can sometimes soften the noodles in the middle enough to fold the block to make it all fit without breaking
Pour the flavour sachet (and any other curry powder/herbs) onto the dry noodles
Pour the boiling water onto the noodles, enough to cover the noodles, and if desired, a bit more for a bit of a soup
Put into the microwave, you can cover with a loose lid if desired, and microwave for around 2 minutes
Stir the noodles, separating any stuck-together blocks of noodles
Put back into the microwave for another 2-3 minutes (depending on your microwave's power)
I usually cook these kind in the microwave, since if I'm eating them I'm not usually in the mood for a proper cooking session. They do (depending on the kind of noodle) sometimes turn out slightly different when done in the microwave, as compared to boiling on hob, but both are nice as a snack.
Hmmm I've never had to boil water AND microwave before. And the amount of time you said to microwave after already adding boiling water seems excessive. I usually just let the noodles steep in boiling water for about 5 minutes covered and it's done. Or I just put faucet water into a bowl with the noodles and microwave for just 3 or so minutes.
Yes, I may have got the timings wrong for the thinner variety of ramen. I usually cook the thicker variety (Batchelor's Super Noodles), and even on the packet they have similar instructions to the ones I listed.
This is a good technique if you are adding other solid ingredients. As it makes it a one step cook. I wouldn't bother with step 6, just microwave 3 to 4 minutes
You absolutely can — and in two different ways, depending on your preference.
The first is to place the noodles and cold water into a microwaveable bowl, and microwave on high for about 2-3 minutes, total. It can help to stir or "flip" the noodles halfway through. If the noodles aren't done to your satisfaction, continue microwaving them in 30-60 second intervals. Once heated through, add your flavor packet, stir and eat.
The other is to simply use the microwave to boil your water. Put your water in a microwave-safe vessel and microwave for a few minutes. It is a good idea to let it sit for a minute before moving it out of the microwave (microwave-boiled water can superheat without looking like it's boiling... be safe). Pour your boiled water over the noodles and flavor packet and cover. I often cover the bowl with a plate of the appropriate size. Let it sit for 3-5 minutes. Stir and eat.
It is important not to insert the seasoning flavor early; as some of it gets away with the steam. Always put it at last and its better to cover it after, till you decide to eat.
Yes you can. You put the noodles in a bowl then put cold water in the bowl. Then you microwave it for about 2 minutes.
yes you can! tried it just a few mins ago..though i din make instant noodles..but i made instant pasta! they are kinda same to cook..
just poot it in a microvavable pan..covered with a microvavable lid with just a little openning...and micro them for about 4 mins 30 secs or 5 mins..
Tadda..your instant pasta/noodles are ready!
Use a flat ceramic plate.
Details here: http://jerrin.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-to-make-perfect-microwave-maggi.html
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! While 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.
You have to put 2 cups of water (for 1 pack of noodles)in a microwave safe bowl add the seasonings and noodles....start the microwave on 2 minutes.. IT WORKS...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.131199
| 2012-03-05T11:54:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22008",
"authors": [
"Beverly Minor",
"Cascabel",
"James Patrick",
"Jay",
"Mia",
"TFD",
"Tbrod",
"dsample",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9361",
"jonvyltra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4686
|
Does Julia Child's Crème Brûlée work?
In "Mastering the Art of French Cooking", Julia et al. explain that Crème Brûlée is simply Crème Anglaise (Light Custard Sauce) made with whipping cream instead of milk, half the amount of sugar and then chilled.
I made a couple of attempts but it didn't set. Here's a shortened version of the recipe:
1/4 cup sugar
4 yolks
1 tsp cornstarch or potato starch (optional, but I went with the potato starch)
1 3/4 cup boiling whipping cream
Beat sugar into the yolks until they reach the "ribbon" stage. Beat in the optional starch. Pour the boiling milk in a stream of droplets into the yolks whilst beating. Set the mixture over a moderate heat, stirring slowly and continuously until the sauce thickens enough to coat the spoon with a light creamy layer. During this time the mixture should not go above 165 degrees F (without starch) or 170 degrees (with). I also added an optional tablespoon of orange liqueur for flavour.
I beat the mixture at just under 170 degrees for around 30 minutes without it thickening up much. On the second attempt I used more starch (about a tablespoon) and it thickened up, but still didn't set after chilling overnight. Any ideas?
Most creme brulees require baking, however after a little research I did find a recipe in "On Cooking" (Sarah Labensky/Michael Hause) that came from Chef Vincent Guerithault of Vincent on Camelback in Phoenix, AZ and his was similar in that it was not baked.
First, just making creme anglaise with heavy cream isn't going to do anything to let it set up into a firm custard. More egg yolks or starch would be needed.
Supposing that this really does work and it was something you perhaps did, my guess would be that it was either mixed too much (breaking down the proteins trying to link together) or too vigorously (incorporating air which weakened the protein links). In your description you say you "beat it". Did you beat it or stir it? It should be stirred back and forth zig-zagging across the bottom of the pan with a wooden spoon or heat-safe rubber spatula to keep from whipping air into it.
Time, temperature, and eggs/dairy ratio are going to be the main issues in getting custards to set.
Egg proteins begin to set at 160 degrees but curdle at 180 so there's very little "wiggle" room temperature wise.
According to Shirley Corriher's "Cookwise": 2 egg yolks will just barely thicken 1 cup of milk or cream. Her Creme Anglaise recipe uses 5 egg yolks to 1 cup of milk and 1/2 cup heavy cream which is more yolks and less liquid than Julia's and this isn't intended to set up. 1 teaspoon of starch isn't going to provide the thickening power that is needed, it's there to keep the yolks from curdling as easily.
The recipe I use and many others I've referenced (including Chef Vincent's), use a ratio of about 6-7 yolks per cup of cream.
Also, if using a starch, you need to nearly bring the custard mixture to a boil (as is common in puddings and cream pie fillings) otherwise an enzyme in egg yolks known as alpha-amylase will eat away at the starch bonds and break them down into a watery mess.
Chef Vincent's does not use any starch.
If you want to use that recipe, I would increase it to 10 egg yolks. After the hot cream is tempered into the egg yolks then return to the heat and cook, stirring constantly, until very thick but do not let it boil. Remove it from the heat and strain into a clean metal bowl and chill over an ice bath to cool quickly. Once cool, spoon into your desired serving dish or a cookie cup and caramelize the top with sugar.
I tried the ten-egg brulee last night and it thickened up nicely. I left out the starch this time. I wish I had noted the time before I started the slow-stirring; I must have been there for an hour or more. It set properly in the fridge and we will eat it tonight.
I'm glad to hear it worked out..but an hour of stirring? Wow...contact me at my website: www.chefdarin.com and I'll happily send you the recipe I normally use. You've got better things to do with your time than to stand and stir that for an hour!
You're right about that. And unfortunately it only appeared to be set; there was only a skin on the custard. On top of that it had a slightly garlic taste from being left in the fridge. Yuck! Thanks for the offer. I'll be in touch.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: The beauty of Mastering the Art of French Cooking is that all the recipes work. They're exhaustively detailed and painstaking, and godawful complicated compared to what modern chefs are used to working with, but they work, if you follow them to the letter. They're not for the faint of heart.
That being said, you might want to contrast her recipe with something more accessible, a la Alton Brown
Custards can take longer (sometimes much longer) to cook than the recipes calls for. Have patience, because turning up the heat is asking for disaster.
I do wonder how much longer though. Julia's advice to keep stirring until it "coats the spoon with a light creamy layer" didn't help me . As Julie Powell of the Julie/Julia project commented, "Doesn't liquid pretty much always coat a spoon?"
Cooking "until it coats a spoon" means that when you lift it spoon out of the liquid and draw your finger across the back of the spoon from side to side, the path should remain without the upper portion running through the clean swipe.
This looks similar to recipes that I have used in the past that worked, although I haven't tried this specific one. You can heat it higher, but it becomes dangerous. Also: mix slowly rather than beating it over heat. You need to let the egg set.
More or less, the setting happens as the emulsion of cream and yolk cooks, the yolk thickens and sets up. More yolk will make it thicken more. If the heat gets too high, you can curdle the mix as the yolk solidifies too much and basically squeezes out the liquid as it forms little balls.
Regarding the higher heat: do you mean dangerous as in "it may curdle the yolk"? Or dangerous as in "you could end up with custard napalm in your face"?
As in curdle. Milk isn't known for its flammability:)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.131814
| 2010-08-09T20:58:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4686",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Calen",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Darin Sehnert",
"GeekMasher",
"Gingerfergy11",
"Jake Hackl",
"MCE",
"WillowTweasel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9051",
"pac",
"user8990"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22617
|
How to bottle your own homemade salad dressing
I would like to bottle my homemade dressing. The main ingredients are olive oil, balsamic vinegar, honey, lemon and dijon mustard. Once it is bottled, is there a processing time as there is with canning vegetables?
Canning method (I assume you're talking about room-temperature storage here) required would depend on acidity. If its acidic enough, boiling-water canning would work. Otherwise, it'll need pressure canning. Storing refrigerated is another option, though storage time is limited depending on fridge temperature.
Why not just use a small bottle so the issue never arises? A quick google brings up bottles as small as 40ml which you should empty well before it goes off... Freezing may work too if you don't mind waiting for it to defrost, it may separate out but with a dressing that's simple enough to fix
@mfg I don't understand your edit. The OP asked whether the product is shelf-stable without canning. You changed it to the term "processing time" which I am not familiar with, and it sounds like it changed the original meaning.
To can foods safely, you should always use a tested recipe. You can find safe recipes for most things on the site of the National Center for Home Food Preservation or on the Ball Jars canning site.
Sources like this recommend against trying to can your own flavored vinegar or flavored oil ... one could safely assume they would thus recommend against home canning of vinegar and oil.
I think this article is a helpful Q&A explaining why it's not recommended (or safe!) to create and can your own recipes -
http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/nchfp/factsheets/heatprocessingbackgrounder.html
Use a vacuum sealer and their special bottles. The machine, basically "sucks" out the air allowing you to store it.
I'm sorry but that sounds like a good environment for botulism to grow in, if you don't do anything at all to sterilize it.
I need to find a real food science expert on this topic, because the vinegar could be a stronger acid environment where bacteria can't survive.
"could" isn't good enough, sorry.
While the total acidity might be high enough to prevent bacterial growth, in something like this that will likely separate, I don't know that you can count on the acidity of the vinegar to preserve it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.132354
| 2012-03-28T16:35:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22617",
"authors": [
"Andrew Brēza",
"Inverted Llama",
"MADCookie",
"Mien",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"eaolson",
"fbartolic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9997",
"mike",
"niesha",
"rumtscho",
"user50938",
"user51075"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6197
|
Consuming cardamom pods
I'm making a dish that calls for six cardamom pods added while cooking. After the dish cooks, should I make the effort to locate and remove the pods? I'm assuming they're like Bay Leaves, unpleasant to chomp on but otherwise harmless.
It should be fine to leave them in, but I prefer to not have the chewy pod. I just slighty crush the pods on one end, and expose the seeds that are inside, and kind of pour them into what I'm making. The pods are pretty much hollow inside and the seeds are lose, so its easy to dispatch them this way.
I eat them, they're delicious.
some people will put the pods in their mouth and squeeze the seeds and eat that. I eat both skin and seeds. I'm hardcore, I know
+1 I'm the same. Eat the whole thing, it's tasty and won't harm you at all.
I leave them in but warn your guests or whoever is eating it that they are there so they don't have any nasty surprises!
I think it depends on the dish. If it is a biryani or other rice dish, I'd be ok leaving them in because they are easy for the eater to see and remove. But if it is a wet curry for example, I'd probably do what Manako says - extract the seeds at the beginning rather than try to fish around for the pod later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.132583
| 2010-08-27T16:25:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6197",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Noldorin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14039"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7136
|
Frozen veggies meets gumbo = flavorless. How to add flavor?
So, last time I made gumbo, I got the veggies chopped (onion, celery, green pepper, and garlic) and then realized I had prepped twice as much as I needed.
I froze the extra ingredients, labeled for future use for gumbo.
I'm making it again now, and it's pretty flavorless. (See below for exactly what I've done.) Since the last time I made it was over a month ago, I don't recall exactly whether it was this bland last time.
What might cause flavorless gumbo? Is it the frozen veggies?
Is this dish supposed to be somewhat bland? I've actually only had it once or twice at a restaurant.
How could/should I add more flavor to the current batch?
Process:
Heat 1.5 TB oil, add 1.5 TB flour to make a dark brown roux.
If I were using fresh veggies, I'd add them next. Instead, I held off.
Add 1/2 cup tomato sauce, stir until it gets crumbly & dry.
I then added the defrosted, drained veggies.
Fry 1/2 pound okra in a separate skillet until it's less sticky & less stringy, then add to the pot.
Add 1 cup fresh, chopped tomatoes.
Slowly add 1 1/2 cups water.
Add 1/2 tsp sugar, some salt, pepper, and I actually also added a dash of hot pepper sauce since it was so blah-tasting.
Simmer for an hour.
.... this is where I am now, and it's just.. blah, still.
The next step will be to add 1/2 pound shrimp, a bay leaf, some fresh parsley, and cook for another 30 minutes.
Don't forget to finish with some filé. I like a little for the flavor even when it's not needed for thickening because of the okra.
I think the problem is that in the original recipe you would have browned the veggies in the roux, which develops flavor. Since you didn't do that, you might want to saute some onions and garlic until well browned and add that in. Other possibilities:
(1) Sauce may just need to reduce and become more concentrated
(2) May need more salt
(3) May need a little more acid (a bit of vinegar or lemon juice)
1 tsp lemon juice, a big pinch kosher salt, and a teaspoon of browned garlic fixed it. You're the hero of our dinner tonight!
Incidentally, we're having your blue cheese puffs (http://www.herbivoracious.com/2008/06/gougeres---chee.html) later on tonight with some fabulous Port. :) I love your site!
@JustRightMenus - thanks! I'm glad to hear you like it.
@JustRightMenus: thanks for saying what you used to help it out. Another essential thing I like to add is Accent/msg.
What Gene said: use a strong stock and (IMO) about twice the roux.
Also, I don't fry my okra. I will add tomato if I don't have any smoked sausage -- but then I never consider it "proper" gumbo if I do. And I add plenty of herbs and spices.
Gumbo is most definitely NOT a bland dish -- quite the opposite.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.132735
| 2010-09-11T21:46:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7136",
"authors": [
"Amaya",
"Dennis Williamson",
"JustRightMenus",
"Lori",
"Michael Natkin",
"Stacey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"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
}
|
23246
|
What does buttermilk do to fried shrimp batter?
I have been using ice water in my shrimp batter and it seems to make the batter too hard after frying them. Would replacing the ice water with buttermilk make the batter less hard but still crispy?
Yes, the fat in the buttermilk should result in a slightly softer, less brittle, batter. The exact crispiness will depend on frying temperature and duration of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.132978
| 2012-04-21T20:11:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23246",
"authors": [
"Barber",
"SubjectX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52632",
"july",
"matt",
"user52631"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24040
|
Can I freeze hot soup?
Can I put hot soup straight in to the freezer or should I let it cool? With my old frig I used to divide it into meal size portions and seal in freezer bags inside tupper ware containers. Now I have a new frig I am wondering whether this would upset the automatic functions.
related http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16540/freeze-soup-very-quickly-without-destroying-the-content-in-fridge
It is better to let it cool down a little, because the hot items put into the refrigerator can raise the temperature inside.
If your refrigerator gets warm, it can cause harmful bacteria to grow on your food.
This can result in food poisoning, and the damage of the dairy products mainly (then you will have to get rid of them). It's better to be safe and wait for the food to cool first.
To cool them quickly, you can place them in a cold bath containing some ice cubes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.133048
| 2012-05-28T07:56:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24040",
"authors": [
"Lindsey Winstead",
"Peter Mullington",
"Priyome",
"Smetsleplek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75317",
"jpnp",
"nyxee",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45322
|
Troubleshooting: Kitchen Sink Vegetable Soup
One of my newbie goals is to be able to make a kitchen sink vegetable soup that doesn't default to tomatoes and packs a punch in flavor. (Cleaning out the fridge and being healthy are nice goals too).
Assumptions & Procedure
Almost all the recipes I researched online called for getting translucent onions first, which I did
Added potatoes to this mix and tried to brown the potatoes for texture
Green beans and matchstick carrots went in
When potatoes seemed to turn a different color, I started becoming uneasy because the onions were getting very, very brown but the potatoes weren't. I panicked at this point and added water and herbs - bullion, marjoram, basil, bay leaf, 5 peppercorns and a tiny amount of rosemary as per this
Brought to a boil, then simmered for 5 mins
Added sprouts and bok choy as they are faster cooking
Simmered for 5 mins
Panicked that maybe the bok choy was not cooking, so brought to a boil then down again to a simmer
Ate
Outcomes & Questions
Herbs did not "meld" with the soup and wound up sticking to the bottom despite stirring, so I got a mouthful of marjoram at the bottom of my bowl. Why did they sink to the bottom? Should I add larger amounts of the spices for more "meld power?"
I never did get the texture I wanted from the potatoes. Is getting a crispy potato texture not really possible in a veg soup?
Green beans got very army green toward the end. Should I have just added them in with the water and spices?
Lastly, it had a diet-ey, cabbage-ey flavor/smell about it, which transported me to Weight Watchers meetings in the 70s/80s. How do I prevent this? I'd like a vibrant, fresh soup, not one reminiscent of a moldy, old school cafeteria.
Please let me know if there are too many questions in this post. I don't mind splitting them up but I thought it would be more for convenient for fellow newbies to find veg soup answers in one go.
What is a kitchen sink vegetable soup?
It's when you use all the veg left over in your fridge. I always thought it had something to do with the phrase, "everything but the kitchen sink," though I'm not entirely sure. Reading around online & various books, it sounds like a lot of people try to do this toward the end of the week to get rid of odds and ends. It worked for me!
To address your points in order:
If you only cooked your soup for ten minutes, you didn't give it enough time for the flavours to 'marry'. A gentle simmer for half an hour would give you better results. A night in the fridge to really let everything blend would be even better.
You will not get crispy potatoes in a soup - the liquid will see to that. The only way you will achieve a crispy potato is by cooking and sauteeing them entirely separately and adding them at the end as a kind of crouton
Green beans don't need much cooking at all - they should still have some bite. If you really want to keep the colour specifically, blanch them separately, plunge them into ice water, then drain and add to the soup for the final 5 minutes of cooking or heating.
Tomatoes help counteract this by lending some acidity and fruitiness. If you don't want to use tomatoes, try a little white wine or cider vinegar to give a bit of zing.
Thank you for the reply (& edits!) - I will try them next soup time (end of the week). To your first answer - can I cook my soup beyond ten minutes even if it's a tiny, single-serving pot with not that many veggies in it? I was afraid I'd overcook it all. Should I even bring the soup to a boil at all, in that case?
Yes, you can still simmer it in a small pot. There is a saying: a soup boiled is a soup spoiled. And it's true. You want to just bring it up to a simmer and keep it there, don't bring it a full boil.
Oh, I didn't realize that! Thank you. There are so many recipes out there saying "bring to a boil and then simmer." So they're all wrong?
Not wrong, but perhaps not clear enough. In almost all cooking, low and slow gives better results flavour-wise than hard and fast.
One last question I forgot to ask in my post. I'm using bullion instead of of stock, still in a small pot. If I'm simmering it away, should I leave the lid on to stop evaporation? My fear is that if I leave the lid off, I'll have to keep adding water and it'll dilute the flavor.
If you are simmering gently enough you shouldn't have that much of a problem.
Elendil has addressed most of your specific questions, but overlooked one: why did the herbs sink to the bottom?
The simple answer is density: as a general rule, things will float in water if they're less dense than water, and sink if they're more dense. Typically fresh herbs will float, and dried herbs will sink.
To get around this you could try changing the density of the soup, but most ways of doing that will affect either the flavour or the mouthfeel. Your best bet may be a pestle and mortar. In the same way that sediment in wine will take a long time to settle, finely ground herbs will sit in suspension for a long time, and a good stir will distribute them well.
I'll try that! They're already ground (McCormick), but I'll try another bash-up and see if I can't get them finer. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.133270
| 2014-07-04T11:26:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45322",
"authors": [
"Bio2 Laser Studio spam",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Nathanael Istre",
"Nick",
"Nicky",
"Peter Taylor",
"Pinguto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"mikebe1298",
"user21142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44313
|
How can I fix a bitter raw leek soup?
My son just got his braces adjusted and in a panic to make him a lunch for school, I made the following soup in my vitamix with what I had on hand. The problem is that the soup is very bitter (raw leek I suspect). I usually sauté the leeks first but didn't have time this morning. If I cook it on the stove, will the bitter taste go away? What if I blended in a head of raw broccoli?
Here are my ingredients:
1 raw leek...stalk and all,
1 small avocado,
2 stalks of celery,
About 8 cherry tomatoes,
½ cup of potato and garlic mash from a previous dinner,
about 1 cup of ready made chicken broth.
The consistency is awesome. I just need to fix the bitter taste and nastiness of eating raw onions! Thanks for your suggestions.
Oh man. Who are you and will you be my mom? What an amazing lunch. I was lucky to get a peanut butter sandwich.
Raw leeks are quite strong and will mellow if cooked, so get it up to temperature for awhile and see where you get. I suspect that will get you much of the way there. If not, some mild acidity will help, adding a squeeze of lemon juice may do it for you.
Bitterness is best counteracted by salt, so give it a good seasoning. You might also try adding a little mild vinegar like white wine or cider vinegar.
It's already fairly salty because of the store bought chicken broth and the celery. Also, the whole family hates all sorts of vinegar, so this wouldn't be my first choice. I guess I can't just cook it? Any other options?
Well, you have some bitter ingredients in there - celery and avocado especially. Cooking won't make a great deal of difference since everything is already blended and you won't be able to caramelise anything. You don't need to put much vinegar in - not so much that you'd really taste it - just enough to counteract the bitterness. Otherwise I'm afraid it's time to make another meal!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.133710
| 2014-05-22T12:30:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44313",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Harold",
"Preston",
"Richard Olubusi spam",
"Siôn le Roux",
"Spammer",
"grigrim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"user25072"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4370
|
Cooking with a pizza stone
As per a recent question of mine I intend to use the underside of an old granite chopping board as a makeshift pizza stone, once I've finishing testing that it won't break due to thermal shock..
Do I need to do/know anything in particular for this to be successful?
Does the stone need seasoning, and if so how would I go about doing so?
Also, if I'm having a lazy day, will a pizza stone work well with a shop-bought frozen/refrigerated pizza?
Or it is strictly for those that I have freshly made?
The stone requires no seasoning.
To prevent pizza from sticking to it you should dust it liberally with cornmeal before slapping a pizza on it.
A pizza stone will not work well with a frozen pizza. The stone surface will simply be too blazing hot for it. You'll likely burn the bottom while still having a frozen top. There should be little issue with a refrigerated pizza, although I have not tried. However, you will want to be sure to let the pizza reach room temperature before cooking.
Update
Regarding cornmeal. I just realized that you're in the UK, and I'm not sure if you guys have a different term for it than the US. I'm referring to this cornmeal. You should also use the coarsest possible.
I assume I should dust it just before adding the pizza - when the stone is at temperature? And I'd assumed frozen = bad, but it's always best to check since I've the opportunity to do so.
Yes, just before. Another thing I didn't mention (I'll edit it in) is that even with refrigerated pizzas, you'd want to let it get to room temperature before cooking.
Also, be aware that you will need to preheat for much longer than normal due to the stone. I'd suggest at least an hour.
you could also dust it with flour, but in either case, pizza stones typically are heated to 400 degrees or more, so be prepared for a short bit of smoke when you first put the cornmeal or flour and pizza on there. actually, now that i think about it, i'm not even sure you NEED to dust it with anything. they are so hot, i've never had any floured item actually stick to mine.
@franko: It's primarily meant to keep the wet dough from sticking. You put it on the pizza peel as well. It took me a fair bit of practice to position a pizza properly when using a peel, the cornmeal makes adjustments with the wet dough possible. It also adds a nice texture and taste to the finished crust.
@hobodave can you let a frozen pizza thaw and cook it like that?
@Michael Pryor: Hm, maybe? I guess so? I've never done it. Those times when the craving for a frozen pizza hits me are times when I just pull it out of the freezer and throw it in a 350 F oven. I don't have time for a 60 minute preheat. :)
I'm somewhat of a fan of the cornmeal as well, but if you are trying to make vera pizza napoletana you will indeed want to use flour (double-zero), so as not to corrupt the pure taste of the crust.
