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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2595
|
What is the proper way to cool sushi rice after cooking?
I've heard a couple of suggestions for cooling the rice prior to making rolls and both seem to contradict each other. What works for you guys (and gals)?
What I do is just remove the liner from the steamer, add rice vinegar solution and fold the rice while fanning it for a few minutes, then just leave it alone for 30 minutes with a towel over the container to prevent drying. Seems to work for me, but I don't like waiting that long to start making the rolls.
You're adding some vinegar to your rice when you cool it, right? That's important to keep the growth of Bacillus cereus in check.
Bacillus cereus is a concern with rice that is held in the danger zone for extended periods of time, however 30 minutes isn't long enough to cause major concern. The sushi itself would either then be consumed right away or refrigerated if being prepared in advance.
Yes, I add my rice vinegar solution at the exact moment the steamer is opened, folding the rice to both help cool and get the vinegar solution mixed in. I'll update the question to reflect.
@Pointy: Interesting. I thought vinegar was needed to improve the flocculation of starch.
It looks like your process is the accepted one around the web.
If you put a cool, damp (not wet), clean kitchen towel on your counter and fold the rice on top of it in front of a fan may help to cool it more quickly. Otherwise, cooling it to room temperature just seems to take a bit of time.
If you're impatient, you can plop it in front of a fan ad continue folding until it is cool enough to handle. It shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes, depending on the size of your batch.
Make sure to lift the rice when folding to expose plenty of the rice to the moving air.
I like to use a large non-metallic board (preferably unfinished wood), I spread the rice across the board so the rice is less than 2cm high.
I then add my seasoned vinegar and fold the rice over until it is well mixed.
I make sure the spread it out again and will then either let it cool alone or fan it, depending what I'm using it for.
The instructions I use are out of my Sushi book...
The big difference from the other answers and what I do seems to be the container used.
Place the hot rice in a wooden rice tub or a large, nonmetallic, flat-bottomed bowl. I actually use a 13x9 glass casserole pan. This is key - have it in something wide and shallow.
Use a flat wooden paddle to stir the rice, slicing it across the bowl rather than normal stirring.
Make some space in the center of the rice and slowly add the vinegar dressing.
Continue lifting and mixing the rice with the paddle, using a slicing motion.
Use either an electric or hand-held fan while you're doing this.
Put rice into a rice holder that has a lid and will keep it warm.
Spread a piece of damp cheesecloth over the top, and put the lid on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.152902
| 2010-07-21T13:28:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2595",
"authors": [
"Chandra",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Karoy Lorentey",
"Kilhoffer",
"O.O",
"Pointy",
"Shasha",
"Stefano Borini",
"dsg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3713
|
Cooking Toad In The Hole - preventing "burn on"
I've recently cooked Toad in the Hole following this recipe from TheFoody.com. The first time I used a non-stick metal roasting tray and the second time I used a ceramic dish.
Both times the batter adhered to the base of the cooking container quite firmly. What can I do / should I be doing to prevent this from happening?
Note: I was using plain sausages, not ones with any unusual flavourings that could release sugars and suchlike whilst being cooked.
Was the stuck batter really brown? Did it stick on the sides?
@papin, nope the batter wasn't particularly brown, the sides weren't stuck. It was most annoying :-/
was the oil in the pan really hot? did you add the batter with the pan on the heat or not?
@Sam, the oil was "smoking" hot in both situations. The metl roasting tray I turned the heat on underneath for the 10 seconds it was on the hob whilst adding the batter, the ceramic one I didn't for obvious reasons.
I grew up in Yorkshire, that doesn't make me an immediate expert but my Mother used lard or beef dripping to coat the container for either Yorkshire Puddings or Toad in the Hole.
You should preheat the lard in the oven, it should be 'very' hot.
I suspect the issue with using the oil from the sausages is that you will get some water as well as the oil. This will not coat the batter and will evaporate quickly. Or the oil is not hot enough when put in the container. I suggest putting the residue from the sausage in a gravy not for the Toad in the Hole.
P.S. I don't know what (from the linked recipe) the sausage chunks means, but keep your sausages whole imo.
I'm guessing it's the oven. Here are some ideas:
If the dish did not fully cook, it will stick. Bake until it dries and starts browning.
The heat distribution in your oven may be uneven. I have an old oven and my dishes would burn, stick, and undercook until I started using a few tricks (self citation, beware). The main idea is to put a shield (an empty baking dish) between the heat source (the bottom of the oven) and the dish you are baking.
Rub the oil on the baking dish before heating it.
Line the baking dish with parchment paper.
Forget the oil. Add some of the sausage drippings to the batter for flavor and then grease the baking dish with shortening. When you add the batter to the baking dish, the shortening will not be displaced by the batter and help prevent the sticking.
The type of sausage makes a huge difference, from one sausage to another with the same pan you can have a batter that sticks or not. Experimenting with different sausages will show you the difference, especially if you try varying quality sausages. More extravagant sausages can cause trouble.
But for a foolproof answer regardless of sausage type switch your baking pan; ceramic and non-stick were never 100% reliable for me either. Get a flexible silicone pan (loaf or shallow square both fine) and your toad in the hole will never stick. They're pretty cheap, and very much worth it. You should also be able to use less oil this way, just shake the sausages around to coat the insides before the batter goes in.