@Michael at Herbivoracious: Wow. I just Googled that. I didn't realize there were official guidelines for making pizza. I may have to try this, but the guidelines also require baking for 90 seconds at 800 F in a wood-fired oven. :(
@Michael at Herbivoracious: Such a long name!
@hobodave - you can just call me Michael :). Looks like you live in Chicago; I just googled to find a place that makes the vera pizza napoletana there, since it is something you should definitely try. We've got 3 or 4 of them here in Seattle, quite the phenomenon. Here's the place I found:
http://www.spaccanapolipizzeria.com/
@franko - finally the question on dusting the stone has been asked and answered on this site: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67699/any-reason-to-put-cornmeal-semolina-on-hot-pizza-stone-or-steel
No reason to put semolina or cornmeal or flour directly on the stone, unless you're starting with a cold pizza stone. If you're sliding the pizza off a peel onto a hot stone, though, you'll get plenty of semolina/cornmeal onto the stone as it slides off. When I first started making pizza, I used to open the oven and throw cornmeal on before putting the pizza in, but it made no difference in sticking, it wasted cornmeal, and it smoked up the kitchen. (I've since switched to semolina, since it's a more neutral flavor.)
Pizza stones work perfectly well with store-bought refrigerated dough as well as home-made. They also will work with frozen pizza as well, though I agree with another answer that suggests starting with a cold stone rather than a preheated one in that case. (I'm not sure how much benefit the stone actually will give in this case.) I rarely make frozen pizza these days, but I once tried an experiment with preheated stone where I turned on the broiler above the stone for five minutes before putting in the frozen pizza. The stone cooked the frozen pizza crust quickly, and the broiler heated the toppings. It wasn't quite done evenly, but I can imagine that this can work if you want to cook a frozen pizza fast.
When you cook with a pizza stone, the biggest tip I can give is to warm it in the oven. If you place the stone in the oven when the oven is hot, the stone might crack.
The stone will have to heat up in the oven, which takes a bit longer than the air in the oven.
Otherwise, no real preparation or seasoning is necessary. We bake our pizzas on parchment paper on the stone so cleanup is easy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.133916
| 2010-08-05T20:00:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4370",
"authors": [
"Chris Patterson",
"DMA57361",
"Kent Pawar",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michael Pryor",
"Piper Jones",
"Stephie",
"Swamper",
"Wiener Küchen Küchenstudio",
"Yankee Yoddle",
"Zigu",
"franko",
"hobodave",
"hobs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8226",
"nearora"
],
"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
}
|
4079
|
Use the back of a granite chopping board as a pizza stone?
We've got a 40x30cm granite chopping board that I never use (it's more decorative than useful), and I've wondered for a while if it might work as a pizza stone.
The top and sides of the board are either very polished or possibly coated, I'm not sure - it's very smooth anyway - but the underside is clearly not prepared and is comparitively rough.
If I can successfully remove the feet it's got on the bottom, do you think using the underside would work (and be safe?) as a pizza stone?
Would I need to prepare/season/etc it before use?
Don't use it as a cutting board -- granite will kill your knives. If it were larger, I'd recommend using it for rolling out pastries, as it has a high thermal mass and would stay cool especially if chilled first. Given the size, I'd probably only use it as a decorative cheese board or other decorative platter.
I don't use it for cutting, and haven't done for years. However, using it for pastries is a good idea, and one that I've not heard suggested before.
Update! It took a while to get round to it, but on Sunday (2 days ago) I finally used the board as a pizza stone, and it seemed to work well - so it's pretty much as "yes" for this working. :)
Jamie Oliver has previously recommened the use of a simple granite slab as a Pizza stone so provided there are no coatings etc. it is feasible.
You will need to be careful to start with though. Granite could shatter under thermal stress or due to trapped water and when it does so, it could do so in an explosive way damaging your cooker. You need to be sure that the board is granite as other stones may not be strong enough under thermal stress. You need to be careful of reconstituted stone as well because this will not necesserily perform the same as natural stone. Make sure that there are no signs of weakness in the board such as cracks or natural weaknesses. Make sure that the stone is thick enough to avoid issues with stress changes as the stone heats up.
If you are going to go for it, I would recommend initially do it slowly, start out with the over cold and heat it up to a lowish temperature a leave it for a while, then turn the over off and let it cool. Inspect the stone, check it for cracks or other signs of distress and give it a few light taps. It should 'ring'. Dull sounds are indiciative of cracks. Then go to a higher temperatures.
It shattering was a concern, but one I seem to have forgotten to explicitly mention in my question - good job picking that up. Any idea as to how I judge how thick is likely "thick enough" regarding issues with thermal stress?
Jamie Oliver recommended at least 2cm which seems fairly sensible to me. Always starting the stone in a cold oven will help with this so it is possible you could go thinner with care and good quality well cared for Granite.
OK, I shall measure it once I'm home and, assuming it's not wafer thin (it's probably about the 2cm mark iirc) run it through a few heat cycle to see what happen. Thanks for the advice.
A granite pizza stone works fine. I like crispy thin crust pizza and it does the trick. As mentioned by others, never use granite as a chopping board. I got mine (a scrap piece) from a local countertop maker for $5 It's 16x18x1.25 inches thick
Fire bricks from your local home and garden store work great, last forever, and cost practically nothing. And they stack up pretty small when you're not using them.
I agree. I use the thin "half thickness" bricks made for lining wood stove fireboxes. 6 bricks nicely pave an oven rack with edge space for convection. But it takes a full hour for the oven to fully pre-heat.
What type of granite is the board made of? I don't know if there are any differences between their ability to cope with heat, but when I was looking for a baking stone I was recommended black granite by a stonemasonry. I ended up buying the stone from a bakery however; a granite stone somewhere in the middle between the gray and the black one.
Mine was the size of 350 x 350 x 30 mm (1.2 inches thick). And yes, bread and pizza came out delicious!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.134349
| 2010-08-03T08:33:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4079",
"authors": [
"Aleksey Cherenkov",
"DMA57361",
"Ian Turner",
"Joe",
"Narendhiran vignesh",
"Perry D Foster",
"Stevoni",
"Vik",
"Woody",
"Zet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96845",
"user7647"
],
"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
}
|
45769
|
How can I make parmesan spreadable?
I can't get enough of parmesan cheese. I often find myself taking pieces off of the block, or shredding it just to dump it straight into my mouth.
I always wished there was some way to somehow dissolve it into a cream that I can spread in a piece of bread or a cracker. I've tried melting it with butter or cream, but it will quickly separate from everything I melt it with, whether is fatty or not. I haven't tried putting it in the blender but I'm pretty sure it'll just turn into a lumpy sauce.
Any trick?
Alfredo sauce is my favorite.
I would suggest making a Mornay sauce (Béchamel sauce with cheese) which you should find will hold together well and provide an unctuous, rich, spreadable texture.
Simply melt butter in a saucepan over a medium-low heat, whisk in an equal quantity of flour, cook it out a little, then add cold milk, whisking all the while, until you get a smooth sauce like consistency. Then dump in a load of grated parmesan, stir it through, decant to a bowl and cool.
You need to make processed cheese, aka American cheese, out of it.
Parmesan is harder to use in such an application than other cheeses, because it is drier. I would suggest starting with other cheeses until you have mastered the process.
The basic process is to make a paste-like substance out of your cheese and some condensed milk in the food processor. Then you heat it very gently until combined - I suspect the final temperature is even below 60 Celsius. I use a double boiler. Then you add the emulsifier.
You won't get the real spreadable cheese results at home, because they need industrial emulsifiers (I think they use mono- and diglycerides). The starch proposed by Elendil is an option. But gelatine gives you a better consistency, at least when you are making sheet processed cheese. I guess that it will be better for spreading too, you just need less gelatine and more liquid.
Here is a good tutorial for homemade processed cheese (the sheet variety). You'll have to tweak a bit for spreadable.
+1. Sheet parmesan would be awesome. I'll definitely give this a try.
Fromage fort is an excellent way to use up all manner of cheeses - it makes for a thick cheese spread that sounds exactly like what you describe. You can certainly use just parmesan, though you may need to add some additional wine to compensate for its relative dryness.
Chef Shola Olunloyo uses the rinds and a pressure cooker to make parmesan butter. Have not tried it yet, but looks promising.
http://www.studiokitchen.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?PostID=954227&A=SearchResult&SearchID=7638969&ObjectID=954227&ObjectType=55
You could always just bake bread or crackers with parmesan cheese in the dough mixture. No spreading necessary!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.134707
| 2014-07-22T07:07:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45769",
"authors": [
"Juan",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7744
|
What happens to the flavour of meat when you cook it Star Anise with Onions?
What exactly is the chemical reaction that occurs when you cook Star Anise with Onions?
According to Heston Blumenthal doing this intensifies the flavour of meat.
Ultimately what I want to know is can you use this on any meat based recipe? Won't the flavour of the Star Anise be overpowering?
It is basically the anethole (a phenol) of the star anise that react with the sulfur in the onion to create sulfur-phenolic aromatics. In Chinese cuisine the same family of reactions is used with duck and pork.
The sulfur-phenols are also produced during the Maillard reaction, the reaction that gives grilled meat its characteristic flavor, so adding star anise to the onions will give your dishes more of that grilled, browned flavor. The reactions of the compounds in the star anise with those in the meat are not the relevant reactions for flavor or texture.
From averaging a few recipes, I would say 1 star anise for every 250g of chopped onion. Too much star anise will highlight the other aromas in star anise, so one has to use it in moderation and allow enough time for the reactions to take place.
Garam masala, a common Indian spice combination that is used in meat dishes, may have star anise. Star anise is sometimes used in French onion soup — it intensifies the caramel flavor of the onions — and in Vietnamese cuisine, which today incorporates French elements.
I guess the main thrust of my question what exactly does the sulphur aromatic do to the meat? Does it just add flavour? Will it tenderize the meat? Can this technique be used for instance in French or Indian cookery?
Excellent answer, I really appreciate it when we get detailed scientific explanations. @Pram - @Papin's answer is saying it is the flavor, not tenderization or anything else, that is affected. You could use it in any kind of food where you don't mind tasting onion and a little star anise.
I just happened to be reading about this in the Fat Duck cookbook. He says that compounds in the anise such as anisaldehyde and anisidine combine with the sulfur in the onions to produce sulfur heterocyclics that are responsible for the delicious new flavors. Put that in your pipe and smoke it :).
Stupid question--how much is "1 star anise"? Is it the whole "flower", or just one "petal"?
@Ray I'm sorry it took so long for someone to answer that. One star anise is one whole "flower" or "star".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.134928
| 2010-10-01T18:20:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7744",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Natkin",
"Pram",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489"
],
"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
}
|
187
|
How to stop sweet/sugary dressings from ruining a baking dish?
Through trial and error I've discovered that squeezing a fresh lime over roast parsnips (prior to roasting) make the end product absoutely sublime.
The problem however is that the sticky sweet lime juice can make the baking tray hell to clean, or in one pectacular instance of 'over cooking' ruined the non-stick baking tray.
Any suggestions to help stop honey glaze and other sweet / sugary dressings from ruining roast dishes?
Thanks.
P.S. Free free to close if this is off topic :)
You could cover the baking tray with a sheet of parchment paper.
Tin foil may also work but I recommend using parchment or baking paper instead!
What do you mean by parchement paper? We don't have that in Ireland, or it goes by a different name. Would "Grease Proof" paper mean anything to you? A whitish, opaque, waxy paper that you'd use to line cake tins?
@Binary Worrier: Parchment paper is coated with silicone, and is heat-safe. Wax paper is coated with wax which will melt if cooking with it. (And there's 'dry' wax paper, so it's not all greasy feeling). As you said you bake with it, if it doesn't make the cake taste like crayons, it's probably okay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.135163
| 2010-07-09T20:29:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/187",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Daniel",
"Jeff Leyser",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"scribu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12355
|
Is there a difference between Kansas City strip and New York strip?
Wikipedia gives the impression that Kansas City strip refers to the same cut as New York strip. Are they really the same cuts? If so, which name is more "authentic"? And if not, what's the difference between them?
The Kansas City Strip and the New York Strip refer to the same cut of meat. Apparently restaurants in New York City in the 1930's decided they couldn't sell a fancy steak named after Kansas City (where the stockyards and slaughterhouses were located). So, they just started calling it a New York Strip.
If you want a steak renamed by a egotistical chef, order the New York Strip. If you want a steak named for the cut of beef originally selected by butchers working next to the stockyards, order the Kansas City Strip.
New York Strip seems to definitely be the name that has taken off though, I'd never even heard the term "KC Strip" - and I grew up in Texas and currently live in Utah - far from the east coast.
I'd always assumed that though both were the same cut, the NY Strip included how that cut was prepared; i.e. with Garlic, Red Wine Vinegar, Worcestershire sauce and Italian seasoning (oregano, rosemary, thyme, basil, and sometimes marjoram). Is there any truth to that? (I guess it's slightly implied by your last paragraph's "chef vs. butcher" comment)
Wikipedia is correct about two things:
Both the Kansas City strip and New York strip are literally the same thing as a "strip steak";
The particular cut of meat used is the short loin, and does not have any tenderloin.
However, sources do not tend to agree on whether or not the strip steak includes a bone. For example:
Gourmet Sleuth's Guide to Beef Cuts says that a strip steak can be either bone-in or boneless, but that a NY strip (or KC strip) is boneless. It also calls out the "shell steak" as being bone-in.
On the other hand, the Cook's Thesaurus singles out the shell steak as being the boneless version (implying that NY strip and KC strip are bone-in).
Most sources will equate the strip steak to a club steak (as Wikipedia does), but some sources use the term to refer to boneless cuts, whereas others will explicitly call this a "boneless club steak" or "hotel-style steak".
You also have to be really careful with what Wikipedia considers to be the "international" name - club steak - because it is used interchangeably with the Delmonico Steak (which refers to at least 3 different cuts), and according to some, the label "club steak" may even get slapped on a rib steak.
The best way to think about this is probably the following:
The terms New York strip, Kansas City strip, or strip steak can all be applied to any cut of meat that is solely from the short loin, bone-in or boneless; however, you are likely to notice subtle differences from one butcher or steakhouse to the next, regardless of the specific name used, due to inconsistent interpretations.
Funny to me as a Brit that there is so much diversity on the cut. Whilst you can get a butcher to cut what you like, you have to look very hard to find a steak in a restaurant called anything other than rump, sirloin, t-bone or fillet. [braising/chuck steak is also about, but that is different]
@Orbling: Americans love their beef and their choices. Actually, in Canada we have completely different terminology for a lot of the cuts, sort of a weird hybrid of American and British.
I'm sure the English love their beef too, as indeed Canadians no doubt do. Just we do not really have a culture left of choosing non-standard cuts; almost everyone buys in supermarkets, pre-pack stuff, variety is rare - butcher shops are rarer still.
@Orbling: Indeed, butcher shops are rare here, and so is quality meat. It's a shame, really.
I live in Kansas City. I am a professional caterer, BBQ judge and food consultant.
There is ZERO difference. They are exactly the same cut of meat. A steak cut from the short loin.
They were universally called "Kansas City strips" until Delmonico's restaurant in NYC decided some time in the 30's to call it a "New York strip" on their menu.
That is all there is to the story.
According to the USDA, these names are branding only. The USDA defines steaks of the loin with a few names. Legally, either steak can be from any of the final four of these, but traditionally, both are from the final two.
Loin, Porterhouse Steak
Loin, T-Bone Steak
Loin, Strip Loin Steak, Bone-In
Loin, Strip Loin Steak, Center Cut, Bone-In
Loin, Strip Loin Steak, Boneless
Loin, Strip Loin Steak, Center-Cut, Boneless
It is futile to try and define a difference between the two steaks when every retailer and restaurant is free to choose from any of four cuts for either steak.
I agree with "user19435" who referenced their great grandfather butcher:
A Kansas City Strip Steak has a small portion of the bone (top corner of the "T") still attached as well as a thin strip of fat. The New York Strip steak is completely trimmed off the bone and doesn't have the tail fat. Otherwise they are same "strip" of short loin.
This is much more consistently the case at an actual butcher counter. In most supermarkets (ie Walmart, IGA, Costco) almost everything is trimmed and packaged without the bone.
Same exact cut of meat. I used to work in a meat market. There is zero difference, other than New Yorkers thinking it's "their" steak, when the specific cut originated in Kansas City.
My understanding of the difference has to do with the shipping weight. Shipping via rail cars back in the early 1900's and "iceing" down the beef from the midwest was cheaper by removing the bone..hence the New York strip. Locally in the midwest, they left the bone in and referred to it as the Kansas City strip.
I actually worked in Oklahoma in a restaurant as a cook and the difference is nothing. The two cuts are the same.
I am from Kansas. I lived in San Diego for about twenty years and out there it seemed like the meat cutters called the bone in version a New York, and the boneless version a K.C. Definitely the same cut of beef though. Living back in K.S now, I know crazy, my wife came home with cuts that were labeled bone in K.C. strips. I said thats a New York not a K.C.
It is fairly easy to find a New York strip steak in Kansas with all the chain eateries there, though difficult to find in the single or multiple local restraunts. It is quite difficult to find a KC strip steak away from the Kansas area. Did find a place in Long Beach, Washington serving KC strip steaks a while back though. Both steaks are exactly the same cut of beef.
Cheers
In OK, If you buy it at WalMart
it's a NY, if you buy it at the IGA it's a KC. Identical - never seen one on the bone.
It's a Kansas City strip steak. The stockyards were located in Kansas City, not New York, and like the 1st poster said it was hard to convince the yanks in New York that the cut was good. NY never had stockyards. If a restaurant says New York instead of Kansas City strip they are just a bunch of egotists that probably went to some high brow culinary school. In the 1970s the state of New York made a PR effort to try and say Kansas City was not a cowtown and that New York was the official name for the club cut steak.
The bone is a matter of quality. The prime cuts of a KC strip will be boneless, especially the center cuts; the choice or select will generally have a bone in.
I know this because my great grandfather and his brothers all worked in the stockyards in downtown Kansas City, and my grandfather was a butcher. The art of butchering has been handed down through the generations.
I have no idea what all the ranting about barbecue has to do with the difference (or lack thereof) between two cuts of beef. It seems like, discarding the tangents, you're not saying much more than what the accepted answer said two years ago. But since we're a community-edited site, I'm going to go ahead and edit your answer down to the parts that actually answer the question. (We're also a Q&A site - we expect that answers actually answer the question. See the [about] page for a quick explanation.)
With respect to the content of your answer: do you have some kind of citation for the claim that the state of New York made a PR effort to rebrand steaks? It sounds like the kind of thing that would just be voluntary rebranding among butchers, grocery stores, food distributors, and restaurants. I don't see why the government would've been involved, nor why it would have been just in New York. Anywhere in the US, if someone found that calling it a New York strip steak made it sell better, they'd do it.
A Kansas City Strip Steak is different from a New York Strip Steak, my great grandfather was a meat cutter and Grocer from Germany and he knew. A Kansas City Strip Steak has the tail on it that curves around with the thin strip of fat that flavors the meat when it is cooked/flame grilled. Also, it has part of the T Bone still attached. The New York Strip steak doesn't have the tail of thin fat nor does it have the partial bone attachment. It seems New Yorkers are spoiled and don't want to be bothered with removing the meat from the bone or have any fat associated with their meat, and they don't have the patience for eating around it either.
KC Strip is a NY with the bone left attached...
Really? I've found plenty of references to boneless Kansas City strips and bone-in New York strips.
KC is a NY with partial bone and small strip of fat for flavor. You can still find hi scale aged steakhouse restaurants that sell both cuts. Its that simple. However, if your KC or NY strip is not served as part of a Porterhouse, you're just 'doing it wrong' anyway. ;) ..and always eat the filet first when its fresh out of kitchen. ENJOY!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.135323
| 2011-02-18T20:40:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12355",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alicia Berrick",
"Cascabel",
"Clare Doherty",
"Damon",
"Debrah",
"Gale Coffey",
"Gregor Koukkoullis",
"JohnLBevan",
"Kimie Mbongo",
"Mark Wilkinson",
"Mary Schwab",
"Matthew Morrissette",
"Mrs. M. Bazner",
"Nancy Briscar",
"Nicole Peebles",
"Orbling",
"Paul",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sharon Oliver",
"Stephen Fry",
"configurator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83572",
"morgan snodgrass",
"steelerose",
"umbilli1132",
"user83572",
"yshavit"
],
"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
}
|
25079
|
Which BBQ grill is better: cast iron or steel
I am going to buy a BBQ and I am torn between a cast iron BBQ and a stainless steel BBQ. What are the advantages and downsides of each?
Are you specifically asking about cast iron grates vs. stainless steel grates?
What kind of grilling/BBQing are you interesting in doing? Searing steaks and/or smoking ribs for 4-hours?
Assuming you are talking about different types of grill grates:
Choosing Grill Grates
In general, cast-iron gives you better heat retention (flip-side: slower preheating) and better non-stick behavior if well seasoned. However maintenance with cast-iron can be a bit of a hassle. You have to develop and maintain seasoning and also take precautions against rust.
Stainless steel does not rust and is easier to maintain, however it is less non-stick and won't give you the same grill marks that you get with cast-iron.
Ceramic coated cast-iron is supposed to be a good compromise, however, I really hated the ones I had as they were very hard to clean and the coating eventually cracked, rusted AND chipped off.
tl;dr - If you are willing to put in the maintenance, cast-iron is generally the superior choice. If you aren't, go for high quality stainless steel grates (like these) -- you won't be missing all that much.
See also the answer to a similar question I had regarding a choice between porcelain and stainless steel:
Stainless vs Enameled Porcelain Grates?
(I went with stainless and have been happy with the performance)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.136231
| 2012-07-17T20:38:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25079",
"authors": [
"Amit G",
"Guy Schalnat",
"Jade",
"herrmartell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57770",
"jalbee",
"john3103",
"user57329",
"yan yankelevich"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29684
|
Does cooking in a pressure cooker destroy nutrients?
I've read that because of the higher temperature specially vegetables lose more nutrients in a pressure cooker as opposed to a normal cooking method. Is this true?
Found 2 interesting links http://www.eatingwell.com/healthy_cooking/healthy_cooking_101_basics_techniques/what_is_the_effect_of_pressure_cooking_on_nutr and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/health/nutrition/20well.html?_r=0
Sorry @Stefan Just noticed you found the same reference I did. I found it when the original question was posted, but didn't add my answer to the site until Rumtscho reopened the question, since I thought it would be closed for off-topic. Wasn't trying to steal your answer. I am wiki'ing the answer so that there are no rep issues.
No issue, we are here to help not to gain rep. I could not write answer since question was closed. I argued that maybe this was a borderline close (my comment have been removed??) and decided to throw in the links that I found just for info.
According to Eating Well who consulted a food scientist, yes, some heat sensitive nutrients are lost, but no more so than other forms of cooking:
Pressure cooking can reduce heat-sensitive nutrients (e.g., vitamin C,
folate) and bioactive phytonutrients, such as betacarotene,
glucosinolates (helpful compounds found in cruciferous vegetables) and
omega-3 fatty acids, that are beneficial for human health. But so do
other cooking methods—and generally to more or less the same extent.
but in other cases, as in grains and legumes, the pressure-cooking is helpful:
in the case of grains and legumes, although the vitamins and
heat-sensitive vitamins and phytonutrients are vulnerable to
deterioration, the net result of pressure-cooking is a positive
nutritional gain—from the increased digestibility of the
macronutrients (protein, fiber and starch) and the increased
bioavailability of the essential minerals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.136387
| 2013-01-03T12:44:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29684",
"authors": [
"Ben Francis",
"Daniel Hfood",
"Davian Cisco",
"David Martin",
"Mike",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81139",
"hypehuman",
"redbeard1",
"user69069"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22025
|
What dishes don't stain with heavy spices?
In most Indian cooking, there is a relatively high chance of staining the dinnerware (plates, serving bowls) due to the high turmeric content. Dinnerware made of metal don't stain, but the heavy spices do most other materials in after a few uses.
What kind of dinnerware could I go for which are unbreakable but look better than metal?
Plastic dishes in general will pick up stains, non-plastic dishes (enamelware, glass, or glazed ceramic) in my experience won't.
For stain resistance combined with durability, as you've identified, the best option is likely enamelware, you might try looking for attractive patterns, while the old-fashioned camp cookware that we have in our cupboard isn't very attractive, I'm finding some designs that look much better online, certainly as good or better than plastic dishes.
If you can't find enamelware that's attractive enough for your taste, tempered glass dishes, as Wayfaring Stranger suggests, are certainly a fairly durable option, another would be heavy plain white porcelain dishes, which I've found to be significantly more durable than typical stoneware dishes. They'll still shatter if dropped on concrete, but they're less likely to chip in normal everyday use.
The average made-in-china porcelain dinnerware at dollar store works ok for me.
Anything is breakable, but Corelle/Vitrelle, a laminated tempered glass, is plenty tough. I've never seen it take a stain other than rust, which can be removed w acid. Turmeric shouldn't be a problem.
I confirm this: I've served turmeric-heavy dishes in Corelle for years without a single stain.
In addition to the recommendations above, glazed high-fire porcelain or stoneware, as well as glass, will not pick up turmeric stains. By "high-fire" I mean "fired to 2375F or above". Example brands would be Noritake, Emile Henry, or Highland Stoneware, but many less expensive store brands from Macy's, Bed Bath and Beyond, and similar chains are also high-fire. Many are not, though, so make sure to ask the store.
Such ceramics are also chip-resistant, usable in stove and microwave, and otherwise long-lasting, which is a nice bonus.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.136594
| 2012-03-05T23:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22025",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Kaushik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24924
|
What is the correct flour, sugar, butter ratio for crumble?
Looking through a number of fruit crumble recipes I see that there is a wide range of ratios used for crumble topping. Some use equal amounts of flour (or other dry ingredient), sugar and butter. Others use about half the weight of butter and sugar to flour. Others still use double the amount of sugar and butter to flour.
Is there a definitive ingredient ratio for crumble as there is for pastry (3:2:1)? If so, what is it?
There is no single ideal. More sugar and butter will mean a more crunchy crumble top (and one that browns or burns more quickly), more flour will make it more sandy - they each have their place. The juicier the fruit, the sandier I like the topping to absorb some of the juice. The longer the fruit needs to cook, the more resilient to cooking the topping needs to be. And of course for a tart fruit like rhubarb, you might like more sugar in the topping to balance it - or you might just add sugar to the fruit and leave the topping alone.
My goto mix is 1 cup flour, 1 cup sugar, 1/2 cup butter. But play with it a bit and vary it according to the fruit you are using - and I don't just mean "rhubarb" or "apples" but taste a bit of today's fruit to see how sweet it is, how soft it is, etc.
Agree, except that I usually add a bit of salt as well. In the US, a stick of butter is 1/2 cup, so a tasty and easy to remember recipe is: 1 cup flour, 1 cup sugar, 1 stick butter, 1 tsp (kosher) salt.
The flour:sugar:butter ratio I have settled on is 1:0.7:0.7
Out of 116 crumble recipes reviewed, I found 58 unique flour, sugar, butter combinations. At the sweetness extremes, there is a recipe with only 6% the weight of sugar to flour, and another with a 1:2.4 ratio. Regarding butter, the ratio range in my sample goes from a lean 1:0.1 through to 1:1.9
Despite an apparent lack of harmony the ratios show, on average, a very clear tendency towards 1:0.7:0.7
I baked a (blueberry) crumble using this ratio and...well actually I burnt the crumble enough to invalidate the experiment. It was still good eating, but I'll need test this ratio again when I'm ready for more crumble. Comment feedback is appreciated from anyone who tries this ratio themselves.
Update: Kate Gregory's excellent answer prompts me to suggest a range of workable ratios based on deviation from the mean:
Flour to sugar range: 4:1 to 4:4.6
Flour to butter range: 1:0.4 to 1:1
These figures are not backed up with so much as a single experiment and about 37% of the 116 recipes in my sample are outside of these ranges. So take them with a pinch of salt (both literally and figuratively).
I admire your thorough approach, but Kate Gregory's answer suggests that they may not be a single answer. I am curious to see a histogram of your data - maybe you are looking at a bimodal distribution here. Also, have you tried to establish whether one ratio depends on the other one?
You were right to be curious, the histograms are interesting. The flour-to-sugar histo shows peaks at 2:1, 1:1 and 1:1.6 although the last two appear to be noise introduced by the ease of remembering 100g and 1 cup measurements. The butter histo appears to be truly bimodal having peaks at 2:1 and 1:1.
To answer rumtscho's last question about dependency, I see that the amount of sugar in a recipe depends more on the amount of butter added than the amount of flour. Here are the correlation coefficients: between flour and sugar 0.43, between flour and butter 0.68 and finally between sugar and butter 0.6. It's possible that butter reduces perceived sweetness and this is why more sugar is added.
Start with the dry ingredients; add the butter one tablespoon at a time till you get the texture you wish?
3 flour to 1 fat. This works well with 0.25 sugar. For instance, 300g plain flour to 100g margarine and 25g sugar. Always add a pinch of salt.
You can reduce the fat to a quarter but when you increase it you tend to get doughy sludge, especially with juicier fillings.
You can increase the sugar to taste, but especially if you used no sugar in the fruit, but bear in mind that sugar is a flavour enhancer in the fruit, so without any your filling will be bland. Sugary crumble with bland filling is a fail imv!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.136791
| 2012-07-09T12:23:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24924",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Chris Steinbach",
"JimBid",
"JoyalToTheWorld",
"Khadija Abid",
"Mr_Thyroid",
"adrian",
"dragi",
"earethymama4",
"hers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57032",
"rumtscho",
"user56977"
],
"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
}
|
5862
|
Cast Iron vs Steel
1. What is the advantage of a steel skillet over a cast iron one? I currently use cast iron for most everything and am curious what I might be missing.
2. If there's an advantage to getting a steel skillet as well, what would be recommended?
3. Is a steel skillet good for cooking omelettes?
Here's my current cast iron skillet arsenal, measured inside bottom:
Wagner Size #3 - about 5 inches
Wagner Size #6 - about 7 inches (the most used pan in my kitchen)
Lodge - about 8 inches
I also have two 8 inch nonstick skillets previously used for sauteeing and eggs... and they are losing the nonstick surface. I've killed 6 nonstick pans in 5 years, and I'm done with them.
I'm looking to get a new egg pan, thinking about an enamel-inside pan, as that's what my mom used exclusively for eggs.
In case it's relevant, I also have 1.5, 3, and 3.5 quart All Clad pots (all pieces in this set except the 10" fry pan).
Note that "steel" and "stainless steel" are two very different materials. The better modern stainless pans are actually a stack consisting of an aluminum core spread the heat, and a thin stainless layer on the inside (and often, though not always) outside to provide a hard, less chemically reactive cooking surface. (Plain carbon) "steel" skillets do exist but aren't as common as either stainless-clad-aluminum or cast iron.
What is the advantage of a steel skillet over a cast iron one? I currently use cast iron for most everything and am curious what I might be missing.
Pan sauces made with wine, vinegar, or any other acid are better in stainless steel. If you put any acid in cast-iron, you are harming your seasoning, and leeching iron into your food. This will affect the taste of your sauces, I find pan sauces taste metallic when made in cast iron.
Stainless steel also heats up and cools down much faster than cast-iron. This is great when you need quick heat, or fine control of your heat. You can also plunge a piping hot stainless pan into an ice-bath without cracking it in half.
If there's an advantage to getting a steel skillet as well, what would be recommended?
Go with a a bonded stainless-steel pan with an aluminum core. The most well known manufacturer is All-Clad. The stainless steel exterior is great due to it's non reactivity, you can literally put anything in it. The aluminum core distributes the heat much more quickly and evenly, minimizing hot-spots.
Is a steel skillet good for cooking omelettes?
Not in my opinion. I go with a non-stick pan every time.
I have to recommend sticking with a nonstick pan for eggs. There's simply nothing better, although well seasoned cast iron comes awful close. If you're spending more than $20 for a nonstick egg pan, you're doing it wrong. You don't need Calphalon, or any other big name for a good nonstick pan. Go to a restaurant supply store if you can and buy a cheap one there. With care it should last you 2-5 years depending on use. I found my current one at a Bed Bath & Beyond.
Having tried making eggs on every kind of cookware I can think of, I'm 100% on agreement with using nonstick for eggs. I got mine at an outlet mall near the Poconos, PA and didn't pay more than $30 for it, and so far it's lasted 3+ years.
@TimN: I can't say. I don't believe I've made a pan sauce without some form of acid.
I agree with hobodave's answers, and let me add one more thing. A well made stainless pan will generally heat more evenly than cast iron. There is a myth about cast iron that it heats evenly, but it simply isn't so. It holds a lot of heat, which is a big benefit, but unless you move it around on the burner, there will be definite hot and cold spots corresponding to your burner pattern. (And I say this as a devoted but honest lover of cast iron, who uses it for almost everything I cook).
I definitely agree there can be hot spots... I have an electric stove (no choice) and I thought that was to blame.
While cast iron does have about twice the heat conductivity of stainless steel, it has only a third to quarter that of the aluminum which forms the working core of a clad pan. The aluminum layer will typically be thinner than a cast iron pan, partially offsetting the difference, but probably still coming out ahead in a good example.
While yes, it is easier to cook on a non-stick pan, I have a different solution. I use a seasoned carbon steel wok to cook my eggs and it is my favorite way (besides sous vide) due to the ability to keep the egg contained within the oil.
As long as you put at least a Tablespoon of oil in the bottom of the wok, you can drop the eggs right into the center of the oil and it won't stick. Let them sit for a moment on the bottom to regain the lost heat. I then use a metal whisk to both stir up the eggs and scrape them from the center of the wok. Just don't get overzealous with it or you will end up with egg all over your wok.
This also works amazingly for omelettes since you can just leave the egg flat in the oil and then flip it. If you want to get it wider, try carefully moving the wok in a horizontal circular motion to spread the egg within the oil.
I have had bad experiences with teflon getting into my food in the past and I avoid it at all costs (even at low temps). But that is more personal preference, it can work well if handled properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.137166
| 2010-08-24T02:49:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5862",
"authors": [
"Amber Morgan",
"Chris Stratton",
"JustRightMenus",
"Tony Ellis",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5547
|
Bagels: Alternative to cornmeal on the baking sheet?
I'm making bagels for the first time ever and I assumed I had cornmeal... I don't. I have corn muffin mix but no cornmeal.
The instructions say to sprinkle cornmeal on the baking sheets. Is there another common kitchen ingredient that would work as well? Or, should I just use a bit of corn muffin mix?
EDIT: Now that I'm no longer in a panic, it occurs to me that I have polenta and grits. One of those would work well, right?
I used polenta... I wish I had used flour instead, though, b/c the polenta bits are pretty big. Corn meal is now on the grocery list, to be purchased before I make bagels again.
Not to confuse things, but I actually thought having your idea as an option was useful. Then people can vote on it to express their opinion on whether or not it's a good idea..
@JustRightMenus - I'd go with either, although I imagine you actually want the finer of the two, if one is finer.
Yep, polenta or grits will work fine. They're just cornmeal ground differently.
Is this just to prevent sticking? What about parchment paper?
@Ocassi: That's a good idea, but not it the current context of the stackexchange sites. It would essentially allow people to 'reputation-farm' with a question: each answer that gets voted up earns the questioner reputation, which is not really the intent. You should post this as an enhancement request on the meta site, because it does have merit as a tool, much like community wiki.
@Dave: please see the FAQ. There is nothing wrong with answering your own question. It's even encouraged.
@Dave, re: hobodave's comment, please see the discussion at http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/321/when-is-it-appropriate-to-answer-your-own-question
@hobodave: Yes, I'm aware of that. JRM didn't answer her question, she continued it in an answer; then she edited her question to reflect that and deleted her answer. Then, it seemed to me that @Ocaasi was proposing that she post a question and one or more answers for people to vote on, such as "Should I do A, B or C?" I may have read too much into it.
I would have tried using semolina, polenta, or grits. If the grind was too big you could always use a small coffee grinder to get it a bit finer.
Corn muffin mix generally has other additives like sugar, baking powder or soda, so you probably wouldn't have wanted to use that on the outside of your bagels!
I wish I'd thought of the grinder! We have one for coffee and one for everything else.
I wouldn't use corn muffin mix, as that has baking soda in it, might not be tasty! Use some flour. This works fine for pizza, so it should be good for bagels as well.
Now that you've edited to say you have polenta and grits, those are an even better option.
Flour isn't good for pizza, it tends to burn, most people use semolina. Just a heads up.
Cornmeal often has a firmer, "grainier" (for lack of a better word right now) texture than flour. I'd use the coarsest flour you have on hand as a substitute.
Polenta is probably your closest option to plain cornmeal. In the past 3 hours, you probably could have run to the store, though :)
Yeah, unfortunately I didn't realize I had no cornmeal until about to take the first batch of bagels out of boiling water and put them on the baking sheets... the baking sheets that should have had cornmeal on them.
@JustRightMenus I think the appropriate response in that case is "Panic!"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.137600
| 2010-08-19T15:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5547",
"authors": [
"Benoît",
"Bob",
"Chad",
"Chiara Coetzee",
"Cynthia",
"Dave",
"GantengX",
"JustRightMenus",
"Laura Thomas",
"Marco Borchers",
"Meg",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ocaasi",
"Phfan Kuchen Crepofski",
"Tilo Wiklund",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"justkt",
"sarge_smith",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6626
|
Trouble with Baked Chicken Wings
I do not have a deep fryer (and do not plan to purchase one), but I have made chicken wings successfully in the oven. (My mom, --from Buffalo, NY-- even approves of this method.)
The problem is that my results are not consistent. The first time I made them, they were perfect - they tasted just as though they'd been fried. The second time, they were way over-cooked. And the third time, I could not get them done enough, even after nearly tripling the cook time.
Here's what I'm doing...
Remove wings from refrigerator about 30 minutes before baking.
Preheat oven to 425 F.
Pluck out any feather bits remaining in the wings.
Use a knife to separate the full wing into little drumstick pieces (one length of bone) and little wing pieces (remaining two lengths of bone).
Line up the pieces on a baking sheet. I didn't have very much space between them. (Is there recommended spacing?)
Bake for 45 minutes.
Toss with desired hot sauce (I used Frank's Red Hot Wing Sauce).
Does the cook time change depending on how many wings you're cooking? Is there a certain size wing that works better? Should I be making sure the wings are room temperature before baking them? I can imagine endless factors that could be causing my poor results.
EDIT: I'm not deep frying b/c I don't want to buy another appliance - my kitchen is about as big as the monitor you're looking at. Maybe a little bigger, but not much. Anyway, it's about having space for appliances.
Is this the recipe for Buffalo Chicken Wings?
@kiamlaluno Yes, these are Buffalo chicken wings that I'm looking for help with.
The steam-chill-bake method is better than deep fried anyway, in my experience.
The key to oven-cooked chicken wings is, basically, don't rely on the oven to do all the cooking for you! It won't get them anywhere near crispy enough. Bake too long and they'll dry out, too short and they'll be soggy. You can't win that way!
Here's how I prepare "baked" chicken wings. Once I learned this preparation method I never went back, not even to frying!
Pull out your steamer or steaming basket.
While your steaming apparatus is coming up to temp, split and trim the wings as you normally would.
Steam the wings for 10 minutes. Don't crowd them - make sure you allow for proper airflow. Steam in batches if necessary.
Get out a cookie sheet and cover it with something to catch any drippings (paper towel is fine). Then put one or two oven racks on top and lay the steamed wings on that. You need this to allow the grease to fall, and you need the cookie sheet covered below the rack because if you let those juices fall directly onto the sheet, they'll boil and burn during the baking process and leave a nasty bitter taste.
Season the now-moist wings on both sides (while on the rack, on the covered cookie sheet). A liberal amount of salt and pepper is the foundation. For general flavour, I generally add garlic powder and paprika as well. If you like a smokier flavour, substitute smoked paprika, and if you want hot wings, add some ground hot pepper or chili powder (I like to use approximately equal amounts of cayenne, ancho, and chipotle).
Place the entire rack as-is in the refrigerator and cool for at least one hour. This is crucial, it will help to "set" the wings, locking in the juices and seasoning and making for a much crispier and juicier result at the very end.
Preheat the oven to 425° F (220° C).
Remove the rack from the refrigerator, remove the paper towel covering the cookie sheet (don't forget to do this!), and place in the oven.
Bake for 20 minutes, then turn and bake for another 20 minutes. It may seem like this is going to dry them out. It won't. It will crisp them up perfectly. You'll see.
While you're baking the wings on the second side, start making the sauce. Your basic hot wing sauce (which should be hot "enough" but still tolerable for most palates) is equal amounts of Frank's red hot (not the wing sauce) and melted butter. The butter serves two purposes; it cuts some of the heat (for those who can't stand it) and it helps to bind the sauce to the wings when you mix them, helping to bring together all the flavours and prevent sogginess. For more heat, just up the ratio of Frank's to butter.
Add your own twists to the sauce as you like; I like to do this with additional garlic & smoked paprika, sage, brown sugar, Worcestershire sauce, and a thickener (usually corn starch). But that's just one of a thousand recipes; some people stick to the basic hot sauce, other people add an Asian twist... this is entirely up to you.
Make sure you've got the sauce up to a nice smooth emulsion and then toss the wings and sauce together.
Serve with chopped carrots and celery, blue cheese dip, and plenty of beer.
The bleu cheese and rabbit food is for appearances and children only. Do not consume any of this or face great shame.
@hobodave, I do have to say that although I would never dip one of these precious wings in a store-bought blue cheese dip, you can make a homemade one that's really quite an excellent accompaniment (especially if you really ramp up the spices and heat in this technique). I think a lot of the bad press on blue cheese comes from the fact that they call it blue cheese when it's really ranch dressing with half an ounce of blue cheese blended in.
I don't want to down vote this, but we really need to draw attention to sarge_smith's answer.
@chris: It just needs to summarize the technique, then I'll upvote it myself.
My own bleu cheese recipe is simply 4-5 oz bleu cheese (I will just use a decent danish bleu for this, or a local one if affordable), 16 oz sour cream, 3-6 Tbs fresh chopped dill, and salt/pepper to taste. I make this for every party, and it gets destroyed. Goes great with veggies, crackers (especially triscuits), and of course hot wings.
what ratios of salt:pepper:garlic:paprika:spicy peppers?
and would you use spicy pepper powder even if you were going to use a hot sauce?
Would it work for (leg) drumsticks?
This link is the preparation.
This link is the blah, blah, blah about why it works.
I have never found better baked wings than these but aaronuts are close second.
UPDATE: The first link is to serious eats' Kenji Lopez-Alt's chicken wing article and reciope.
Very interesting, I'm not familiar with this technique (nor did I know that the one I was using was advocated by Alton Brown). The only downside I can see is that it doesn't seem to allow for any additional seasoning before baking (I suspect too much seasoning on the raw chicken would interfere with the effects of the baking powder).
By the way, there's nothing wrong with outbound linking but you should try to summarize the contents in your answer. Otherwise the answer's no good if the URL breaks later on. That's the only reason I didn't upvote.
@aaronut gotcha, will do in the future, fixing this one now.
I agree with roux, 45 minutes is insanely long at 425. I bake chicken breasts at 400 for 25 minutes tops.
How reliable is your oven? Are you sure that your oven is actually 425 when you think it's 425? You can buy a little thermometer to hang from the rack, I have one of these in my oven at all times. (My oven is off by 75 degrees).
BTW, unless you're opposed to frying, you don't need to deep fry them. You could pan fry them in 1/4"-1/2" of oil 3-4 mins on one side, 2-3 mins on the other, then finish them in the oven at 400 F for 10-15 minutes. This will give you that crispy exterior without completely toasting it. It also helps to place them on a wire rack set in a baking pan so that the oil can drip off them while they bake.
With wings you don't really need to let them get to room temperature for cooking, they heat up rather quickly.
Regarding your sauce, I find that Franks "wing sauce" is kinda meh compared to the real thing. The real thing is simply equal parts melted butter and Frank's Red Hot sauce. The "wing sauce" uses some margarine-esque oily compound in place of butter.
I actually agree about the wing sauce; I was taught to use Frank's Red Hot + butter, but though the wing sauce would be worth a try. It's not as good!
Crank up the oven temp to max. with the oven sheet inside the oven. When the oven is hot, take out the oven sheet and dump the chicken on it (it will sizzle). Depending on the size and preferred doneness, cook for 15-25 min. If your chicken pieces are of different sizes, first cook the bigger pieces and add the rest halfway.
If you have a thermometer, when it hits 72ºC (160F) take it out (carryover must take it to 75ºC - 165F)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.138313
| 2010-09-02T21:47:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6626",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Cudmore",
"JSM",
"JustRightMenus",
"Osaid",
"avpaderno",
"detly",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80643",
"plonk420",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1435
|
How to quickly and safely defrost chicken?
What is the safest, quick way to defrost chicken? Microwave? Running water over it?
I suppose that depends on what you're defrosting it for.
The microwave (on low power) is safe and quick. The downside is that you're using a microwave, which means there's a good chance you'll actually cook the outside slightly in the process, and you're killing enzymes that are normally part of the flavour. The lower the heat, the less the impact of this, but it's still a problem. If I'm preparing the meat for marinating, stir-fry, etc., something with a powerful or thick sauce, then I wouldn't worry about it, but if it's going onto a grill with just a little bit of seasoning, you might want to avoid this.
Running it under warm water would seem to work, but I've found that it takes forever to defrost this way (the exterior will loosen up but the interior stays stubbornly frozen), and you're soaking it in the process. This really isn't suitable if you need to pound or fold the meat or do anything complicated with it.
I would use the microwave if desperate, but it's really best to thaw the meat in the refrigerator or, if you're in a bit of a hurry, the sink. It takes longer, but it'll turn out much better than the microwave in terms of flavour and tenderness.
P.S. One other word of advice: If you're making a dish that requires the chicken to be cut or sliced, it's best not to defrost it all the way. It's easier to cut when frozen, and will defrost very quickly once it's in pieces. I'm mainly talking about the breast here, this doesn't work so well with meat stuck to bones.
Update: I'm noticing a lot of recent hubbub about the dangers of defrosting in the sink / on the countertop or using warm water and I wanted to clarify something. Please note that that the advice above applies to chicken that will be immediately cooked after defrosting and that the defrosting is done over a period shorter than 2 hours.
Raw chicken must not be kept at any temperature above 40° F (4.4° C) for more than an hour or so. Do not defrost a chicken breast in the sink and then toss it back in the fridge. Definitely don't try to defrost a whole bird this way - stick to the refrigerator or very cold running water.
As long as you follow the above precautions and cook the chicken thoroughly (up to an internal temperature of 165° F), you're not in any serious danger of salmonella poisoning, even if the original piece of meat was contaminated - and most chicken sold today is contaminated, for the record.
If the meat is going back in the refrigerator for marinating or you plan to delay cooking for any other reason, then you need to either thaw it very fast (using the microwave) or at a very low temperature (using the refrigerator or cold running water).
"Do not defrost a chicken breast in the sink and then toss it back in the fridge." - out of interest, why? If the sink is thoroughly cleaned afterwards?
If you're defrosting in a microwave, put the chicken in a semi-enclosed package (lid on but not sealed shut), this way the steam will help to defrost: Use Low Power or it will cook!!
A microwave is fine for pieces of chicken, particularly it's a newer one which automatically sets the time for you based on the weight of the chicken pieces. (and don't stop just 'cause you think you're done ... that frozen core in the breast won't cook and might ruin your dish.
For whole birds, I go with the running water method -- mostly because my microwave won't fit a whole bird. You want to use cold water for safety, so you don't warm up the poultry too much to make it unsafe. You can put it in a container so there's better contact with the chicken, but you'll want to change it out every few minutes, as the chicken will leech heat from the water (which is what we want).
I've used warm (not hot) water in the past and haven't gotten sick. Maybe I've just been lucky...
"food safety" is erring on the side of over-caution in a lot of cases. If you keep a clean kitchen, and you're cooking the food thoroughly, and don't cross-contaminate, it's not that big of a risk, but "safest" was the question, and cold water in this case is safer, and it doesn't adversely affect the meat as much.
Screw the microwave. The only thing it's useful for is crappy frozen food and hot water for tea (and even for tea an electric kettle is better).
What you want to do is put your chicken parts in a zip-lock bag if they're not already packaged, and drop that in a container that will hold it. Place said container under a slow-running tap of cold or lukewarm (NOT HOT) water. Depending on the size of the piece(s) you'll have thoroughly defrosted chicken in under an hour, well within the safety zone.
Convection is your friend.
-><-
Check the following question for some safety concerns for defrosting with warm water. It is not recommended as safe by the USDA. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/is-there-a-problem-with-defrosting-meat-on-the-counter/3474#3474
That advice is questionable. "The food must be in a leak-proof package or plastic bag. If the bag leaks, bacteria from the air or surrounding environment could be introduced into the food." Yeah, and if it weren't for the fact that I was about to cook the meat and wash the sink thoroughly, that might be a problem.
Using a microwave is probably the quickest way, but you must make absolutely sure the bird is defrosted. Every microwave is different, so check the guide that came with yours for timings. Even then, once you believe it to be defrosted, check the inside of the cavity for ice crystals.
If possible, rest for 10 minutes at room temperature before starting the preparation process. Once defrosted, don't refrigerate.
I had heard that microwave-defrosting could increase the likelihood of food poisoning - wasn't sure whether that's an old wive's tale or not, though.
@Smashery: You're about to cook it anyway, right? Most meat you buy in supermarkets is already contaminated with various types of food-poisoning bacteria (esp. salmonella with respect to chicken); you cook it to kill that bacteria.
I usually fill a pot with hot water from the sink and drop the chicken in there (assuming it is vacuum sealed or in a tightly sealed ziplock bag with as much air as possible removed). This seems to work relatively quickly.
This works nicely for just about anything, as long as it's sealed.
Check the following question for some safety concerns for defrosting with warm water. It is not recommended as safe by the USDA. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/is-there-a-problem-with-defrosting-meat-on-the-counter/3474#3474
A simple way to defrost meat in a relatively short amount of time is to place the meat in a zip-locked baggie and submerge in a large bowl or sink full of slightly cool water. It isn't as quick as a microwave, of course, but it is faster and safer than just leaving out on a counter top. Speed up the process by using warmer water.
This method may be unsafe; warmer water is certainly unsafe. The acceptable method is cool running water, as convection transfers heat energy much more efficiently than conduction.
Never ever use hot or warm water! That will have a much greater chance of having bacteria. Always use cold or cool water. I myself run it under cold water in my sink continuously while in a tight package instead of submerging it.
Depends what you are doing with it. From time to time I buy raw stuffed frozen chicken breast. It specifies not thawing, not microwaving. Straight out of the freezer and into the (conventional) oven, cook until safe interior temperature reached (they include a time/temperature guide since the product is of a consistent weight/size which might not apply for a random chunk of frozen chicken.)
It works.
I always buy organic chicken from a registered organic local farm.
I put the chicken in a large tie-handle plastic bag and remove the air before tying a very tight knot so no water can enter or leave the bag. Then I leave the chicken in a large container of cold water if I need it soon rather than later. If you can chop it into smaller pieces this hurries things along.
If I have time, however, I prefer to put the bag in a bowl in the fridge for at least 24 hours to defrost.
The safest way to defrost a chicken is to take it out of the freezer at least two days before and let it defrost naturally while refrigerated. The second way I use is to put the chicken in a microwave safe bowl, fill with water and then follow oven suggestions on time per pound. If you use the water/microwave method it does not cook any parts of the chicken and turning is not necessary. But I definitely take it out of the plastic wrap.
Put the frozen bagged chicken in a bucket then fill it with cold water.
This is possibly unsafe, as mentioned in comments on other answers suggesting basically the same thing.
I've been using the hot water soak method to quickly defrost and then cook my chickens for YEARS without any problems or sickness. I always thoroughly cook my birds; no pinkness. I then proceed to make chicken soup with the carcass and left over meat the next day. I think they just want to lean on the side of caution when they advice you NOT to do it this way. Some cooks don't know what they're doing so you have to say this. c
You can ride a motorcycle for YEARS without a helmet and have no accidents. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Leaning on the side of caution isn't just for people who don't know what they're doing, it's for people who don't want a small chance of getting sick.
I really think everyone whining about food safety should use some common sense. ALL poultry is infected with salmonella and some other gross things that naturally live in their intestines, hence the stringent 'cook to this temp' guidelines. Cooking to 165°F internally kills all the bacteria; don't use 'pinkness' as a guideline, as bone-in chicken always has pink parts.
It isn't recommended to defrost in some ways because of the cross-contamination possible with chicken just hanging out in the open.
TL;DR defrost your chicken however you like, but wash your hands and ALL kitchen work surfaces thoroughly and often.
No, defrost it in a safe way, not however you like. It's not just about cross-contamination.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.139083
| 2010-07-17T14:58:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1435",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Akshaya Hospital Lab",
"Andrhimnir",
"Cascabel",
"Click Ok",
"Deanna Fogarty",
"JeffV",
"Jez",
"Joe",
"Jon-Eric",
"Matt Ghering",
"Pamela Sztyblewsky",
"Ryan C. Thompson",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Smashery",
"Yuck",
"faulty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87038",
"ice cream",
"jturolla",
"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
}
|
183
|
Cutting boards: What are some general tips on purchasing and using a cutting board?
I have heard various debates on the merits of wood versus synthetic cutting boards, and their affect on food safety, knife edges, and ease of cleaning and storage.
What are the pros and cons of the following and why?
Wood versus plastic or other materials
Affect on food safety and cleanliness
Cost to purchase
Affect on knife edge and ease of use
I suppose it could be a Community Wiki, but I believe the most complete answer with valid information could be selected as correct.
Reworded to seek best answer rather than a discussion.
I think this is a good question, though maybe having the title be something about wood vs plastic would be helpful, since that's mainly what you're addressing (as opposed to glass or other material boards).
This would be better split into individual questions. I'd vote it closed, but I don't have enough rep yet.
Just a note, resurrecting this after some 10 years: tests have shown that end-grain wood cutting boards, as stated in the accepted answer, are not the best thing for your knives' edge.
Besides the material itself, there are lots of other factors --
Surface : There are smooth plastic cutting boards, and there are rougher ones. I prefer the rougher ones, as smooth means things are slipping all over the place and its can be dangerous. Plastic will roughen up with use, but cuts and nicks in plastic boards means more places for germs. For those thin plastic cutting mats, they're so lightweight that you have to worry about both the food sliding, and the mat itself sliding.
Thickness : Those 'butcher block' wooden boards look great, but I don't like them for two reasons: I'm short, and it raises the surface that I'm cutting at; they're heavier, and I like being able to pick up my cutting board to take to my stove, as my cutting area is near my sink, not my stove.
Size : Large enough to hold the amount of food you tend to prep at one time, and not so overly large that it's a pain to move / clean / etc. I like about 18" x 24" (45cm x 60cm), but if you're cooking for one in a small apartment, that might be a little large. (although, one of my apartments was small enough that I used a large board, so I could span the sink, as there was all of maybe 30" (75cm) of counter space.
All this being said -- I use wood for all vegetables, and plastic cutting mats for meats and poultry, just because it saves me time sanitizing everything between cutting. (although, I typically try to cut all of the vegetables first, then the meat, just to save on cleaning a knife).
Part of the complaint against wood is that it's very hard to get germs out once they get into wood -- but research has shown that if you clean the surface, wood cutting boards are unlikely to transfer germs to other food, and a well-maintained wooden cutting board will self-heal and continues to be safe over time, whereas plastic can't be simply wiped down once it starts developed scratches from use. To sanitize wood boards, use half a lemon, and coarse salt (I use kosher salt), and use the cut side to scrub the board. Rinse, let it dry, and give it some food-grade mineral oil every few months, depending on how humid your area is. If it's looking sad, you can always sand it down, re-sanitize it and re-oil it.
wow... salt can be not kosher?
@Joel -- it's actually salt used for koshering meat -- it's a coarse salt, but in flakes, so it sticks well to moist items. For info about koshering, see : http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82678/jewish/Koshering-Meat.htm
Don't use a glass board. It dulls the edge of the knife and the food you are trying to cut is more likely to slip than on a wood/plastic board.
A good tip, but you don't address all the points of the question.
@JYelton there is no requirement that each answer should address all points. Partial answers are welcome.
@rumtscho A partial answer can't be marked as the accepted one, but your point is taken... (Ten years later.)
One thing not mentioned is feet/pads on the bottom of the board. Boards without anything on the bottom except a flat surface can slip. You can resolve this by adding rubber feet or a damp towel but if you are buying a new cutting board it might be something worth looking into.
Also, check out the size of the board in terms of your sink. A large board is great for cooking, a large board is a pain in my side for cleaning as it barely fits in the sink and creates a mess just by cleaning it.
How about something on the edge of the board (like a soft rubber "fence" maybe .5" tall) that keeps the food from falling off. I realize this is tricky b/c you don't want the "fence" to interfere w/ the cutting. But it drives me nuts that food is always falling off the edge (just a tiny amount but enough to make a mess).
One thing not yet mentioned: For an everyday plastic board, it's great to have one just small enough to easily fit in the dishwasher - easily and perfectly sanitized every time.
My selection involves:
Bamboo for general purpose veg, small bits of meat (e.g. bacon slices), I also occasionally cut meat on it - it is smooth and juices etc run straight off it.
Several Plastic for when I have several dishes on the go or lots and lots of veg and also meat and fish.
Wood for bread, cheese and cooked meat - It looks nice when I serve cheese boards or antipasti.
I have a glass one but only use it as a heat mat as well as dulling knives it also makes a horrible noise when you do need to cut on it.
I have an endgrain wood board that is designed for meat (it has a groove around the outside for collecting juices). But I find it too big, heavy and hard to clean to actually use - annoyingly it was also my most expensive.
I know people who have granite work tops and do not use a board - This is as bad as glass and will dull your knives also.
Wood boards can also absorb juice - so regularly cutting onions, garlic or "smelly" things may cause your board, and therefore other things you cut on it to pick up the smell.
Wood is also annoying to maintain - it needs oiling occasionally as well as disinfecting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.139917
| 2010-07-09T20:26:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/183",
"authors": [
"Adrian Thompson Phillips",
"Chris Bartow",
"Craig Stuntz",
"GSto",
"Highly Irregular",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"Joel in Gö",
"JustRightMenus",
"Sam Harwell",
"adamcodes",
"dbonomo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"rumtscho",
"user3024231",
"wizclown"
],
"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
}
|
2209
|
How do you properly clean a cutting board and knife to prevent cross contamination?
I have one very nice cutting board that I like to use with my chef's knife. Because I only use this single cutting board and chef's knife, if I have a recipe that calls for cutting raw meat as well as vegetables, I have to take turns with the same board and knife. However, I'm always concerned that I haven't done enough to clean them after working with the meat before moving on the vegetables.
What do I need to do to properly clean the cutting board and knife to make sure that I avoid cross contaminating my tools?
Your primary defenses against cross-contamination include proper planning in the order of what you're cutting and proper cleaning between uses. In the case of your stew, simply cut the vegetables first and then cut your meat. Doing so in this order you won't need to wash the board between the vegetables and meat. If you want to expedite the cooking process, then either use a separate board for the meat first so that you can start browning it while cutting the vegetables, or simply wash and re-use the board. A good scrubbing with hot soapy water is fine for your knife and board (including wood boards).
As mentioned previously, if you're still concerned about bacteria you can rub the board with lemon juice or vinegar which will kill any residual bacteria.
Using separate boards that are relegated to specific meat vs. vegetable duty isn't necessary as long as you're properly cleaning your boards. A board only used for meat items is just as liable to transfer bacteria to the next item being cut on it if it isn't properly washed between uses. That being said, if you're properly cleaning them then it's fine to cut vegetables on a board that's also been used previously for meat.
As for cutting boards, your best bet for the care and maintenance for your knives are either wood or composite materials (usually a laminated product of paper and resin - "Epicurean" being a prominent brand.
Never use a tempered glass cutting board or other hard surface (granite, marble, Corian, etc.) as these are heavily damaging to the edge of your blade and unsafe for you as there is nothing for the knife to bite and grip into and it's much more likely to slip and cut you.
Plastic cutting boards and mats aren't very good on your knives and the boards in particular are either too hard and dull your blade prematurely or are soft and end up with lots of cuts and grooves which then trap food. People often have a false sense of security with plastic boards believing them to be "non-porous". As the board is used, food material ends up crammed into the cuts and grooves and while the boards can go into the dishwasher, that only removes the surface grime, not that which is impacted and over time you increase the potential for bacterial growth to occur.
Wood boards (including bamboo) are much better on your knives but to maintain them in good condition you need to properly maintain them. Periodically, when they look dry (kind of like chapped skin) you need to oil them with mineral oil. The mineral oil you buy at your local drugstore or grocery store pharmacy is fine, no need to buy fancy "block oil" in gourmet shops. Don't use vegetable based oils as they will go rancid and transfer the flavor to your food. I like to give the cutting board a heavy coating at night, let it soak in overnight, and then buff off anything that didn't soak in. This will keep your wood fibers soft and supple so that the board won't split and crack, the fibers will swell back together making it more "self-healing" as you cut on it, and the oil in the wood will repel liquids that would otherwise try to soak in. When a wooden board gets marred and nicked up you just need to take it to the garage and give it a good sanding before dusting off, rinsing and re-oiling.
Don't use bleach on boards (plastic or otherwise) as it will typically leave a distinct smell in the board.
Wood boards actually have natural antibacterial and antimicrobial properties. This results in waaaay less bacteria compared to plastic boards!
"Never use a tempered glass cutting board". One of my worst kitchen purchases ever was a tempered glass chopping board. First time I tried to slice a slightly damp pepper that had just been washed I almost lost the fingers on my left hand .....
Cut your vegetables first, then your meat. Clean both knife and board with hot, soapy water after you're finished. For a bonus, keep a dedicated poly cutting board for poultry. That way you can be certain that the only danger of salmonella is from poultry to poultry, which you're cooking to high temperatures anyway.
Cutting boards aren't very expensive, and flat enough that they don't require much storage space. It's worth buying a second board.
@Tim Well, a good cutting board that's gentle on your knives isn't exactly cheap, especially when you're a young family on a budget :-).
Its just a board. Doesn't have to be fancy, they're all made of the same stuff (more or less).
@Adam From my conversations with cooking professionals, all cutting boards are not created equally. See Darin's answer to this question regarding different types of boards; he provides some excellent additional details.
I agree, but the differences in wood boards are mostly in durability (I meant board as in wood board, not cutting board, sorry). Any chunk of wood will work about as well, just not as long.
Vinegar and lemon juice will work if you let them sit for a few minutes after cleaning with mild soap and water (to remove hydrophobic fats). They will absorb into the wood a bit and kill whatever is lurking there. This isn't good for the wood.
I would recommend one of the cheap plastic flexible ones. You can bend them into a funnel shape to pour into pots/bowls, and they cost a buck or two a pop at ye olde box store.
For the knife, soap and water will work fine. Scrub a bit on the blade and handle.
You can use clorox or other chlorine bleach if you still feel paranoid, but this will make your wood cutting board smell like chlorine, probably for a long time.
I think vacuum would work better in the analogy.
Don't clean the wood cutting board with soap. Your best bet is to simply not use the wooden one for meat. Get a cheap plastic one (perhaps a larger, thicker one or a thin one depending on your tastes) and use that one for meat. You can clean that one with dish soap or bleach or whatever you wish.
Then just use the wooden one for vegetables and rise it off with cold water after each use.
For the knife, dish soap or bleach. Whatever you wish.
be careful about bleach though - make sure it's a weak solution. strong solutions of bleach can pit stainless steel.
Here's the simple answer: use soap & hot water to clean your board and knife. That's it.
Read the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service pages on cutting boards and food safety and preventing cross-contamination. There are heaps of more food safety info there, as well.
America's Test Kitchen confirmed this with actual bacteria cultures to see what worked.
tl;dr
Soap & hot water is recommended for cleaning; use bleach dilute for sanitizing.
Use one board for produce, one for meat/poultry/fish.
Replace boards when they develop grooves where bacteria can hide.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.140568
| 2010-07-20T01:09:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2209",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Ben McCormack",
"Bradford",
"Chef",
"Elizabeth Mcshane",
"Greybeard",
"KB2480",
"NoCarrier",
"SilverbackNet",
"Simon Zyx",
"Tim",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Zabba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"quagland"
],
"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
}
|
650
|
How can I check if a blind baked dough is done?
Often, when I'm blind baking things, I'm always unsure whether or not the dough is finished. I always put a piece of foil between the crust and the rice.
Is there an easy way to check the middle of the crust, or do I need to rely on timing or remove the rice on top to see? Removing the rice is difficult without making a mess, so I'd very much like to hear some tips :-)
assuming you put a piece of foil between the crust and rice, just lift up an edge to check it..
Sorry, should have clarified. I already have foil between the crust and the rice, but it's difficult to check the middle of the crust without having rice everywhere afterwards.
@jmoeller: heh, that's why I use beans...
I guess I'll have to switch to beans or something :-)
I have something similar to this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kitchen-Craft-Ceramic-Baking-Beans/dp/B0001IWZ2W which may make it easier to check.
Depending on the tin you're using, you may not need any filling at all.
The main reasons you use beans/rice when blind baking are to prevent air pockets underneath the pastry from expanding, which causes the bottom to rise up, and to prevent the pastry from shrinking. You don't specify what type of pastry you're making, but for a simple shortcrust I find you don't need to worry about shrinkage. And I use a flan tin with a loose (separate) bottom, which not only makes it dead easy to get the flan out after cooking, but also isn't airtight so you don't have the problem with air bubbles. If you don't have a tin like this, you can always just prick the bottom of the pastry shell with a fork so that air can escape.
You can use cling film instead of foil, then when put in the hot oven, it will shrink at the edges a little and almost pull the top in to make it contain the rice a bit. This can make it easier to lift the rice in and out. The cling film won't melt though. you do need the cling film to be wide enough though, or if not you need to overlap a few layers. Still easier to use beans though as there are fewer to pick up if anything does go wrong....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.141161
| 2010-07-11T19:02:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/650",
"authors": [
"Mirage",
"Redbeard",
"Ritwik Bose",
"Shog9",
"Stefano Borini",
"Stephen Paulger",
"Vinz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jumoel",
"nevster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
728
|
How can I fix a hollandaise sauce after it has split?
I made a hollandaise sauce on the weekend and it split so I threw it out and started again but I was wondering if there is anything you can do to save it once it splits?
You can rescue it by starting the process again, with an egg yolk in a bowl over a bain-marie which you whisk until it starts to thicken a little. then incorporate a little warm melted butter into the egg yolk. Once this is incorporated you can slowly start to add the split hollandaise and this should then incorporate into the new base, unsplit.
There is a video here
Jacques Pepin, in his book "Complete Techniques", recommends to try first save the mixture as soon as you see it starts getting oily around the edges, by adding a tablespoon of cold water or an ice cube and beating well.
If that doesn't save it, then:
Separate the mixture completely by stirring over heat.
Tilt the pan and let rest for 5 minutes so the oily part comes to the top where
it can be removed (but don't discard).
Start with 2 tsp of warm water in a bowl and add 1 tbsp of the thick sauce at a time, whisking in until smooth at each addition.
Start adding back in the oily part, beating it in like you were making the sauce from the start.
If any parts have scrambled, put through a strainer.
This technique works well. If your sauce starts to split take the pot off the heat immediately and put he entire pot in the sink in an inch of ice cold water to cool it quickly. Add a tsp of ice cold water to the sauce and whisk vigorously. May have to add a 2nd tsp but don't add too much at once.
If you find your sauce splitting often try a little lower heat or a copper pot for better heat distribution.
To hold the sauce at temp a thermos works well.
What I do is to take the pot off the heat, then put a clean pot on the heat and add between a tea spoon and a table spoon of lemon juice. Then gradually add the split sauce from your original pot a table spoonful at a time, or at a very slow trickle. Whisk the sauce all the time. It works like a charm.
We put it back in the blender and pulsed a few times. Good as new!
If a sauce has separated, take it off the heat, throw in an ice cube, stir. Saved me many times.
Add a splash of cold milk and whisk. It is smooth and glossy within seconds.
One simple, kind of cheating but effective way to save a split hollandaise is to use a commercial product. I've used Knorr Hollandaise a number of times either when I run out during service, or if my hollandaise splits. I still like to make my own, but I've used this in emergencies, and nobody has ever complained!
Your suggestion is unclear. How do you save the split hollandaise? Do you prepare a little bit of commercial hollandaise and add the split batch to it? If yes, the process is sensitive, you should describe it. If you meant to simply throw out the sauce you are making and serve the pure Knorr instead, that's not what most people see as "saving". I guess you could argue that there is no way to save the split batch, but if that's your opinion, you should say so clearly.
Just throw in some ice cubes ! Always works for us even if it turns to scrambled egg, it comes back lovely and smooth !!
This technique is already covered in other answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.141382
| 2010-07-12T10:19:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/728",
"authors": [
"Bl8rchk",
"Bloodgain",
"Edward Q. Bridges",
"J. A. Corbal",
"Marie Ward",
"Mary cella",
"Mohamed Said",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"krolley",
"rumtscho",
"warren"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
274
|
Is there any difference between chopped and crushed garlic in cooking?
Often recipes say to chop garlic, but I usually cheat and just crush it as it's quicker. Is there any difference in doing this? Will it have much of an effect on the flavour of the dish?
I guess it depends upon the definition of "crushed" If by crushed, you mean using a garlic press, then there is quite a difference between chopped and crushed garlic. When you crush garlic, no need for a garlic press, the flat of a knife and a little salt is all that's needed, you release the essential oils, resulting in a stronger flavour. You can also purée the garlic.
It's also important to consider the type of recipe, in some recipes, such as a pasta sauce, chopped garlic is fine. In Asian cooking, especially Indian cuisine, it's common practice to use minced or puréed garlic. In roast dishes, using the whole cloves in the roasting tin with the meat, can produce an incredible sauce.
Chopped and crushed garlic have different flavors in dishes. The smaller the pieces the garlic is made into (with crushed being super small), the more pungent and bitter the flavors. Several food bloggers have reported their experiments on testing the differences.
This sounds surprising, but members of the Allium genus (which includes garlic, onion, leek ...) are booby trapped: around the cells there is a liquid that when combined with a chemical from the cell's interior creates a series of nasty sulfur compounds. The more the cells are damaged and exposed to oxygen by cutting or crushing, the more of these sulfur compounds are generated.
If the garlic is fried, the size of the pieces also determines how much of it browns. For crushed garlic this can happen before one has a chance to add more liquid to the dish, essentially burning the garlic and imparting a bitter taste to the dish.
Really interesting. I guess that the kind of press matters as well. The press I use leaves the pieces of about the same size I get when mincing...
Not much in my experience, what really does make a difference is between chopping/crushing it and slicing it.
Sliced browned garlic gives less flavor to the dish as a whole, but remain a tasty thing by itself.
@roux: You mean between chopped and crushed garlic, I assume
For salads, you'd want to use crushed garlic, actually i find for any dish that is serves raw garlic, has to have it super duper minced/pureed. Biting on a small piece of garlic usually leaves a bit of a bitter taste.
in cooking, if you're sauteeing, then the garlic has to be a bit finely minced / chopped so it doesn't burn as easily if it were pureed
in roasting, slow cooking methods, low temperature cooking, that you want to have large chunks of garlic as that'll be the only way to extract all the flavors out of the darn thing
I find some difference. It's not so much taste as appropriateness for use in the dish.
You get slightly more taste out of crushed garlic (by which I assume you mean crushed in a garlic press). But this is only as a result of the surface area and also the fact that there's more of the juice is released - it tends to be wetter. However it tends to burn quicker as the individual components are smaller.
Therefore I find that crushed garlic is better in recipes where you cook briefly or add at the end for the stronger raw garlic taste.
Chopped garlic is better for recipes where you're just using it to accentuate a flavour - along with onions or shallots. Because it's bigger it takes longer to cook as well (not by much mind).
I'm hoping you know the knife trick, where you put the garlic between the cutting board and the broad side of a knife, and then POW: crushed garlic. A little hit for bigger chunks, a big hit for pulverization. A quick dice afterwards for really fine results.
I like adding garlic closer to the end, which isn't the traditional way of treating it as an aromatic. It imparts a lot more flavor, and if you have good garlic, it works great. But I like garlic a lot.
Crushing garlic in a press practically liquifies the garlic and releases compounds that give a bitter metallic flavour. This is very obvious when making such things as garlic/cheese flatbread or pizza. Slicing the garlic gives the garlic flavour without the raw metallic taste and smell.
NO
Both will do, but crushing is easier.
I have been a chef for over 40 years. I have used crushed garlic and sliced garlic which I dice up. I find that the sliced garlic has a more nutty flavor to my recipes as the crushed garlic has bitter bite back. I have done blind tasting with my staff and regular customers everyone preferred the slice garlic.
Chop garlic if you're frying it, crush garlic if you're adding it to a wet sauce or mixture.
For example, I prefer to cook a Chili by frying the minced meat first and adding the garlic later - crushed garlic works well for this. However if I'm softening onions and adding garlic chopped works best.
Same taste. And you keep your utensils clean ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.141707
| 2010-07-09T22:08:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/274",
"authors": [
"Brandon",
"DamonJW",
"Noel M",
"Peter Gibson",
"Shalmanese",
"Simurr",
"TheJuice",
"Valentin Rocher",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"clarke ching",
"grizwako",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"matli",
"nhinkle"
],
"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
}
|
618
|
Best chopping board material for meat
I've heard that using a wooden chopping board for cutting meat is not very hygienic as it is a porous material. If that is the case, then what would a chopping board ideally be made out of when chopping meat?
In fact it's the porous nature of wood that makes it ideal for preparing meat. There was a test done a while ago, which showed the bacteria are drawn into the wood and no longer replicate; in fact they die relatively quickly.
Personally, I can't stand plastic boards, they're hell on good knives and although they're non-porous, they do stain. It always makes me feel like reaching for the bleach to remove what might be left...
Besides, have you ever seen butcher's block made out of plastic? Get a good quality hickory or maple board and you're set.
Interesting stuff. I've got a really good maple board and have always been hesitant to cut meat (especially chicken) on it so I always go for the plastic board, but I hate it because as you said, they stain.
I believe the original link I read is from this site http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/docliver/Research/cuttingboard.htm It's also linked to from here http://www.reluctantgourmet.com/cutting_board.htm
Any thoughts on using a bamboo cutting board for meat?
@Jonathon Unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience with bamboo chopping boards, so any comments I made would be speculation.
@Jonathan Bamboo isn't a hardwood, it's a grass. So the study of hardwood board results may not carry over to it.
I've had a number of bamboo cutting boards, and I don't really like them. They're typically lacquered, if not, they can be quite porous. I'd go for a nice maple cutting board if you can afford it.
Buy a butcher's block style wood cutting board. It'll cost a bit of cash, but it'll also be usable by your grandkids if you take care of it.
@JonathonWatney The bamboo boards I've used are harder than maple, so stand up well over time. Not lacquered, I oil them. I do wonder what type of glue is used to hold the laminations together.
I think this is the report previously referred to. Which indicates that the surface of the wood is anti-bacterial. After applying bacteria to it it has disappeared in a very short amount of time. Also as previously mentioned the bacteria migrate the middle of the board, which is why you should never use a split board or stab the board to get a knife to stand upright.
An endgrain board will also work very well, as you cut the marks left will be in to the fibres of the board which when washed will swell and reseal the board leaving less surface area for bacteria. No such process exists on plastic boards, every cut increases the surface area for bacteria and often in hard to wash places.
Bamboo is very hard and not so kind on knives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.142156
| 2010-07-11T12:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/618",
"authors": [
"Arc",
"Brett Allen",
"Jennifer Anshus",
"Jonathon Watney",
"Leah",
"Matthew",
"MichaelJW",
"Mike Byrne",
"MnO2",
"NimChimpsky",
"Peter V",
"Pulse",
"Sisterray",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"hometoast",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"lomaxx"
],
"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
}
|
626
|
What can I use for a Crème brûlée if I don't have a blow torch?
I've always wanted to make a Crème brûlée but I don't have a blow torch to burn the top with. Is there anything else I can use to get that nice crunchy caramel on top?
Follow these steps and watch very carefully...
Set your oven on Broil (high) and put your rack on the top shelf.
Let the oven get nice and hot (3-7 minutes).
Fill an oven safe dish with crushed ice and water and place your dishes into the ice/water bath.
The cold bath should keep the custard from cooking, but the sugar on top will heat till it caramelizes.
It'll only take 3-4mins.
hadn't thought of the water bath ... that's a great idea. (but be careful with ceramics (glass/stone/etc) going straight from the oven into ice water -- they might shatter from the temperature change if they change temperature too quickly).
Broil (American) == Grill (Australia; UK)
I've used this method and it works wonderfully. It appeared in a cordon blue[sp?] book.
Follow your oven's instructions, but usually you should keep your oven door partially open during broil/grill operation, since it works using IR radiation and not diffusion, this will also prevent the creme from starting to cook (if you don't use the cold bath), and work only on the sugar layer.
This is actually the more traditional method of preparing Crème brûlée in my experience. Blow torches are for enthusiasts :)
You saved my desert. I had no gas!
The old fashioned way was with an iron (not like today's steam iron -- a heavy chunk of metal at the end of a handle) you'd heat it up, and press it against the sugar to cook it. Of course this typically means having a chunk of metal that's just slightly smaller than your container.
Some of the high-pressure torch style lighters might also work or you can try putting it under the broiler, but I'd really suggest picking up a propane torch if you're interested in creme brulee.
Don't go to a kitchen store, as they're vastly overpriced -- get one from a hardware store. They're maybe $15 or so, and they have a number of uses -- I've soldered pipes, used it to light the grill and even used it for gardening (you know that weed block fabric? You can burn holes in it where you want to plant, which saves a lot of time over cutting).
An old spoon works a treat as the sort of "iron" you're talking about: you can heat the bowl on a gas stove, and then press it against the sugar in patches. Caveat: don't do this to a spoon you're not willing to convert permanently to a creme brulee iron!
Here's what we did exactly once but it worked for us:
Cut a area out of foil the exact size that you want the topping to be
Spray one side with non-stick cooking spray
Mix some of the sugar topping and put it on the foil
Put the foil+topping on a cookie sheet and broil. Watch them closely -- this doesn't take long.
Bonus for our situation: this was for an event the next day at work. By pre-making the delicate little topping disks, they could be kept separate from the custard until the last moment. This meant the sugar didn't get soggy or broken for anyone. It also meant that only this tiny package could be handled with care while the rest of the stuff could be handled normally.
I don't know what you mean by "mix some of the sugar topping", but I tried this with plain sugar on aluminium foil and the same with butter, but in both cases the caramel ended up in drops, no layer. You'd have to use lots and lots of sugar to get a layer: it would have to be way too thick?
may have already been said but you can use the oven top shelf if it's turned onto the grill. When i worked in a restaurant we used to use the combi oven, which had the pull down grill to heat the top of creme brulee :) Hope you get it done :) xxxxx
It's actually the top answer, but it was written as 'broil' not 'grill'. I've added a comment that hopefully will clarify things for the non-Americans. You may also want to see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca
In theory you could place the Crème brûlée under a very hot grill for a few seconds, but you are in danger of killing the custard too. Personally, if this is something you anticipate doing frequently, buy a torch. You don't need to spend load on a specialised kitchen torch, just go to your local DIY and get a standard propane plumbers torch.
Easy:-
mix the sugar with a bit of Vodka and spread over the brule.
Light with a match or lighter and see the sugar caramelize as if by magic.
Would other spirits work?
You can use an electric stove that has a broil function. Put the rack on the top slot, turn on the broiler, wait until it is red hot and then add the cups of crème brûlée right under the element until you have a golden crust.
The crust will be thicker than if you used a torch. Nonetheless, i find the result perfectly fine.
Just put sugar in a pan, and let it melt; then, pour it over the creme and refrigerate it so it hardens.
I fear that would not give the proper texture for the crème brûlée top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.142445
| 2010-07-11T14:02:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/626",
"authors": [
"Aant",
"Aviv B.",
"Cerberus",
"Darel",
"Guillermo",
"Hannelie van Jaarsveld",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jay Blanchard",
"Joe",
"Juliette",
"Kazi Ali Noor",
"Moe",
"Noah",
"Roman",
"SurDin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"x711"
],
"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
}
|
625
|
Can I re-use rice if it has been used for blind baking?
I often use rice when blind baking... and then I throw it out which is obviously a waste. Am I able to keep the rice and either use it again for blind baking or even to cook and eat later?
I have cooked rice that was used for weighting a pie crust with fine results. I should have cooked some that wasn't baked to see what the difference was, but in any case it turned out fine. Of course it may matter what temp the rice was baked at and for how long, and this could also affect the duration needed to cook the rice itself.
I have also boiled beans that were previously baked, and they turned out fine, too.
If you have used the rice several times as a pie weight, it will not cook well. I would recommend either using the same designated bit of rice every time as a pie weight (keep in a separate baggie/jar) or use the rice only once as a weight before cooking it as a meal.
Whether using rice or beans (I've used both) you first want to line the pastry dough with parchment paper or foil and then place the beans or rice on top.
You can re-use either over and over. I have dried beans that I've been using for more than a decade. Just let them cool completely before placing into a coffee can or other such storage container. If you put them in the can while warm they will produce condensation and then get musty and stinky. Make sure they're labeled so that no one tries cooking them. I know Kevin said he's cooked beans that had been previously baked but the more you bake them the drier and harder they're going to become.
I prefer beans over rice due to the small size of rice. If it should fall onto the dough on the bottom of the crust while removing the paper/foil, it is hard to removed and can easily get pushed into the dough in the process (depending on how much it had been blind baked...usually you remove the weights and continue to cook the bottom for browning/crisping.
+1: A decade? I'm kind of curious to see what would happen if you tried to boil and eat some.
I'll be happy to send some and let you try...I'll take your word for it as I have no plans to do so myself!
I just don't like keeping dedicated pie weights around, so I use the beans/rice after baking just once--but maybe it's because I rarely make pies.
You can use it for blind baking again, but I don't know how well it would work out for eating -- you can always try it once, and let us know how it goes.
(I use beans for pie weights, myself, and save them for re-use)
I actually sprung for a few sets of ceramic pie weights, because I got tired of beans occasionally sticking to the crust, and then having to worry about storing slightly-used beans separately from their unused kin.
I'd say there would be no problem re-using it in the short term. I'd watch out in the long term though: rice is really hygroscopic, and once it gets a little water in it, it won't be good for long.
I always put a layer of foil between the crust and the weights; that should keep anything from sticking.
@kevin selker: Actually just tried this last night, and it worked fine. Thanks.
I've never used rice for blind baking, I always use dried beans, which can be used multiple times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.142983
| 2010-07-11T13:48:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/625",
"authors": [
"Brandon Satrom",
"Darin Sehnert",
"James",
"Jess",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kilhoffer",
"Mistie Kelley",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tom Mayfield",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"kevins",
"mamadalgas",
"yort"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27769
|
Can Calcium Chloride be Used to Prevent Lentils from Bursting?
In Modernist Cuisine, they recommend using calcium chloride when cooking beans to help preventing them from bursting:
Beans often burst after being cooked in ordinary tap water. To avoid this...[a]dd 1g of calcium chloride for every 100g of water to gently firm the outside of the beans, which prevents them from splitting without making them tough.
My question is whether or not this would work for lentils too? I am specifically referring to varieties intended to stay intact such as green or brown lentils rather than the various hulled or split ones used in Indian cooking for dals.
Out of curiosity, is that during soaking, or during cooking? Don't have a copy of the books :-(
It's during cooking, apparently tinned bean manufacturers use it when pressure cooking their beans.
I finally found the answer to this question: I was in the supermarket yesterday and on a can of lentils the ingredients listed on the side of the tin had the phrase 'firming agent' in brackets beside the entry for calcium chloride.
That's a good question, and I have no direct experience in using calcium chloride, however looking at the ingredients for many canned lentil products shows calcium chloride being a very common ingredient, so I would suspect it may work. It's got a very salty flavor though, so don't go overboard.
As a counterpoint adding salt to lentils during cooking is discouraged as it makes them tough, it's quite likely calcium chloride will have the same effect.
If you do try it please post your experience, I'd really like to hear how it works out.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20754/does-adding-salt-when-soaking-dry-beans-toughen-or-soften-the-skin-of-the-bean: salt softens the skins of beans, and calcium and sugar toughen the beans. The idea that salt toughens them too is a myth. And yes, the calcium chloride toughens them; that's kind of the point here.
@jefromi- but does adding calcium to the water toughen them more? And if so would that make them more or less likely to burst?
The question here is more whether the skins of lentils and beans can be considered as basically identical. I guess I'll just have to order some calcium chloride and do some tests!
@Sobachatina Given that it's in a lot of canned lentils and beans (and even canned vegetables), and those always seem fairly solid, and that McGee says adding calcium toughens them, and that Modernist Cuisine says the same thing... I think adding it toughens them.
@Stefano Lentils don't always have as thick a skin as beans, but they're both legumes, from the same family; I think they're pretty similar. And calcium chloride is used as a firming agent in canned vegetables too, not just beans. I'm pretty sure it'll work just fine.
Also, if you do a pre-soak you can use Calcium chloride, CaCl2 as a pre-soak and rinse. I use it in all my garden vegetables where a crispness after storage is wanted but, not in all such as with bell pepper. I pre-soak almost all dried beans and have very little splitting than they used to without. BTW... it is flavorless and does not present itself as salty. If you have a local wine/beer making supply house nearby you can get it there for pennies on the dollar compared to the Ball brand price. ~WineMaker747
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.143280
| 2012-10-12T14:11:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27769",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jonathon Cowley-Thom",
"Kate The Great",
"Sadhana Parrott",
"Sobachatina",
"Stefano",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jim rothstein",
"lambda",
"user2364424"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21091
|
Handling raw poultry turns my cuticles black!
Whenever I handle raw poultry (chicken, turkey, duck, etc.) my nails, cuticles, and the skin under and around my nails turns black. This happens even after I thoroughly wash my hands, and when working with thoroughly cleaned utensils.
This has been happening to me for over ten years. So far, I've not been able to get an answer as to why, or how to prevent it.
FYI, I've copy-edited your question (this is encouraged on the site, we like all our questions and answers to be as readable as possible). If you don't approve of my copy editing, feel free to edit further, or revert my changes entirely. You can do so by clicking the "edit" button located under the tags.
That sounds very odd. Google turns up nothing. I can only think that the bacteria from the meat is reacting with something on your hands. Does it happen with other meats, say beef or pork?
I'm curious, if you do a 30-30-30 wash before and after handling the meat, does the problem go away? (30 second rinse, 30 second scrub with plenty of soap, 30 second rinse). That is a wash longer than the normal one you'd do for food service, but should get just about everything off without being ridiculously harsh. Also, you may want to try a different soap—it could be something reacting with the soap.
I suspect this is a fake question. No reference to the condition anywhere, no photos, no other participation on SA. They are just seeding an account for spam reasons latter
@pam - any update here? can we get a photo?
As a student of medicine I've never heard of any condition similar to the one you describe, but then there are still a lot of diseases, conditions and genetic prepositions unknown to man (and to medicine students).
First I thought, it might be an allergic reaction to poultry proteins, but our skin normally doesn't have many immune cells on the outside (but can still result in a rash or excema) and you would probably have a really strong alergic reaction when eating poultry (that does not seem to be the case).
What I would like to know is how long does your skin keep being black? Does your hands' colour change slowly or in a few seconds to a black? Do you have any other symptoms during contact to poultry or in general?
Anyhow there are few possibilities. Either something's really wrong with the meat you're buying (and I doubt that) or something's not alright with your skin. Maybe you have some kind of weird bacteria growing on your skin. There a lots of different bacteria physiologically growing on everyones skin ... stil this not seem normal to me.
You should consider seeking professional help and talk to a general practitioner.
Meanwhile I suggest using latex or nitril glove (you should be able to buy them in a drug store). This should prevent your hands from turning black and they still allow you to handle the meat precisely.
I have no idea what's causing this, but the only solution I can think of is to rinse your hands with a bleach solution afterwards. Sounds weird, but it'll kill pretty much anything.
Wearing gloves should solve the problem.
It probably would work, but it would first sacrifice precision, and second, I find the question interesting even if there is a workaround for it.
Sure gloves are an option... But I still need to find out hat the underlying issue is. Today I handled raw ground turkey, after cleaning up and washing, about 45 minutes later my hands were disgusting! My hands looked like I was digging in the dirt. Any more help is appreciated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.143602
| 2012-02-06T18:35:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21091",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marge",
"Pam",
"TFD",
"ZhengTay",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91829",
"rumtscho",
"samthebrand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21537
|
flexible food grade plastics that won't melt at 105 C
I'm in need of a food-safe gasketing material for a maple sap-boiling setup. It needs to be squishy like vinyl tubing but I want to make sure it won't melt or decompose or react with steam.
Any suggestions?
Perhaps this should be moved to http://diy.stackexchange.com/ ?
@Mien, I don't think so. The DIY stackexchange is about home improvement, and they tend to close questions about other types of DIY projects.
Oh, I thought so because the FAQ allows "Questions about best practices for a specific task". But thanks for the info.
There isn't currently a materials science or a chemistry stack exchange, which is where this would probably be more appropriate. The end result is food-related, so I don't think there is a better place for it.
homebrew.stackexchange.com maybe. We use a few different materials to recirculate boiling wort.
Most food-grade gaskets for boiling+ temps and steam applications are Silicone or EPDM, because they are flexible, inexpensive, take very high temperatures, and won't leak weird flavors. EPDM is considered the best for true steam applications. Buna-N (nitrile) and Viton would work as well, but may not hold up as long under steam pressure. For intermittent use, any of the four materials would work.
There are official "food grade" gaskets, but unless you are making product for commercial sale then you don't need products that have been FDA approved - just wash the gasket before installing to remove the packing lubricant.
I wouldn't bother with any big-box hardware stores, though some "specialty" hardware stores or home-brew shops may have what you need. Online is probably your best bet, however.
You might find these guys handy, retailers of many gaskets needed for the brewing industry, many of which may be applicable to you (particularly the standard DIN-style gaskets): http://www.brewerygaskets.com/
Also useful, EMI Supply sells these little tubes of FDA approved silicon sealant (more like a caulk): http://www.emisupply.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=9742
And for general purpose gaskets of every type imaginable, McMasterCarr: http://www.mcmaster.com/#gaskets/=gc516x
If you have more details on the dimensions needed, or the types of surfaces you are mating (including a picture?) it would be easier to choose a direction to go.
That'd be "silicone," not "silicon." The former is a rubbery material used in caulk, medical implants, and cooking implements; the latter is a brittle semiconducting element which would make a poor gasket. +1 anyway for solid answer and a variety of materials.
@Caleb - Thanks for the embarrassing spelling catch. I'm an electrical engineer working in the solar PV world, so I'm constantly reminding people that it is "crystalline silicon" not "silicone". ;)
Silicone. They surely go up to 250°C (but check the package first; mine goes up to 250°C). Or is that too squishy?
You could also just ask a DIY store.
Does it have to be a squishy material? If you just need it to have a specific shape, there are some proven ways of doing this with hard/hardening materials that are high-temp safe.
Glass was the first to come to mind, but that's not exactly easy to mold. Clay, on the other hand, can be made to a certain shape and baked in an oven.
You can also go with molded metal pipes, soldered together with silver-based solder (as opposed to mercury).
If you want something less custom and are willing to pay, there are water distiller kits out there, though I don't know if they'd hit 105 C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.143917
| 2012-02-20T20:55:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21537",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Caleb",
"Lawrence Douglas",
"Mien",
"Mikhail T.",
"Sam Ley",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"user47778"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3950
|
What fuel (burning material) gives the best flavor to meat when barbequing?
I normally barbecue with charcoal, but I've seen wood chips in shops, so I started wondering...
I assume the material you use gives a different flavor to the meat. What is your experience on this regard? When is coal preferable, wood, or gas (the latter IMHO ruins the point)? If wood is better, which kind of wood gives a better taste to the meat?
! that's a good point. getting poisoned with fumes is not my favorite spare time activity indeed, but the pine may be nice for chimney, but not for bbq
Pine isn't even good for your chimney.
When i was a child my father used occasional pine wood. I remember the aroma as pleasant.
pine isn't poisonous, but the resins can burn explosively, causing a major fire hazard (and if your face is over the grill, flying embers can cause nasty burns).
There are two main types of charcoal, briquettes and hard lump. The first comes in preformed pieces, so they are all the same size and include a filler material. They will sometimes also have lighter fluid in them already and be "easy start" or something similar. Hard lump is just charcoal from hardwoods with no filler. These will usually be in all kinds of shapes and look like "natural" pieces of wood (albeit in charcoal form). Hard lump is easy to light, burns hotter, and leaves much less ash than briquettes. It also has a better flavor. I strongly recommend hard lump charcoal.
Wood is usually used to provide smoke as a primary function rather than heat. Smoking on your grill gives a lovely smokey flavor (d'uh). The standard way to use wood is to soak it in water for a period of time prior to cooking. Packages will often say to soak for an hour, and that's ok with wood chips which are very small (but I recommend longer), but it isn't good for anything larger. I generally soak wood for at least 18 hours.
Wood also comes in various sizes, from very small chips (slightly larger than a coin) to large chunks bigger than a fist. The smaller the chips, the less heat they provide and the faster they burn up. These are generally better for shorter smoking times. Large chunks can smoke for 12+ hours if they are properly soaked. In both cases, I put the wood on to already burning coals to get them going.
You can also use just wood to create your heat, in which case you do not soak the wood. When you hear about woodfire ovens, this is what they do. However, I think this is a hassle as it's harder to get the wood lit than charcoal and doesn't provide as much smoke since you haven't soaked the wood. So it's really sub-par in my view. The exception is if you are doing low and slow smoking on some types of charcoal grill, you can use a small bed of coals to light large chunks of soaked wood. Once they get smoldering, this becomes the only source of heat as the coals go out. They smolder hot enough to get new wood going if you find you need more. Great for 12 hour smoking at 200F for Boston Butt or Brisket.
In terms of wood, you want hard woods with low amounts of resin / sap. No glue, nails, etc. It wants to be natural. This is a decent description of types of wood and the smoke they produce. Common woods for BBQ in the SE US are hickory, mesquite, and cedar. I've used old wine barrel chunks which have a really nice flavor, and also bits of rosemary branch (thick from a large plant) which didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped. You can even use the shells of nuts like pecans. This is really a question of seeing what's readily available and experimenting with your own personal taste.
You can also use wood with a gas grill by putting it in a smoking box or tin foil with holes in it, and placing directly on the heating element. Wood chips work best for this. I've never had much luck with this though. It's hard to get the chips smoking and, more importantly, gas grills don't have the airflow through them to properly move smoke over the food. I switched to charcoal pretty quickly and a Big Green Egg about two years ago, and I've never looked back.
Charcoal is for smokeless and flavourless cooking
For a nice smokey BBQ flavour you need some dried, split hardwood. Or fresh hard wood twigs. For quick to cook meats you can even use softwoods, or even driftwood from the beach
Add bunches of greenery and twigs from scented shrubs like tea-tree, lavender, rosemary etc
This is simple BBQ at it's best. No manufactured fuel product, with unknown contents. No soaking on things. Just fresh clean wood smoke. It may sting your eyes, but it makes the food taste great
For best smoke effect have a loose fitting lid over your food while on the BBQ grill. This should trap the smoke, but not create as major oven effect
When you say 'coal', do you mean chunk charcoal, or the type of mineral coal that comes out of the ground, or charcoal briquettes from the market? Wood chips are primarily for flavoring meat and or veg while grilling over briquettes. You soak them in water before using, and they give off a scented, flavored smoke. Chunk charcoal is very hot burning, and needs to be offset from the food for most grilling. Many types of wood give different flavors. In the USA, hickory is a favorite in the NE, pecan wood in the South, mesquite in the SW, etc. The hardwoods are the best to use, and those are frequently found as chunk charcoal (wood that has been partially burned, so the carbon is left to burn again.)
charcoal chunks I guess
Keep in mind that not everyone on this site is from the US. So unqualified directional references like NE, South, and SW are vague.
Not being from USA, I take that north-east means Main, south means Texas, and south west means California; I am not sure it's what judiu meant, nor it's what somebody else would understand.
@kiamlaluno That's probably not what Judiu meant. NE would include everything north of VA or PA, probably. South would be southern-VA through Georgia, and maybe Florida as well. Southwest is more around Texas.
@derobert It's quite subjective; it depends all from what you call the middle of the USA.
Wikipedia has a good map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg
I live in Michigan, and the map matches up with my views. I'd consider "Southwest" to refer to New Mexico and Arizona.
I wouldn't say it's exactly "subjective" as there are official census regions and geographical, historical, and cultural divisions. The South is south of the Mason-Dixon line and the Ohio River, and the Northeast is the part of the original Thirteen Colonies that are north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Midwest is west of the thirteen colonies but east of the Rocky Mountains. The West is the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.144227
| 2010-08-01T19:27:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3950",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Ameer Deen",
"Chris Bergin",
"Chris M",
"Phil Peace",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tim Gilbert",
"WarrenT",
"Zsolt Török",
"avpaderno",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7497",
"jwenting",
"pasja"
],
"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
}
|
13232
|
Lightening Bread
Is there a generally accepted method for lightening bread dough that is pretty general for a variety of breads; pizza crust, whole grain bread, dessert breads, etc.
I'm sorry to sound thick, but what do you mean by 'lightening bread'? Do you mean a fast acting yeast dough? Also, there is no 'catch all' dough to make pizza crust and dessert breads. These types of bread doughs require differing amounts of fat, sugar, milk, the addition of egg, etc. Pizza crust is a lean dough, dessert breads are sweet dough.
Could you define 'lighten' ? Do you mean lower calorie, paler color, a more tender crumb, a more delicate texture, or less weight per given volume?
I mean make it less heavy. I know all of the doughs are different, but didn't know if there was a general baking tip to make them all come out lighter. Sometimes my pizza crust comes out really dense/heavy, and I'd like it to be lighter/fluffier.
Add more water to your pizza crust. Make it softer in the bowl. It will come out lighter.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2316532_make-bread-lighter.html This might be helpful
Heaviness is caused by fiber and lack of water. A dry wheat dough will make a very heavy bread.
On the other hand a very wet dough that has a lot of protein will be lighter. The steam when baking will inflate the protein structure. The extreme example would be angel food cake which is light enough to not really be bread anymore.
Obviously you don't want it to be too light because then you get wonder bread. A lot of the things that make bread taste good also make it heavier.
The variables you can play with are:
Water- the wetter the lighter (as long as it isn't so wet to no longer have structure)
Protein- High protein flour or adding gluten will help.
Fiber- lower fiber flour will be lighter. (but also less tasty)
Additives- Chunky additions, such as whole grains, can damage the protein structure if overdone.
Also, once it has gone through an initial rise and you are shaping it for proofing, handle very lightly and avoid degassing as much as possible.
@justkt so I'm guessing tossing a pizza crust is much better than beating it down on a flat surface? It's unfortunate because I really suck at tossing pizza dough.
@Canuteson - the water is key for pizza. For breads the degassing as little as possible is a lot more feasible, but for sandwich breads which you don't want big holes in it's not ideal. It works best for rustic breads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.145075
| 2011-03-17T13:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13232",
"authors": [
"Anna Taurogenireva",
"Bilkisu Isa",
"Canuteson",
"Joe",
"cpurick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"mrwienerdog",
"nixy ",
"raspacorp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22485
|
How can I make shredded beef?
In Australia, shredded beef is not something you can buy easily. I haven't seen it anywhere except in restaurants.
I would like to know how I can make my own restaurant quality shredded beef; the same kind that appears in "Mexican" restaurants. Please also provide information on which cut of beef I should be using along with the process.
You can use Chuck to make your shredded beef. Cook it for a long time, at a low temperature, until a probe slides in and out of it with no resistance. Braising in a liquid seasoned with spices like cumin, garlic, and chili powder will get you the flavor profile you want (I recommend either finding a recipe or some trial and error).
I'd also suggest brisket, which breaks down into nice tender strands
@Sean - Thanks for your answer. How do I do the 'shredding' part once I get the meat soft? I tried once, but it ended up more like mince.
@xiaohouzi79 If you've cooked it long enough, you should be able to pull it apart with two forks, no cutting involved.
@xiaohouzi79: You can also just use your fingers.
@jefromi- the problem with using your fingers is that you have to let it cool and then you end up eating it all one sneaky bite at a time.
What @Yamikuronue said.
I was recently introduced to pork adobo, and it has become my current cooking obsession. The method is just as described here, only with soy sauce and vinegar in the braise.
I prefer a pressure cooker. Use a roast or some cheap cut of beef (or pork), cut it in chunks and pressure cook it for 10-15 minutes. Then, use two forks to pull it apart. If it is done enough, it falls apart and makes wonderful shredded beef. Flavorings can be added after that initial cooking.
using a crockpot is the easiest way. take beef brisket (around 2 pounds for 4 servings) and submerge in liquid in the crockpot. either use beef stock, seasoned water, or my favorite- beer. cook on low for 8-9 hours. remove the brisket from the crockpot and put on a cutting board. take two forks-using one to hold the brisket down, the other to pull at the brisket. work along the striations in the beer, and you should get pulled or shredded beef. put the now pulled beef into a bowl and ladle some of the cooking juices onto the beef to keep it moist. if you want to add hot sauce or bbq sauce at this time you can.
before adding to the crockpot, make sure to trim some of the larger fat junks off of the brisket. makes for pulling the beef later much easier.
When I put it in the crockpot it overcooks even on low. I have a temperature controlled cooker but I have no idea what temp is best.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.145417
| 2012-03-22T05:39:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22485",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie VanHooser",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FabulousGlobe",
"John Watson",
"Rimian",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"Susan Wilcox",
"Yamikuronue",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"going",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"user50608"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22624
|
Can I make buckwheat flour starting from toasted buckwheat?
My wife asked me to buy "buckwheat" and I did, but she meant buckwheat flour (for making bread) and I got toasted buckwheat instead.
I don't want to throw it out if I don't have to. We have a mortar and pestle. Can I just grind the heck out of the toasted buckwheat to make the flour or is buckwheat flour something else?
Thanks!
You could always just boil/steam it and eat it as cereal.
Buckwheat is more similar to a sunflower seed than grass cereal grains like wheat, but they have similar characteristics. Buckwheat has a hard outer shell (like wheat's chaff), with a starchy endosperm inside. It's the endosperm you need to grind into flour. I'm not certain, but I would guess the wheat you have already has its husk removed and is not the whole grain.
You can make flour from buckwheat by hand. However, using a motar and pestle to grind will be tedious labor, unfortunately. (But not impossible!) You need to pulverize the endosperm, which sounds easier than it actually is. If your buckwheat is whole grain, you will need to first remove as much of the germ as possible.
I'd suggest using an electric grain mill if you're intensely about serious turning it into flour. A decent grain mill costs $175 or more.
Personally, I'd make use of the buckwheat as an additive or topping for other breads I make. A flatbread with millet and buckwheat flour (purchased or milled yourself) would be good.
Lastly, if you have no immediate use for the buckwheat: It'll keep for about 2-3 months in a sealed container in the fridge or 6 months or longer in the freezer.
The previous answer did not address the question of whether the toasted variety is the source of the flour. The answer is that both types are available but flour from toasted groats is more common. Unfortunately, the packaging rarely makes the distinction and simply says “buckwheat flour”
I wouldn’t use a mortar. Use a blender or steel coffee grinder. Toasted buckwheat is much lighter and easier to grind than say, whole wheat berries
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.145664
| 2012-03-28T23:17:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22624",
"authors": [
"Itakura",
"Robbie Morris",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52290",
"stonk-overflow"
],
"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
}
|
7345
|
Can I make Crème Brûlée using a flambé?
I've made Crème Caramel/Crème Brûlée several times and don't have too much trouble with it. I'll be making them for company this weekend and thought it would make for a nice spectacle to flambé them. But, I don't have a lot of experience in that technique, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not going to set the entire dining room on fire by accident.
Has anyone attempted (successfully, preferably) to caramelize the sugar in a Crème Brûlée by flambéing the surface as opposed to simply heating it with a torch? And if so, what exactly was involved?
How much alcohol would be required for a single standard ramekin?
Can it be done safely right inside the ramekin?
Can I light it with a quick touch of the torch, or should I use a match instead?
Could this have negative effects - i.e. ruining the flavour or melting the gelatinzed cream?
How long should I expect it to burn for and how long would it be necessary to wait before eating?
Do some types of alcohol work better for this than others? (I'm leaning toward brandy)
Anything else I should know or any other precautions I should take?
Basically I'd like to know everything I possibly can about the flambé technique as it would relate specifically to Crème Brûlée before actually attempting it.
I'd be surprised if it gave you a decent crust, but it'd be very impressive to do a little flambéing on top of an extant crust.
@cee: Oh, I'm not really expecting a crust. I just think it would look cool and would probably succeed in caramelizing the sugar and maybe impart a little of the liquor taste. Just want to make sure it won't also caramelize the ramekins and/or ruin the flavour.
It might work better if you did it as a creme caramel - Essentially the same thing, but gooey caramel at the bottom of the ramekin (Which you can turn out on the plate) instead of a crust on the top. -- This would be really good flambéed with 60% Stroh's
@chris: I made crème caramels for the same event, but I didn't flambé them. There's really nothing to flambé; as you've noted, the sugar is already turned into soft caramel.
The final word!
After a few hours of experimenting today, this is what I discovered:
No "standard" alcohol burns hot enough to caramelize the sugar using a reasonable small amount (i.e. less than 1 tbsp).
Since there's an open flame, it will probably eventually caramelize the sugar, but the amount of alcohol required to burn that long makes the straightforward flambé method totally impractical for individual Crème Brûlées (the way that they're supposed to be served). Testing with vanilla pudding as per Michael's suggestion using a very thin layer of sugar on top, even if you drown the entire ramekin in 80-proof alcohol, the sugar will simply dissolve before it caramelizes.
roux came up with a very good suggestion in a comment - caramelize the sugar separately and let it harden, then grind it into a powder and flambé that. The only slight problem with this is that it grinds into the consistency of dust almost instantly, and as soon as you pour any alcohol over it, it will dissolve.
So here's how I actually (successfully) did it:
Caramelize the sugar about an hour in advance. Pour off and let it harden. Roux recommended using a silpat but it's perfectly possible to just dump it into a heatproof container. If using a container, then as soon as it hardens, crack it with a knife in 2 or 3 places and let it sit for another 10-15 minutes; the cracks will spread and eventually it will "shatter" into large chunks which are easily removed.
Grind the hardened sugar using a spice grinder. As stated above, it will take on the consistency of confectioner's sugar (beware, it is very dusty, you might want to turn the range fan on while you scoop it out of the spice grinder). Place it in a separate (preferably wide) container.
Over time the ground sugar will actually start to crystallize again, which is why I wrote above to do this about an hour in advance. You're aiming for a consistency that is sticky and somewhat hard but still easy to shape with your hands.
Spread a thin layer of the semi-hard sugar on each Crème Brûlée - not too thin, though, you don't want this to dissolve instantly, so aim for at least a few (2-3) mm. It should be pretty easy to "mold" the sugar into shape.
Heat some cognac or other strong alcohol in a separate saucepan. The amount depends on how many Crème Brûlées you're preparing, but you won't need more than a tablespoon per brûlée. You need to get the alcohol hot if you want it to really burn when lit, but don't let it boil, otherwise it won't ignite. This is standard flambé stuff but I'm putting it here for reference. Personally, I let it heat up until I see a little bit of steam (but before any simmering).
Don't pour the hot alcohol into the Crème Brûlées yet. Instead, take the saucepan off the heat and light the alcohol by itself inside the saucepan. You should probably do this using a barbecue lighter, although I had no trouble using a butane torch. Don't worry, it won't erupt in a massive fireball, but the saucepan will heat up very quickly so you might want to hold it with an oven mitt.
Pour a small amount of the flaming alcohol into each Crème Brûlée, and work quickly otherwise all the alcohol will burn off. It will melt the already-caramelized sugar very quickly.
Allow all of the remaining alcohol to burn off until the flames disappear, then let it cool for at least 5 minutes. Once the sugar begins to harden again, it will form a perfect crust!
I think it is completely possible to make this work. The key is going to be finding the right amount of sugar and alcohol to use. You'll want to determine this in advance, but I assume you don't want to make a bunch of creme brulee to practice on. So here's what you do. Make a bunch of cheap vanilla pudding and use that as a standin in your ramekins for the creme. You can probably use just a 1" layer for the simulation. Please do this and let us know your results, I agree it would be very fun. You should just casually walk in with your tray all set up and light 'em up without saying anything :).
Brilliant idea with the pudding! It's not going to gelatinize as well as the cream but it should be more than adequate for a little experimentation. And yes, I plan to take the tray in pre-coated, then sweep the torch across it and light up the entire row at once. If it works, it'll be quite a spectacle!
Please let us know how it comes out!
I have done this before and never had a problem. My crèmes are baked in a water bath then cooled all day (at least 6 hours). I then sift fine brown sugar over top, completely covering the crèmes, then broil them closely under broiler (watching constantly) until caramelized (only few minuets); then I top with a couple of teaspoons 180 proof rum and flame. They come out perfect.
The broiling is done just before serving and rum is added while still hot from broiler and immediately flamed. I do the flaming at the table and warn guests to wait a few minuets before sampling. I can do this for dinner party of 6 or less by myself but if there are more guests, I need help.
I suppose this will produce the same eventual result, but the flambé ends up having no real effect and being entirely for show. Might as well use the torch. In my version and Daniel's, it looks like the sugar is actually being caramelized; like any good trick, there's some cheating going on behind the scenes, but it's pretty convincing nonetheless.
I can see I am WAY late here, but, I'd recommend simply using the torch on a really thin sugar coat in advance. Than, prior to serving, pour alcool on them and flambé. No one will notice/mind the fact that it's not the flambé that actually created the crust. I am French and work in a French restaurant and this is own we do it.
I had a crème brulee at a restaurant recently to which they set light to brulee it. "When questioned they said there was a culinary gel they used. which they mix with sugar. Once I can find a link to where it can be purchased I will attach a link
I've had this at a resturant. The dish was called "Bakewell Brulees" (Bakewell is a town near here famous for its tarts which are almond, cherry affairs).
The dish came with 3 mini brulee, one almond, one cherry and one mixed. They had obviously already poured over armanac or something and proceeded to light at the table. Once the flame went out there was a perfect crust.
so its certainly possible.
I'd guess there was already a crust under the liquor when they brought it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.145861
| 2010-09-15T21:33:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7345",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chef Marz",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Joshua Kast",
"Kevin Watson",
"M Edward Lovett",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike",
"Mikhail Glushenkov",
"Tomik",
"Valkyrie",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94196",
"user15065"
],
"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
}
|
11793
|
Could coconut cream be used to create a non-dairy ganache for whipping?
A few days ago I made a batch of profiteroles and éclairs, with a minor twist: For half the profiteroles, instead of chantilly cream I used a whipped ganache made from about 2 parts dark or bittersweet chocolate to 1 part each butter and whipping cream, then whipped it to a medium-brown consistency for piping into the cream puffs. Needless to say, these ones turned out to be everybody's favourite and disappeared within seconds.
Then I got asked if I could make a non-dairy version, for various dietary reasons which I won't get into here. At first I laughed, but after some further thought, it seems like it might be possible. The choux paste uses only shortening for fat, so it would just be a matter of imitating the chocolate ganache.
I've seen various "substitutions" using soy or rice milk. In my humble opinion, they taste wretchedly awful. I also found a tip saying to use coconut cream, which sounds much more promising, but I haven't worked with coconut cream very much and have some concerns:
Does coconut cream actually whip, or would I have better luck whipping coconut milk?
Given that cartons of whipping cream are already loaded up with carrageenan, and the recipe linked above suggests the incorporation of starch - will I need to add emulsifiers/stabilizers? Any ideas as to which ones would work best for this and in what quantity?* I don't need it to be stable for days, but it should keep for at least a few hours at room or refrigerator temperature.
Are there relative perceived differences in sweetness between coconut cream and whipping cream? Will I need to incorporate sugar to make up for the mild natural sweetness of whipping cream, or, alternatively, is the coconut milk/cream going to be too sweet?
If I do need to incorporate sugar, would it make any sense to use icing sugar to act as a (partial) stabilizer, or should I stick to superfine and handle the stabilization aspect with dedicated additives?
Can I rely on the coconut cream (or milk) whipping with the chocolate, or would I get better (airier/stabler) results whipping it separately (perhaps using an iSi?) and then folding it into melted chocolate (presumably adulterated with some water or butter substitute to prevent seizing)? Or could I get even better results by doing both - whipping it separately, then blending and whipping the entire mixture again to full volume?
Finally, I am pretty sure that I can substitute cocoa butter for the regular (dairy) butter, but is there any reason why this part of the substitution would cause problems?
* My instinct says lecithin and xanthan gum, but that's only because I know it works for a dairy chocolate/cream whip, I have no idea about coconut.
Proper whipping cream does not include any other ingredients and it whips up just fine. It's the fat that causes it to hold the air that causes it to whip. That's why you need a minimum of about 35% milk fat. My guess is that the coconut milk doesn't behave this way on its own, so needs the starch to thicken it artificially.
Very interesting idea, I wish I had the answers (actually, my fingers itch to try it out just to see what happens). But I cannot understand one part of your question: "Is coconut cream or milk going to be sweet enough to substitute for dairy cream". Dairy cream is not sweet (and that is a good thing). And some ideas: I wouldn't add sugar, but then I never add sugar to a canache, because the chocolate is already full of it. Also, my instinct says to go much lighter on the fat, or even forego butter/cocoa butter, because cocoa milk feels much fattier in the mouth than regular dairy cream.
@Allison: I'm not sure what you mean by "proper whipping cream", but every carton of whipping cream I have ever seen contains stabilizers. We even had a question about where to find cream without additives - it's quite difficult! The fat does matter, of course; however, since I've never actually attempted to whip "pure" cream (on account of the fact that I've never possessed said ingredient), I can't confirm or deny that the resulting whipped cream would actually be stable for more than a few minutes.
@rumtscho: I suppose sweetness is relative; dairy cream obviously isn't sweetened but it does have a very small amount of natural sugar which I'm not sure exists in coconut cream (or maybe coconut cream is sweeter). I'm also using dark/bittersweet chocolate, which isn't too heavy on the sugar, and also, the idea was to substitute cocoa butter for the regular butter, not for the cream (i.e. use equal parts coconut milk/cream and cocoa butter instead of equal parts whipping cream and butter).
@Aaronut - I guess it depends where you live. In Europe, it generally comes without any additives and I have no problem with my cream staying whipped.
I'd just like to say that I'm loving following the answers to this question!
I don't know how well it would whip, but this recipe has a good non-dairy ganache glaze made with soy creamer. I tried it and it tasted great (http://www.thekitchn.com/bittersweet-baking-finalist-6-42089)
@Aaronut:yes but i support answer of Allison as well , he is saying rhight it depends on where you live. :):)
Organic Valley Whipping Cream, Ingredients: Organic Grade A Cream (Milk), Carrageenan.
Local Dairy Heavy Whipping Cream Ingredients: Heavy Cream, Skim Milk, Contains Less than 1% of Each of the Following Ingredients: Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 80 and Carrageenan.
I don't think the 1% of non-dairy ingredients is going to fundamentally change how the the local dairy HC works in a recipe.
Inspired by rumtscho's incredibly detailed answer, which provided some informative although not quite "marketable" results, I set off on my own set of experiments. They are not quite finished, but I'll update this answer as more gets uncovered.
First of all, I decided to start my experiments with coconut cream by itself because, why waste perfectly good chocolate on something that I'm probably going to end up throwing out?
The Cast
My kitchen isn't an emporium of food additives, but I think I have enough to get by:
Left to right: Coconut cream, coconut milk, egg white powder, guar gum, xanthan gum, lecithin (liquid), and agar powder.
Not pictured but in stock are gelatin (not appropriate for vegan or kosher preparations), icing sugar (laying off the sweeteners for now), and various other thickeners that are essentially equivalent to guar gum (corn starch, arrowroot, tapioca, etc.)
Coconut Cream
First Look
I've only used coconut cream a couple of times before, mainly for curries, and didn't even really remember what it was. Judging by the other answers here, many people aren't actually familiar with coconut cream as opposed to the much more commonly-available coconut milk; to get coconut cream, you usually have to go to an Asian market (fortunately, there's a T&T near me).
As you can see, coconut cream has a fairly high amount of fat, a surprisingly low amount of sugar, and almost no protein. Whilst thinking about what emulsifiers would be useful here, I noticed that the manufacturer had already beaten me to the punch; carboxymethyl cellulose and polysorbate 60 are well-known E number additives. I'm wondering if these are going to help me with whipping or just cause more problems.
Taking a look inside:
This stuff is clearly nothing like whipping cream. It doesn't even pour. It's essentially a stiff jelly that I have to dig out with a spoon, and as I empty the can into a bowl, it becomes clear that the "milk" component separates while in storage:
Note to self: Next time you make a curry with this ooze, mix it first.
Will it whip?
The short answer is no.
I gave it several minutes with an electric beater and it didn't even really start to whip. No peaks, not even really any bubbles.
Based on the results so far, I decide not to bother with guar gum; this cream-like substance does need need thickening, it needs air.
Xanthan Gum
Xanthan is probably the most forgiving additive in terms of preparation and measurements, so I decide to start with that. I start adding it in increments of 1/8 tsp:
After the first 1/8 tsp, it's starting to thicken, but no real stability yet. Another 1/8 tsp and soft peaks are starting to form. After the third round, it's starting to look very custard-like, and at 1/2 tsp of xanthan gum, it's really quite "gummy" indeed, resembling the consistency of melted marshmallow or marshmallow spread. Interesting, but not what I wanted. The optimal amount seemed to be around 1/4 tsp (per half-can or 200 mL) when I was seeing soft peaks; after that, everything really just went south.
Verdict: Useful additive, but not sufficient by itself. I've also ruled out agar at this point, because that's just going to give me something even stiffer and more jelly-like than xanthan gum.
Egg White Powder
Even though real whipping cream is basically all fat and no protein, at this point I was considering that the coconut cream was simply too heavy and that the protein from egg white powder - basically meringue powder without the sugar - might help lighten it up a bit.
I'm not even going to bother posting the photos of the first attempts, because I kept adding more and more powder and getting nothing out of it. Finally, exasperated, I got ready to dump it down the drain - and immediately after some water from the tap hit the bowl, it started to foam:
Intrigued by this, I decided to actually follow the instructions and get the egg white powder fully dissolved in water to make it... well, sort of like an actual egg white.
I'm getting a lot more bubbles here, such that I could probably skim some of it off for a foam, but a foam is unfortunately not what I'm after here. Knowing full well that egg whites and fat don't play nice together, I had hoped that some lecithin would work as a lipid/water emulsifier:
I really seemed to get very little out of the lecithin except for a yellower hue. The last photo you see up there was after I (gradually) loaded up on xanthan again to see if it would make any difference at all over the first set of xanthan experiments - it really didn't, and the custard was pretty vile-tasting at this point.
Verdict: Neither egg white powder nor soy lecithin are any help at all.
Alternative Method
At this point I was on my last batch of coconut cream and rapidly running out of ideas. If I'd had some carrageenan, I might have tried it at this point, but it's a very difficult additive to find around here.
Then it occurred to me that I actually have a tool designed to whip foams and gels that aren't cream-based - my iSi Creative Whip. I was somewhat skeptical about whether or not this would actually work, because the coconut cream was already very thick and you're normally supposed to homogenize and strain anything that goes into the whipper, but - well, see for yourself:
This is by far the most encouraging result so far. I waited an hour to see how stable it was:
It was still holding together. But don't be fooled by the appearance; xanthan gum is shear-thinning, so although this didn't collapse right away, it could easily be liquefied by enough jostling.
After another 2 hours at room temperature it was back to being a pancake (no picture yet). Some cocoa butter might make this more stable, but it's pretty pathetic compared to the chantilly cream, which has been sitting in my fridge for almost a week and is still stable.
Verdict: The whipped cream charger was the missing link; along with some xanthan gum, it's enough to get this goo whipped. The trick will be getting it stay whipped, and I think I'm going to need something stiffer than xanthan - possibly carrageenan.
I'm going to try gelatin; even though I can't really use that in the final product, it does function as a rough approximation of what carrageenan will do. It's also possible that some sugar (or icing sugar) might help stabilize this a little more, but I don't want to add too much, because the coconut cream is already slightly on the sweet side.
Hopefully a combination of gelatin and xanthan gum will make this whip and "set", at which point I can try adding some cocoa butter (or whipping that separately) and folding it all into some melted chocolate for ganache. If the gelatin works at all then I'll order some carrageenan online because I know it'll hold up better than the gelatin due to its higher melting point.
Chapter 2 - Lightening Up
My experiments from last session, while promising, were strongly suggesting to me that coconut cream is just too heavy, too thick for this. It's full of thickening agents and emulsifiers already, so I had to wonder if I was swimming against the current trying to get just the right mix.
I decide to start with coconut milk today, and after having recently read about the viscosity synergy between guar gum and xanthan gum, I decide to try a combination. This is a materially fruitless but nevertheless educational experience - see the pictorial below:
From left to right, top to bottom, these show:
Plain coconut milk in the bowl (1 can or 400 mL);
Coconut milk with 1/2 tsp guar gum and 1/8 tsp xanthan gum, beaten;
Coconut milk with an additional 1/2 tsp guar gum and 1/8 tsp xanthan gum, beaten;
The same mixture, after being left in a stand mixer on high speed;
The same mixture after trying to pipe it out of a bag.
Most sources I found seemed to suggest using guar:xanthan in a 2:1 or 4:1 ratio, so I choose the latter. Using the "recommended" amount (#2 above) it starts to thicken but doesn't really form peaks - like adding corn starch. Doubling that, it starts to become a little too thick, but still sort of creamy, and not too gummy, so I give it a go anyway.
I also try adding a packet of whipped cream stabilizer (basically dextrose and a small amount of other additives), wondering if it might help. It actually sort of does - the peaks were a bit firmer - but it still doesn't hold up too well (what you see in image #5 is with the stabilizer).
Verdict: This was a total failure but for one thing - it demonstrated conclusively that I did not need the heavily adulterated "coconut cream" in order to get a creamy texture. I could use pure coconut milk (coconut extract + water), add my own thickeners/emulsifiers, and get a result that was every bit as thick as the cream.
Last Call
Despite all of these failures, at this point I'm actually pretty sure I understand all the variables. I decide to go big or go home.
Resolving to use coconut milk (not cream), my line of thinking is:
Without thickening, it's pretty watery, so instead of using a ganache technique, I will use Hervé This's Chocolate Chantilly (see bottom of linked page) technique, as also mentioned in an earlier answer here. I don't want watered down chocolate, though; I want rich, thick, melt-in-your-mouth ganache!
Having made several espumas in the past, I know that an appropriate amount of gelatin will set the coconut milk by itself to a mousse-like consistency. So I make an educated guess and assume that to be the total amount of gelatin I'll need for the entire ganache, since the chocolate should have plenty of lecithin already to help hold it together.
Finally, knowing that xanthan is a better stabilizer than gelatin (despite being a poor gelling agent), I resolve to use a very small amount.
Here's the way this went:
I bloom exactly 3.6 g of powdered Knox gelatin in a new 400 mL can of coconut milk. (I didn't do any math here, it was just what I had left of an open packet). N.B. The coconut milk separates in the can, and needs to be blended before blooming the gelatin.
After blooming for about 5-10 minutes, I set the mixture on the stove at medium heat, stirring until the gelatin dissolves. N.B. Coconut milk sputters a lot on the stove and seems prone to scorching - I had to lower the heat to medium-low.
I break out the dark Belgian chocolate callets. Nothing fancy, just the generic wafers from the bulk food store, but a little better than the Baker's chocolate in supermarkets. In total I used approximately 14 oz.
I add a little less than 1/8 tsp xanthan gum to the coconut milk/gelatin mixture, stir it up a bit, then toss in all the callets at once and let them melt (stirring constantly). N.B. The coconut milk was not that hot, so it had to be returned to the stove a few times to get everything melted.
I set the mixture in a bowl, which is inside an ice-water bath, and start beating it constantly with the handheld beater (medium setting, although I don't think this matters much). The first image shows what it looks like while it's still hot.
The last image above shows what it looks like cooled down a bit (but still warm) and, again, after constant beating.
Can you guess what happens next?
Here's what it looks like when it finally started to get cold (below the melting point of the gelatin):
Could it be? I think so! Let's try piping it:
Take that, gravity!
This is no trickery, I assure you - no camera gimmicks nor did I freeze it or do anything else to the mixture between between the last two photos. Completely dairy-free, using only coconut milk, gelatin, and a little bit of xanthan gum.
This actually might be a little too stiff. It was hard (but not impossible) to pipe out. Next time, I'll probably lower the amount of gelatin slightly by 10-20%, and take it out of the ice water bath before it actually gets cool. At room temperature, this has roughly the consistency of soft cake frosting - exactly what you'd expect from a ganache.
In terms of taste, I would have to describe this as: Oh god, somebody make me stop eating this before my stomach explodes. No lie - it's that good. It has an almost fudge-like quality to it, although I can't explain where that would be coming from.
Miscellaneous Tips
I recommend having a silicone spatula and piping bag, otherwise you're going to have a hard time cleaning it up; although you don't notice this at all in the mouth, in the bowl/bag it's a little stickier/pastier than its dairy counterpart.
My version still turned out to be a bit hard to pipe at room temperature. However, the mixture softens and melts quite readily with heat, so if you've scooped it into the piping bag and can't push it out, try running some hot water over the bag itself; it worked perfectly for me.
Final Thoughts
I'd like to test this with carrageenan in order to be sure that this can also be done totally vegan (or pareve). I still don't have any carrageenan yet. It will no doubt be missing some of the melt-in-your-mouth quality that the gelatin provides, but aside from the melting point, the two are pretty similar in the way they behave, so I'm confident that it won't be a problem.
By the way: An hour and a half after I finished whipping this up, that plate I took a picture of, with the spiral of ganache - it's in front of me now and still standing up. This is 100% stable at room temperature.
Now to finish licking off the beaters.
Carrageenan Update
I finally got around to trying this with carrageenan last week. I used a 0.75% solution of iota (would not recommended kappa for this, it sets too hard).
The results were similar to gelatin, although not quite the same. It did ultimately work as a stabilizer, but due to the shear-thinning property, it was a little difficult to pipe out. Often what would happen was that it would start to set inside the bag, and I'd have to apply heat and/or pressure to get the first little bit out, and immediately after that the entire mixture would liquefy and I'd have to sit around waiting for it to harden again.
Bottom line is that carrageenan is functional, but a bit of a pain to work with in this scenario, so if you can use gelatin, it's better to stick to that.
Addendum - The Recipe
Just in case anybody feels like trying this themselves and wants something to print out, here is the condensed version:
Bloom 0.7 - 1.0% powdered gelatin in cold stirred coconut milk (I used 0.9%).
Heat coconut milk to dissolve.
Stir in 0.1% xanthan gum (0.4 g or 1/8 tsp for every 400 mL).
Take off heat and stir in dark or bittersweet chocolate (approx. 1:1, or 14 oz for a 400 mL can of coconut milk) to melt.
Set a stainless steel bowl into an ice water bath and pour in the hot mixture.
Beat with an electric beater (or aerating blade of an immersion blender) until cool.
Side note: While deciding how to dispose of the first, "gummy" xanthan version, I thought I'd try melting some dark chocolate in it anyway and see how it would turn out. I had to thin it out with coconut milk, and it was completely useless for whipping, but it did make an unexpectedly delicious chocolate pudding, which is in and of itself pretty hard to come by if you're going dairy-free. Something else to add to the recipe box, and really very simple to put together. Very chocolatey and very creamy, with just the tiniest hint of coconut.
I am glad to read that there was a solution, and that you found it. It sounds delicious, it is high on my "must try" list now.
+1 for the picture of your "emporium of food additives."
Late to the party, but do you think 100% Coconut Cream (28.5g fat, 3.9g sugar, 3.1g protein per 100mL) would result in a better experience than the stuff used in your experiments? It sounds like the lack of thickening agents would be helpful.
Abstract: Ganache is delicious, but not everyone eats dairy. We examined whether coconut milk can be used for the creation of a non-dairy ganache. We ran a series of experiments. The answer is that, with some creative techniques, you can use it, but it does not come anywhere near to the real thing.
Introduction. Someone wrote a question on Seasoned advice about coconut based ganache and we got curious.
Background. We love ganache even more than pure chocolate, and make it often ourselves, so we think we have all the prerequisites needed to create and judge a coconut based ganache recipe. Our favorite ganache recipe 1 (which we used as a starting point) is: 100 g chocolate, 72% cocoa (only made from cocoa, sugar, and cocoa butter, no vegetable fat or emulsifiers); 100 g cream, at least 30% (non-UHT), 25 g butter.
Method. We prepared the base mix as follows: 25 g coconut milk were heated until boiling. They were removed from the heat. 25 g chocolate (72%) and 6g cocoa butter were added. Everything was left to dissolve. After 5 minutes, the mixture was whipped with a handheld mixer at the second-to-highest setting. This was Version 0. It was divided in two batches. Different versions were made from each batch by gradually adding guar (a knife-point-ful), egg yolk (1, in lieu of lecithine) and sugar (8g per batch). Each version was whipped for at least 3 minutes. The final versions (1c and 2b) where put for 30 min in the refrigerator, then taken out and whipped again. As there were no observable changes after the cold whipping, we do not treat them as a different version. We also made a small portion of dairy ganache for comparison purposes.
Results. These are listed in Table 1. The numbers in the ingredients columns of the table represent the order of adding the ingredients to the mixtures.
Table 1. Experiment results.
The final consistency of version 1c is documented in Figure 1. Note that the peaks do not drip and you can rotate the bowl at 180° without anything falling out. The piece of chocolate was added for color comparison.
Figure 2 shows a zoom of the blue bordered area in Figure 1.
Discussion. It is possible to make a profiterole filling with coconut milk based ganache, but it isn't quite like the real deal. Also, it resembles non-whipped ganache more closely than whipped ganache.
The basic ganache recipe can be done with coconut milk instead of cream and cocoa butter instead of butter. However, it tastes fattier than real ganache, and it is runnier. Unlike dairy ganache, whipping does not result in aeration.
We think that eliminating the cocoa butter altogether will somewhat alleviate the fatiness problem, but we did not test this proposal yet.
A thickening and or emulsifying agent can improve the ganache texture. Even though egg yolk improves aeration, is not a good choice, as it results in a slimy feel. Guar is a better solution.
The addition of sugar ruins the chocolateness of the taste. If bitterness is not desired, a sweeter chocolate (50%) should be used. Only dedicated sugar lovers or Americans should resort to adding sugar. In that case, it should be added before the guar (we would suggest dissolving it in the coconut milk before boiling it) as not to interfere with the texture of the final product.
Threats to validity. First, there was a single tester (the quasi-royal we). Second, this tester is already biased in favor of dairy products in general and specifically for dairy based ganache. Third, many interesting combinations (including xanthan gum and corn starch) could not be tested due to lack of resources.
Conclusion and outlook. We found the experiment very inspirating. It was also yummy. But we'd like to issue an warning: This experiment is dangerous. In the preparation phase, we discovered a penchant for guared coconut water deep fried in coconut fat we'd rather not have known about. Nevertheless, we are looking forward to offering the results for peer preview to a chocolate-loving lactose intolerant co worker.
References: 1 My own recipe book
I'm impressed that somebody actually went out and did this experiment, and in so little time! I'm fairly certain that soy lecithin would not be anywhere near as slimy as an egg yolk, and am still curious as to the effects of using coconut cream (vs. much thinner coconut milk). Still, I'd upvote this several times if I could, well done!
great experiment, kudos rumtscho! ps: had to have a gigle at the 'only dedicated sugar lovers or Americans should resort to adding sugar' bit :)
I was inspired to follow an Herve This recipe for Chocolate Chantilly using coconut milk.
Here is a piccy of the end result. It looks and tastes how I imagine a whipped ganache would.
I had to make some modifications to the original recipe. Here are the details:
60g semi-sweet (70%) chocolate
100 ml coconut milk
2 tbsp coconut butter cream
One bowl of iced water (large enough to dip the sauce pan in)
Break up the chocolate and melt in a small saucepan together with the coconut milk over a medium heat whilst whisking. As soon as the chocolate is melted, put the sauce pan in the iced water and whisk until the mixture starts to thicken. Add the coconut butter and whip some more.
I'm a little unsure on terminology. I assume the thick white part at the top of a tin of coconut milk is the butter (the stuff in the next picture).
Update: In Australia the stuff I called coconut butter is sold in supermarkets under the name coconut cream. Reading Aaronut's comments, it could be that it has other names; coconut oil appears to be a possibility but I can't verify this.
Very nice. Is "coconut butter" supposed to be cocoa butter, or coconut oil? I don't think I'm familiar with anything called coconut butter.
Possibly I'm making up words. The tins of coconut milk I buy have a dense, white, buttery layer on top making up about a third of the volume. The remainder is a thin, semi-transparent liquid. I have chosen to call the top portion coconut butter and the liquid part coconut milk. These need not be the correct terms and I'll edit if someone knows better.
If you can't get hold of coconut milk that has the "butter", I've seen it for sale on its own, albeit in a much denser form, in Asian stores. Possibly it is called "coconut cream" and not "coconut butter".
Coconut cream resembles the consistency of dairy cream; perhaps you are actually thinking of "creamed coconut", but not "cream of coconut" which is used interchangeably for coconut cream (are you confused yet?). Anyway, this does look interesting and perhaps worth a try.
I was browsing around on Rose Levy Beranbaum's blog, and found this very helpful post that covers exactly what you want to do:
http://www.realbakingwithrose.com/2011/04/alternatives_to_heavy_cream_ba.html
That's a great link. Notably, her recipes/technique are focused on ganache for spreading/frosting; I suspect they wouldn't whip very well based on the pictures, but can't be certain without trying.
Glad you like it. Someone in the comments section mentioned that they were going to try whipping the ganache, but I don't see any followup comments. Good luck!
To whip coconut cream you need to take a can of Cream of Coconut and let it sit in the fridge up to 48 hours. The longer the better. Once you take it out, be careful not to shake it, turn it upside down or fiddle with it. All you need to do is open the can at the top. Scoop out only the cream and leave any liquid, the coconut water, at the bottom. If you use any of that it will not stay firm once whipped, and probably won't whip really at all. You need a cold bowl and wire whisk. I have not tried stabilizers yet. The only reason I know of this is because my daughter is allergic to milk and after the first time making it, my husband was hooked (coconut is his favorite food). Now, if you buy the cream of coconut with stabilizers in it, it won't work because you will not get the separation of the fat from the liquid, which is essential.
I am just trying to find out if I can freeze this kind of whipped cream for an ice cream cake. Not really ice cream though. I did read somewhere that if you need to add anything to fold it in after, and it would also need to be cold or the cream will deflate.
"Cream of coconut" and "coconut cream" are the same thing; are you talking about creamed coconut, which comes in a box, or just coconut milk, which also comes in a can and tends to have this separation? If the latter, I think it would be quicker to just use coconut oil - that's more or less the stuff that separates, and you can whip it. Not that tasty though...
Coconut cream from the separation of coconut milk is culinarily very far from coconut oil, like dairy butter the coconut cream has much more to it than fat/oil content (coconut meat extratives, water,etc) and that makes a huge difference in terms of flavor and cooking behavior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.146537
| 2011-02-03T16:35:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11793",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam",
"Allison",
"Andrew Camilleri 'Kukks'",
"Chris Laplante",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Debbi Thues",
"Emily Anne",
"Guozhi Liu",
"Hannahbanana",
"Himanshu Agnihotri",
"John Aschenbrenner",
"Ken Jackson",
"KimbaF",
"Leslie",
"MKHC",
"Martha F.",
"Miloš Miljković",
"Paulb",
"Qnan",
"Yuuki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70181",
"marblegravy",
"mcalex",
"paul",
"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
}
|
23056
|
What is the standard ratio of sugar to cream in Crème Chantilly?
How many grams of sugar should I use for 250 mL of heavy cream to sweeten it?
Some recipes omit sugar entirely, so the lower bound appears to be zero at least for some uses, but what is the upper bound before it becomes overly sweet? Does this depend on what I'm using the crème Chantilly for?
You can be quite free with your sugar amount, depending on what you want to achieve. I would say that as a rule of thumb, you don't want to create too great a contrast between your sauce and your other components. So, if you are using it for dipping fruit, you can use less sugar than usual, else the fruit will be perceived as too sour. For a rich torte, you can go up with the sugar.
As for the normal range, it can start at zero, but this is very unusual for sweet applications. The upper bound is given by foaming: you can't whip cream well if it has less than 30% fat. (This number is for pure raw cream, and varies even there, depending on factors like cow breed. It can be slightly higher or lower depending on cream treatment - pasteurization etc. - and the amount of stabilizers usually added to whipping cream). So, if you start with a cream which has 35% fat, you shouldn't add more than 16.7 g sugar per 100 g cream (40 g sugar per 250 ml). Else your texture will suffer.
You also ask for a standard amount. This will vary regionally. The Professional Chef recommends 57 g of sugar per 454 g (a pound) of cream, which translates to 12.5 g per 100 g, or 30 g per 250 ml. This is an American book, and I have found that using 2/3 to 1/2 of the recommended amount in most American recipes results in good-tasting sweets, whereas the original amount often produces oversweetened dishes. This would be my guideline for a standard amount too. You can adjust it to your own taste.
On a side note, The Professional Chef insists that it whips best if the sugar is sprinkled in after you have achieved soft peaks. I haven't done it this way, but it is worth a try.
It is rather a matter of taste! Put in as much as you like ^ ^
I prefer Wholesome Sweeteners Powdered Sugar for my whipped cream. I use 1-tsp per pint. It dissolves well and provides stability because of the starch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.148855
| 2012-04-15T22:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23056",
"authors": [
"Bruce",
"Carol",
"Craig Holton",
"Dave",
"Marcos Hernandez",
"Marta Suvaco",
"Rayee Roded",
"Scott",
"Sherry",
"Wolf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52260",
"mooreds",
"user2430018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43909
|
Reformulate a marshmallow recipe to remove lactose and HFCS
I'm trying to modify the marshmallow recipe in this post to make it vegan:
http://moleculargastronomy.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/molecular-gastronomy-carrageenan-kappa-and-iota/
The first hurdle is removing the lactose. I did a bit of reading to try to understand its purpose, and wondered if I could replace it with something like calcium lactate? In the post, it mentions that carrageenans are very effective even at very low concentrations in milk, and I remember reading about the presence of calcium salts being a factor, which was why I guessed at the calcium lactate substitution.
Also, this recipe calls for HFCS. I wasn't even aware that you could purchase that (I guess I thought it was more industrial). Regardless, I think the people I am marketing these marshmallows to would freak out if they saw HFCS on the label. How might I go about replacing that? Would invert sugar perform a similar function?
Thanks for any advice! I know this will require a lot of testing (the fun part!), but I figured I'd ask since I am very new to this area. =)
Lactose doesn't contain calcium. So if the carrageenan they are using is of the calcium-setting type, the product mentioned is probably a mixture of carrageenan and calcium. But I don't know if the lactose is doing something by itself - it could be very well be the case that it is binding with the carrageenan.
Do you need to use this recipe? Chickpea Magazine is a vegan food quarterly and their latest issue has recipes for vegan meringue and marshmallows. You can grab the recipe for marshmallows here on magazine page 45 (49 on the website indicator). It's agar agar based.
Agave syrup can frequently be substituted for high fructose corn syrup as they have very similar composition.
I think you're taking an overly complicated approach to this, I've had great success with a recipe from the DIY Cookbook from ATK, in their version, they use:
confectioners’ sugar, cornstarch, unflavored gelatin, corn syrup (not high fructose), granulated sugar, salt, vanilla extract
The only non-vegan ingredient in this manifestation is the gelatin, which you can sub using many different vegan gelling agents.
Here is one website detailing the recipe procedure: http://www.thefrugalgirl.com/2012/11/how-to-make-homemade-marshmallows/
As well as a post on "The Feed", an ATK website with a video: http://www.americastestkitchenfeed.com/do-it-yourself/2013/01/how-to-make-marshmallows/
To replace the high fructose corn syrup, another syrup could be substituted without having adverse effects. I would recommend a agave syrup as it is functionally and flavorfully very close to HFCS. Fructose levels in agave syrup can vary from around 50% (very close to HFCS) up to 90% (which would be sweeter but functionally similar). You could also make an invert syrup, and as long as the viscosity and sweetness were similar, it should work.
As for the lactose, it's primary function in a recipe like this would be as a sweetener, I would assume. It is less soluble in water than other sugars, so it may also function to modify the texture of your finished product. You could most likely replace it with sugar without causing a big difference, but keep in mind that lactose is relatively much less sweet than other sugars.
I am not so sure about the sweetener assumption. Carrageenan does contain galactose chains, so it may be binding to the lactose. This is a conjecture on my part, not something I know for certain, so I hope that somebody with more chemical knowledge can clear it up.
@rumtscho That is possible. I couldn't really find much info on it. I know that lactose can have many other functions in processing medications, etc, but I'm not really clear on what it's doing here. Replacing the lactose with galactose might be the best option. They have similar relative sweetness anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.149093
| 2014-05-05T19:01:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43909",
"authors": [
"Adriana S Auret",
"Jenn",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Superplasts",
"Vivo",
"brownsugarmint",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33838
|
What varities of chili peppers are most commonly used in Italy
I've been reading some Italian (written in Italian, by Italians) cook books and web sites and I find that many recipes call for peperoncini. I thought I knew what these are, but according to this article in Wikipedia:
While called peperoncini in American English, peppers of this
particular kind, in Italy, are called friggitello (plural friggitelli)
or more generally peperone (plural peperoni) like other sweet
varieties of peppers, while the term peperoncini (singular
peperoncino) is used for hotter varieties of chili peppers.
There are, of course, many varieties of hot chili peppers. My question is, what variety of peppers would most commonly be used by a cook in southern Italy when a recipe calls for peperoncini?
I think you solved it yourself. I believe it would depend on the origin of the recipe.
All the recipes I'm talking about are southern Italian cuisine written in Italian, by Italians. I don't see how that answers my question.
The photo that you can see on Wiki, shows "peperoncini" under vinagre "alla Milanese", probably yet cooked. What they write in the text is half wrong. What you find into recipes of south Italy, as seasoning means, is probably "peperoncino", like "pasta aglio, olio e peperoncino". If singular, it indicates a "spice", i.e. the powder, which can be dosed according to the taste.
@violadaprile Thank you for the clarification, but the part of the Wiki article that seems correct and which my question revolves around is that the word "peperoncini" has a very different meaning in Italy and the US. If I were to use what Americans think of as peperoncini in a recipe written by an Italian, I would be using the wrong ingredient.
What varities of chili peppers are most commonly used in Italy
Peperoncini (=literally little big peppers)
Grown and used in all Italy
The green ones - Peperoncini verdi
Used in north Italy, made under vinagre, typical Milano's recipe.
They make it in airtight glass jars and open them in December for Christmas (or whenever)
The red ones - Peperoncini rossi
Grown and used most af all in shouth of Italy. They are put to dry, then made in powder, like chili. Can be from medium hot to high hot. Used for seasoning many recipes in all Italy. Many types of red small peppers are used to be dried and for seasoning recipes.
Peperoncini verdi fritti
http://www.cookaround.com/yabbse1/showthread.php?t=8358 (see the photo 1 and 2)
Typical of south Italy.
They are fried in oil, then dried on a cooking paper, then seasoned with salt.
"Pepperoncini" is a contaminated word by a wrong spelling pronunciation of southern Italy, and "friggitelli" (like "puparuolilli do’ sciumm", in the text) is a local/dialectal denomination, not even known in north Italy.
Peperoncini rossi corti ripieni (=red short filled pepper)
Typical of South, filled with tuna and other ingredients.
Peperoni = (literally = big peppers)
Used in all Italy (the two varieties = the shorter are sweeter) - but any color changes the flavor, so the result, depending on the blend color, changes.
They are used most commonly used to make "peperonata", made with onions, oil and tomatoes (some like a ratatouille). With celery in north of Italy. They can be from sweet to hot.
Can be made in oven also, usually filled. Or passed on any fire to burn the skin, then peeled from the burned skin, reduced in large stripes, put into a container, seasoned with garlic, oil and salt and covered with oil. They let rest at least 24 hours for the flavors to blend.
Peperoncini literally means chili pepper. That's any pepper belonging to the Capsicum Annuum family, and it's really up to personal taste. I think you'd be hard-pressed to pin down the "most common" type of pepper used in any country, as there are so many intra-regional variances which also change from season to season and year to year.
I'm not even sure I could answer that for just the city I live in; some people immediately think of Jalapeños when they hear "hot pepper", others think of Serrano peppers, others think of New Mexico peppers, and still others think of Habaneros, and these are all pretty different; some are at opposite ends of the Scoville scale. It depends on how hot the person you're asking likes their food.
That being said, I think a reasonable proxy is a Google search for peperoncini al mercato ("[hot] peppers at the market") restricted to Italian pages, which should give you a pretty good idea of what the average Italian actually considers to be a "chili pepper". As one might expect, there's an almost endless variety. However, the most common ones I see - and this coincides with my own not-inconsiderable experience eating Italian cuisine (some in southern Italy) are, in descending order of frequency:
Pimentos
Cayenne
Friggitelli
Greek Peperoncini
Wax Peppers AKA Hungarian Wax Peppers AKA Hungarian Yellow Peppers
Here's an actual picture of a market stall in Italy, showing that they actually do grow all of these varieties and more:
Really, it's almost a bit like asking what kind of wine they drink in Italy. You might be able to narrow it down to a general area (Chianti for wine - Capsicum Annuum for peppers) but within that area there's still endless variety, so IMO this is probably as specific an answer as it's possible to give.
Don't downgrade your answer. I didn't ask what kind of wine (peppers) they drink in Italy; I asked for a general idea of the predominant hot peppers used in southern Italy. And you provided an excellent answer. I wasn't expecting anything as specific, actually. So I'll give it a day or two to see if someone else comes up with a really stellar answer, but otherwise I'll happily accept this answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.149422
| 2013-04-29T21:40:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33838",
"authors": [
"Altruist",
"Aminul",
"Bev George",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cassandra",
"Cruz Bolanos",
"Dr. Spooky",
"Erica",
"Faith Pike",
"Heather",
"Mark",
"Mien",
"Nikola Maric",
"Rathnamala Premanathan",
"Zoe Loughlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78724",
"user78606",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2295
|
How do I prepare prawns such that they are straight after boiling/steaming?
I'd like to make a sushi roll or a vietnamese prawn roll but can't seem to get the prawns to straighten, which would make them much easier to roll up. They were still curled up after I cleaned them before the boil.
Wash the shrimp and remove only the head.
Insert a bamboo skewer along the shrimp from head to tail, running along the legs without touching flesh
Drop into boiling, salted water for 3-5 minutes (do not put a lid on); after this period, they'll change color and rise to the top. If they feel firm, they are cooked.
Quickly place them into ice water, which helps them have good color and stops the flesh from shrinking and becoming hard.
When shrimp are cold, remove from ice water and drain in a colander.
To remove the skewer, use a screwing motion.
For nigiri-sushi:
Remove shell from around body, but not the tail.
Butterfly cut open, cutting from head to tail along the belly with the knife only going halfway in.
Use the knife or your fingers to open it up and flatten it carefully, without further breaking the flesh.
Remove vein and rinse with lightly salted water. Lay on papertowels to drain.
If using for sushi rolls, remove tail and cut in half lengthwise.
Peel, devein and insert a wooden skewer.
I saw on America's Test Kitchen that if you make small slices on the underside of the shrimp, you can reduce the amount of curling. They say "To prevent the batter from clumping on the inside curl of the shrimp, we made two shallow cuts on the underside of its flesh."
Their recipe page has a video, but you need an account to view it. This recipe is for shrimp tempura, but the technique should work for any kind of shrimp dish.
They're using "colossal" shrimp (8-12 per pound). The chef says "there's a very easy solution here. You just take the shrimp and roll it right over so it's belly up, and you make two little cuts—about a quarter inch deep cuts and about an inch apart. These are little release cuts and they're going to prevent the shrimp from curling up as much."
skewers are the answer. no question
Could you elaborate? This answer would be much more useful if you went into some detail about how to use skewers in the preparations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.150049
| 2010-07-20T08:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2295",
"authors": [
"Chef",
"Damien-Wright",
"Laura",
"Vladimir Oselsky",
"Wayne Johnston",
"Yukta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94199",
"rphv"
],
"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
}
|
6269
|
Do you need a pressure cooker to can home-made salsa?
I grew my own tomatoes this year and had success with making my own salsa. Do you need a pressure cooker to can home-made salsa?
Note: if you do find that your salsa should be pressure-canned, be sure to check if your pressure cooker can be used for canning or not. A pressure cooker can't always be used for canning; you may actually need a pressure canner.
You cannot preserve just any salsa recipe (unless you're just freezing it).
Tomatoes are on the border between acidic and non-acidic foods. What this means is that they can be water-bath canned if they are sufficiently high in acid; but, if they are low in acid, they need to be pressure canned.
If you want to be sure to avoid trouble, follow a tested recipe. Salsa recipes will have a careful balance of low and high acid ingredients. Do not alter the proportion of acids (tomatoes and vinegar or lime/lemon juice) and low-acids (other vegetables, peppers, etc).
The recipe you choose should specify if it requires pressure canning or water-bath canning. One of those two methods must be used, though... you can't just put it in jars and save it.
For tested recipes, see the Ball Blue Book, the Ball website, or the National Center for Home Food Preservation.
Presumably if you want to test your own recipe to be completely sure, you could just measure the pH? Strips with a 0.5 resolution might be good enough, long as you err on the side of caution, though pH meters aren't really that expensive. (I don't have any experience, but from reading, it sounds like there's a clear pH cutoff between low- and high-acid for this purpose.)
I like the cut of your jib.
Most salsas are pretty acidic. If that is the case with this one you should be able to safely can it without a pressure canner.
see JustRightMenus' answer. It's not quite that simple according to the above links. Botulism is no fun.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.150287
| 2010-08-29T01:01:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6269",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jonathan",
"JustRightMenus",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"gnuarm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93356",
"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
}
|
1862
|
How does Korean chili powder differ from "US" chili powder?
I've been looking at a number of kim chi recipes and they all call for 'Korean chili powder'. My visit to the local Asian grocer only yielded 'Asian' chili powder and other nondescript chili powders.
Is there a particular chili powder that is Korean? Can I simply use cayenne pepper or crushed red pepper flakes?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14335/what-kind-of-peppers-are-used-in-gochugaru-%EA%B3%A0%EC%B6%94%EA%B0%80%EB%A3%A8
Korean chilli is a little different as it has a slight smoky flavour, in addition to being slightly sweet and also quite hot.
The actual name of the chilli use in kimchi and for that matter, most Korean dishes is gochugaru (고추가루). It comes in a variety of preparations, typically, finely ground, flakes and a paste.
You should be able to find this in most good supermarkets or an Asian store. If you can't get this, you can still use a good quality chilli powder or possibly, a paste.
Actually, most kimchi recipes call for gochugaru (transliterations vary), which is simply red chili flakes. Gochujang is a fermented soybean paste with lots of chili added to it and is not usually used in kimchi (though it is used in many other Korean dishes), as a quick google can tell you.
Corrected. I've only been learning Korean for two weeks.
It's worth noting that the typical chilies in gochugaru are not particularly hot, which is why they are used in such large quantities. "American" chilies, alas, is not super specific, as all varieties of chilies are essentially genealogically traceable to the New World, but the least spicy varieties of cayenne peppers are probably "typical" here if someone specifies chili powder.
Yes, they are rather mild indeed.... I have some around, I would say even Pul Biber is hotter...
For a quick fix in case you can't get gochugaru I recommend cayenne pepper mixed with sweet paprika powder. The smoked component is not so strong as to require Spanish smoked paprika, but you may want to try.
Despite what people say: If you are used to Indian, Thai or Caribbean cuisine gochugaru will be rather mild. It's content in capsaicin is 3000-8000 Scoville Units, thus in the same range than (dried) chipotle chiles.
There is BTW also a type of kimchi that has no gochugaru and is not spicy at all and which is also delicious, it's called Baek Kimchi ( 백김치 )
Baek Kimchi recipe at Maangchi.com
Chili powders are different. For one thing, the heat they produce can notably effect different areas of the mouth. Still, they are all chili peppers and many are hot and all are red, when ripe and dry. Also, there are sweet peppers, like paprika, that are not hot at all, or only very mildly, and these pack quite a flavor punch without heat, so it is not only about heat. There are many subtle and not so subtle differences.
I made my first Kimchi with mexi-style "California" chili, as they are labeled in this state. "California" chili is supposed to be mild. I also add some homegrown dried Fresno chilis and some other ground up hot chilis, which may have been what they label as "Japanese" chilis. I used a blend. At first I was disappointed with the flavor, but after the flavors had mingled after 24 and then 48 hours, I found the flavor of my Kimchi very much improved, quite hot, and more than satisfactory.
While personally I would really like to try some authentic Korean chili, if you are interested in making kimchi and can't get a hold of Korean chili or find it difficult, don't let it be and obstacle to making kimchi right now! Just use whatever you can get your hands on that suits your heat preference. Season to taste. I found myself using much less chili than my favorite recipe advised and my kimchi was still well seasoned and quite richly red hot. Kimchi, cabbage and salt is such a magical enzymatic, probiotic, herbal, medicinal product, that I advise you not to procrastinate but make some right now!
I also emptied a two super probiotic capsules into my kimchi to give it a headstart into lactic acid land and help avoid yeasty pitfalls, as well as make my kimchi more medicinally viable. But they magic with the cabbage and salt starts really early on in the culturing process. After just 45 minutes of soaking my washed cabbage in salt it tasted magically enzymatic. Every stage of kimchi has it's own virtues. By all means make kimchi with whatever ground chili you can get your hands on!
The difference may be the conditions the chili grew in. It's the same pepper, except it grew in a different place. In each recipe with hot chili, you can exchange it for any other kind of hot pepper, since most hot peppers are almost solely used for hotness and don't have much taste. You just need to adjust the quantities a bit so it would be as hot as you like it to be.
It depends whether you're using just the seeds/veins, just the flesh or the entire pepper. The seeds and veins have the majority of the heat, and relatively little of the flavor, while the flesh is the opposite.
There are quite a difference in chili and korean red pepper have a full rich almost smokey taste besides the heat. In asian shops you kan find hot or mild gouchugaru and also red pepper powder. The powder you can use for making paste like gouchuchang or in marinade and sause, not to good in kimchi as you want the chiliflakes to be more coarse when they are sitting for a longer time, kimchi would rest for at least a week and I let it rest for 2 weeks. If you use the mild you can have more chili and it adds it color and more of the sweet smokey taste. The only spice close to korean red pepper would be cayenne pepper. I tried other chili but they either to hot or not rich enough taste.
You can easily buy korean red pepper flakes from Amazon, they got all three types. If you don't use much store it cool.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.150479
| 2010-07-18T23:02:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1862",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Tapanila",
"Cascabel",
"Chris AtLee",
"Dennis",
"GalacticCowboy",
"JasonTrue",
"Kos",
"M. Torres",
"Mox",
"Pulse",
"Sindre Sorhus",
"Spammer",
"endolith",
"g .",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/986",
"jason",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1910
|
Is there any way to remove stains (e.g. from curries and pasta sauces) from plastic containers?
I like using microwaveable plastic containers to bring my lunch in as they are my lighter than the Pyrex/glass versions. However, reheating my food up creates unsightly stains.
After washing them, fill them with a mild bleach solution (one tablespoon for each cup of water) and let them out in the sun exposing the stain for a whole day. Make sure children and animals cannot reach the containers with bleach.
There used to be a product called Cascade Plastic Booster that you could add to your dishwasher that would remove the stains. It's no longer sold but its main ingredient was benzoyl peroxide at 5%, which you may buy in most drugstores.
Interesting. Benzoyl peroxide is an explosive, perhaps this is why they stopped selling it.
I have to say, the thought of using even mild bleach to clean a food container makes me a little nervous...
@Aaronut: Diluted bleach is routinely used as a sanitizer for food contact surfaces. And many dishwasher detergents have far more than a mild amount of bleach.
Start with equal parts white vinegar and water, perhaps with some lemon juice mixed in. Sprinkle baking soda on the bottom of your container. Pour in the liquid mixture. Scrub thoroughly. This should help lift the stain and baking soda is a natural odor neutralizer. You can also try drying it in a sunny spot, as sunlight is a natural bleaching agent.
You may also want to look into freezer-grade glass containers. Glass containers pick up smell and color much less readily than plastic.
To prevent the stain in the first place, we usually spray the insides with Pam (or whatever cooking oil spray you use) before putting the food in.
Ditto - works great to prevent stains on a number of cookware/dishware.
I haven't tried it, but the answer from justkt got me thinking...you might be able to use Bar Keeper's Friend to remove the stains.
You can use it on plastic, and that stuff is amazing: http://www.surlatable.com/product/id/128978.do?mr:trackingCode=8761AEDC-D781-DE11-B7F3-0019B9C043EB&mr:referralID=NA. I'd make sure to rinse especially well after using non-food-based cleaning products, though.
You can use baking soda to remove the stains. After washing your container, place some baking soda in the container then use a wet sponge (but not too wet)& scrub the container. This usually does the trick.
Make sure the plastic containers are meant to be used in the microwave, otherwise, it's best to use glass containers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.150954
| 2010-07-19T04:29:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1910",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Daniel Barber",
"Jenn",
"Josh Bleecher Snyder",
"Qwirk",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5067",
"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
}
|
6106
|
How do you peel chickpeas?
When making a hummus one of the key factors seems to be removal of chickpea white skins.
Are there any tips on how can I effectively peel the skins off in an efficient way?
You peel them? I've never done that for hummus..
@Brendan sure, it ends up being much smoother, lots of effort though
Is there advantage in eating without peeling ? [ nutriton factor ]
You can also try doing it in a bowlful of water; the skins will float to the surface when they come loose.
Is this done with fully cooked beans, or partly cooked?
I've done it with fully cooked, but I guess it might be a little easier if you did it with nearly-done, then put them back in to finish cooking.
Yerp the easiest way I found to date was part cooking, rinsing in cold water, agitating the skins and then skimming off the mess.
Peeling chickpeas will give you a creamier texture, but won't have much of an effect on taste.
The most efficient way I know of peeling them is to rub small handfuls in the palm of your hands. It will still take some time to work through them, but it's far more efficient than using your fingertips.
One other possibility is to use a product similar to Oxo's silicon garlic peeler. It's a tube in which you can place garlic and roll around until the cloves are peeled. I have one and it works amazingly well. I suspect it would be great for chickpeas too.
the ABSOLUTE BEST WAY, is to cook them only half the time (the dried ones and drained 24 hours), half the time would be 20-25 minutes... take them out after 25 minutes, put a tablespoon of baking soda on an ounce (420 grams), stir the soda in well. Than put them on a very hot flat pan over the fire for 2-3 minutes. The skin will just stick to the pan. Than put the chickpeas back to boil for 20 more minutes. It'll take about 90-95% of the skins without peeling them one by one.
That a good trick, I think a lot depends on the type of chickpeas in play, the Israeli sites for making humous seem to recommend a similar technique.
tried it. sure softened the skins but did not stick to my cast iron/remove any faster than hand peeling. And left a distinct alkaline taste. not worth it.
I rolled the chickpea between two tea towels and used a rolling pin. Rolled the chickpeas wich loosen the skin then place the chickpeas into a bowl with water and let gravity lifed the skins up to the top. I washed the peas. There you are chickpeas without water easy.
Just wanted to point out it floats to the top because the skin has less density than the water. It has nothing to do with gravity.
Technically, it's gravity pulling harder on the water than on the same volume of skins that causes them to float. You're both correct! :-)
@Jay: it’s absolutely because of gravity! It is indeed because the skins are less dense than water — but similarly, the fact an apple falls is because it’s more dense than air. The falling/rising, in either case, comes from the combination of gravity and the density difference. Fun fact: because of this connection, an old name for density is “specific gravity”.
I bought a Vintage Foley Food Mill set with the red handles on eBay...
It's great for mashed potatoes, crushing crackers, baby food, and separating the skins off of garbanzo beans for hummus.
If you have a hand mill, you can run chickpeas through it on a very course setting. That'll crack the peas and dislodge the skin. Skins can then be quickly removed by sieving or shaking. Be cautious when milling though. Chickpeas can be very hard, too hard for a mill that's set for too fine a product.
I shell on a regular basis. Dead simple:
Boil dried peas for twenty minutes.
Cool under cold water.
Rub the
peas between the hands and float off the skins.
Five rinses and the
peas are completely skinned.
It takes less than five minutes for a liter.
Then cook the chickpeas for about one hours at a gently boil to soften for tempeh making.
Pictures: Removing husks from Chickpeas
You could pass the chickpeas through a food mill.
Pureeing something while holding tough parts back is what these things are designed for.
It has never even occurred to me to try skinning chickpeas. What's the benefit? I pressure-cook them (without soaking) for ~55 minutes—4 parts water per part of beans, with a little salt—let them cool somewhat, and put them in the food processor. The hummus comes out delightfully smooth and creamy. What's not to like?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.151476
| 2010-08-27T01:54:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6106",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Brendan Long",
"Erik P.",
"Fiona Dodd",
"Frantisek",
"Jay",
"Michael Natkin",
"PLL",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sam Saffron",
"USer345738380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
}
|
6335
|
What are some of the benefits of electric stoves versus gas stoves?
I have recently moved house and one of the downsides is that I'm now stuck with an electric stove instead of a gas stove which was in the previous house.
I'm not liking it one bit:
It takes too long to heat up (I have to pre-heat it like an oven)
You can't do any funky stuff with the open flame, like charring the skins off capsicums so you can peel them
Okay, I see some advantages:
Easier to keep clean
Flatter stovetop means less chance of a pot falling over
But seriously - I don't think any professional or keen amateur chef would be able to argue that an electric stovetop is better than gas.
I'd like to replace it with a gas stove in the near future. In the meantime, can anyone convince me that electric is better?
James Beard famously advocated the use of electric stoves.
The heating element deteriorate over time, rendering the electric stove dead. A gas stove is eternal.
Can I convince you that electric is better? No, I can't, because I don't think it is. The issue I have is related to how long it takes to warm up (and cool down). Electric cook tops just don't respond quickly. Little too hot? Too bad, nothing you can do about it (in time to save a dish that's starting to burn anyway). Not hot enough? Check back in 2 or 3 minutes. I find this particularly irritating when a recipe requires varying heats while cooking. Sorry I don't have better news for you.
Too hot? Lift the pan up, or move it. If you're good at flipping stuff in a pan, do that, as it'll help cool the food off even faster.
@Joe, yeah, but the ring still doesn't cool down for a while. Real pain in the butt when you're cooking at your mother in laws and already using the other burners.
You know you can always take the pan to somewhere that's not the stove, right? If you're not on a glass-top unit, and you're not dealing with liquids, you can even tip the pan so it's not making good contact w/ the burner (which helps the burner cool off faster)
... and I fail to see how any of these are 'benefits of electric stoves versus gas stoves' Besides, the heat issues you have w/ cast iron, too. Unless you're cooking with really thin pans, they're going to take some time to cool off or heat up.
As I already pointed out, the broad statement "Electric cook tops just don't respond quickly" needs to be qualified. This isn't true of induction. In that case, experience proves that electricity is better than gas.
@Mike, maybe this is just a semantic thing, but I think of electric cook tops as the ones with coils that heat up and induction cook tops as a completely different thing. So I'm sticking with my answer, especially given the question that was initially asked.
yossarian, inductive is electric too - regardless of whether you think they're not ;-) If you want to be specific, I suggest using the term "resistive electric". If you use the term electric to mean resistive electric, then people who know that inductive is electric (which is the majority - I mean, does anyone think inductive cookers are powered by gas? ;-) ) will misunderstand you. So my comment stands - you need to qualify your term "electric" ;-)
@Mike Scott, for normal people, "electric cooktop" always and only means "traditional resistor-based electric cooktop". If we want to talk about induction cooktops, we say... wait for it... "induction cooktop".
@Marti, if we want to talk about resistive cooktops, we say... wait for it... "resistive cooktop".
@Mike, I don't know why this was revived, but you are dead wrong. While your explanation is technically correct, no one calls it a resistive cooktop. They call it electric. And no one says electric inductive, they say induction. The fact that you want to nitpick what's technically correct is completely irrelevant to the way people actually talk.
@yossarian, the questioner was considering whether to switch from electric to gas. My suggestion that he could use an induction cooktop (possibly a quick drop-in replacement) instead of going to the trouble of plumbing in a gas cooktop, is hardly nitpicking. It's highly relevant to the question. It's you who started the nitpicking. And besides, the term "electric cooktop" is clearly ambiguous since induction cooktops are electric. In a question of electric vs gas, it's important to consider all electric options.
What the others say is true, but ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE for an electric induction cooker!!
I used to think gas was better until I also moved into a flat with no gas. I was soon sick of it but I discovered induction and changed the basic electric cooker for an induction one.
Now I know that an induction cooker is even better than gas because:
It responds instantly like gas.
It puts out more energy than gas and thus boils quicker.
It's more controllable than gas. My hob has 19 digital settings, so once you know to set it at 5.5 for boiling pasta, you always set it at that and it's the same every time.
It doesn't heat up your kitchen like gas (or other electric stoves) because the induction effect causes the pan itself to heat and not the hob, so less waste heat.
It's MUCH easier to clean than gas, since it's a flat glass plate and as it doesn't heat up, any spills don't burn on.
It's much safer than gas. No chance of an explosion and no gas smells. Also, the hob only gets hot from the heat from the pans, so much less chance of burning yourself if you touch it.
Downside is that you need pans that work with an induction cooker. Almost all modern pans do. Just check a pan with a fridge magnet - if the magnet sticks, it should work with induction.
Also, induction is not cheap. However, you can buy small single or double ring worktop models that just plug in to a socket to augment your existing cooker if you don't want to go the whole way and completely replace it.
Induction is a different game from resistive heat: I've only use one for a sort time, but found it much better. Likewise, the glasstop has some advantage over coils and open flame.
Good answer, but unfortunately, I think the OP is trying to get someone to convince them that their current electric stove is ok and doesn't need to be replaced. You've just suggested that he replace it with something even more expensive than the OP was planning! :o)
yossarian, he's planning to replace it: "...I'd like to replace it with a gas stove in the near future..." I was suggesting he might like to investigate induction as an alternative to gas.
additionally, I added "However, you can buy small single or double ring worktop models that just plug in to a socket to augment your existing cooker if you don't want to go the whole way and completely replace it."
I have to say that this fails to answer the question that was asked. In normal English usage, "electric stove" always refers to the traditional resistor-coil technology, not to induction/magnet-based technology. To refer to the latter, the proper term is "induction stove".
@Marti, I don't agree. It's true that "induction stove" is more specific, but it's still an electric stove. The more specific term for what you mean is "electric resistive stove". Halogen stoves are electric stoves too. Now, the questioner asked "...can anyone convince me that electric is better?" He was considering changing his stove to gas. My answer was completely relevant - he wanted to move away from a resistive stove and wanted to know if there was any reason to stay with electric instead of gas.
Well, with an electric you get
Modestly less fire hazard
No gas leak hazard
but I'd generally take gas.
One could add no soot accumulation over the years, but that's still not enough to tip the balance.
Moderately less fire hazard? I'd argue significantly less, even though I have set an electric stove on fire. Although, luckily, 1970's fashion with large open sleaves are gone.
@Joe: I don't really have any way to quantify it, and I didn't want to over state the case.
I found it is much easier to keep the heat quite low with an electric stove. As for a quick response when the pot is too hot, just slide it off the burner. This is particularly easy with the flat tops.
Besides what @dmckee mentioned :
No pilot light, so you're only using fuel when you need it. (except for the clock, if you have one)
No failed electric starter, and having to go find matches for those that don't have a pilot.
No chance of explosion from when you tried setting the gas so low the burner blows out.
update :
doesn't use hydrocarbons, could be made 'green' by using electricity from replenish-able sources (hydro, wind, solar) or nuclear. (unfortunately, you then have the issue of conversion and transmission loss, so if you're in an coal or gas power plant area, it's less green)
update 2:
you don’t come downstairs to a kitchen smelling like gas because your nephew pushed against the stove while reaching the microwave above the stove (happened to a friend of mine; autistic nephew didn’t grow up with gas and ignored the weird smell; I also did it once when visiting, and it was on so low I didn’t smell it for a while)
more flexibility in placement, as they don’t require venting to avoid the air quality issues from indoor combustion. (And newer homes are less drafty, so combustion gasses linger longer if not vented; some people think this may be the reason for increased asthma, and are starting to set laws against new gas appliance installs)
The pilot light thing is true, but I haven't had a gas cooktop with a pilot light in 30 years; they're all electric start now. (And the electric start always fails, but now you can get little battery-powered electric spark lighters.)
You can also get lighters where pushing down the button generates the electricity for the spark so there’s no battery required
wow thanks for the response, I missed the date on this answer :) My little battery things are USB-charged so I don't mind them; I've tried the "clicky" ones that work like those sparkly toy things, and they're OK but the USB sparky things are easier.
Good electric stoves often put out the same or more power (BTUs/hr) than gas stoves, and they are more efficient at transmitting the heat, as it is via conduction not radiation. This means that on a good electric stove, water will boil faster, heavy pans will heat up faster, etc. By a "good electric stove" I mean one that does not have a glass pane over the element, as these are horrible at conducting heat and take forever to heat up.
Additionally, as was pointed out above, electric stoves have the ability to maintain a lower temperature than gas stoves. So electric has a better range of heat (cooler to hotter), while gas is quicker to adjust. Still, for the home chef, switching to another burner shouldn't be a problem if you need quick adjustments in temperature.
See also this comparison.
"as it is via conduction not radiation" Citation needed. Both gas and electric transfer by both conduction and radiation. Glass-ceramic cooktops work entirely by radiation.
Safety
Electric ranges do not rely on gas flames, which could potentially trigger a fire. Also, if a pilot light goes out on a gas range, the room can fill up with toxic and noxious gases, which are unsafe to inhale. Many electric stoves come with a light that indicates when one of the burners is on and hot, warning those around the stove not to touch the surface.
Posting promotional links is not allowed. Links should either be citations or provide additional context for an answer.
Cooking rice. Depends on the type of stove, but this type is great for cooking rice: Add rice, salt, and right amount of water to a pot; bring to the boil; switch off once boiling and you have perfect rice 20 minutes later.
Unfortunately this, and the before-mentioned ability to keep low temperatures, are the only advantages I can think of.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.151919
| 2010-08-30T06:51:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6335",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Candid Moe",
"Hossein",
"Joe",
"Kati",
"Marti",
"Mike Scott",
"Peter K.",
"Pointy",
"Spencer",
"Tomek",
"Uttara",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"endolith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"kevins",
"nat",
"papin",
"rcorre",
"tereško",
"user12772",
"yossarian",
"zhx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.