Note: I'd also consider another recipe, in yours the sausages are placed in after the batter. The sausages can go into the oven with a little of their oil, and the batter is poured into that when the oil is ready. It also requests you reduce heat halfway through, don't do this. Also, the highest risen point should be on the cusp of turning slightly burnt before you remove it from the oven, ensures it's cooked through.
Make sure it is a pure silicone pan, not some cheap plastic/silicone combo.
Perhaps the container is too large, making for too thin an oil layer?
How deep would you suggest the layer of oil needs to be?
I'd stick to the recipe if you're using the pan size indicated in the recipe, and try a more 'solid' fat like some of the other suggestions first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.153180
| 2010-07-29T19:10:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3713",
"authors": [
"Ann MacDonald",
"FeatureCreep",
"Leo",
"Rob",
"Sam Holder",
"Steve",
"Tim Robinson",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Yurisa",
"allnet000",
"bmike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"koljaTM",
"papin",
"rmontagud",
"s_hewitt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20320
|
Can I continue to age store bought cheese?
I know that many cheeses are considered to be better when aged. After I've purchased a nice block of Parmesan or such, can I continue to age it at home?
Is it practical? Will I get the same result?
Continuing to age a "nice" block of Parmesan is not going to do anything for you. It has already aged for over year and has changed pretty much all it's going to.
Similarly aging cheap, canned, Parmesan-like product that is aged only a month to cut costs will also not be good because it has too much surface area and will oxidize. It isn't very good to start with of course.
Where this will work very well is with cheap, young cheese. Buy an inexpensive block of young cheddar that doesn't have any crazy additives. Cover it and let it sit in the fridge for a month (or more). The bacteria in the cheese will continue to munch on available lactose and turn it into lactic acid. If you ever see mold wipe it off with a paper towel and a little vinegar.
At the end of that time you will have a much sharper and more valuable block of cheese. You've traded your time for money which is the trade-off cheese manufacturers always make.
Do I need to cover tightly? Should I wrap it in plastic wrap and then ziplock, or.?
You want to prevent it from drying out. You can wrap it in plastic but if mold does grow you will want to change the plastic. Of course commercial setups dip the cheese in wax.
@Josh Caswell- on the contrary they are just very very slow. My buttermilk and kefir will eventually consume all their lactose and die after too long in the fridge (ie. months). Of course you are right that the best place to age cheese is not a fridge but a cave in France that perpetually maintains a perfect, humid 55F. :)
@Sobachatina have you actually done this, or this is speculation? I haven't heard of aging in fridge before.
Lactobacilli are pretty much inactive below 50˚F/10˚C. I wouldn't expect them to do a lot in a fridge.
@Ali- I have actually done this. Cheese has to be aged at cooler-than-room temperature. Some cheeses require warmer (but still cooler than room) temps to bloom - like blue and swiss. Most however do just fine in the fridge. Hobbyist cheese making often ages at normal fridge temps. See: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Cheese/Cheese98.htm The "CURE THE CHEESE" step.
I rarely see much (if any) price differential in cheese by age from the same manufacturer - the stuff they held onto for 3 times as long is generally the same exact price as the stuff that was aged much less. So I just buy the old stuff to begin with.
The answer here is yes and no.
Yes, aging cheese at home will often improve its flavor and texture. No, aging at home is not going to turn a block of Joseph Brothers Cheddar into Cheshire or (as the other answerer points out) a wedge of Stella "Parmesan" into Reggiano.
First, you want to deal with a moderate quality cheese which is simply not very aged. Really cheap cheeses tend to be full of added vegetable oil and "processed cheese food" which is incapable of ageing beneficially. So, for example, Tilamook or Spring Hill cheddar would be good candidates whereas Safeway Select would probably not be. Likewise, Rumiano or Argentine Parmesan are better choices than Kraft.
Second, you need to pick a cheese which ages well. In general, this means a harder cheese; from the harder side of semi-soft (cheddar) to hard-as-wood (parmesan). Cheeses which are not usually aged (brie, feta, chevre, etc.) will just become moldy and slimy.
Third, you need to deal with rind. Ideally, you'd use an "intact" cheese with its full rind or other covering to age. However, most such cheeses are ones which don't age well, such as brie and crottins. There are, however, a few wax-covered cheddars and goudas which are less than 4lbs in size and sold whole (make sure it's actual wax and not plastic). If you have to buy a piece of cheese rather than a whole cheese, then you should get yourself some cheese paper, a semiporous paper which keeps the right balance of moisture and airation in most cheeses. Take the cheese out of its plastic and wrap it tightly with a single or double layer of cheese paper.
You could potentially experiment with covering the cheese in wax yourself, but I don't have any information on this.
Fourth and most difficult is refrigeration. Most cheeses like to age at temperatures between 50F and 60F, not at the standard US fridge temperature of 40F. This means having a separate fridge for your aging cheese, something which takes this whole idea out of the realms of economy. Some folks have reported moderate success with aging at 40F, but be prepared to have no detectable difference in your cheese after several weeks. That's why we keep the fridge at that temperature after all! Needless to say, aging your cheese at room temperature (or worse at unstable, fluctuating temperatures) is not recommended.
Also, a standard fridge is far too dry for aging most cheeses. This, however, is easily solved; simply get a very large plastic food container (at least 4X the volume of the cheese(s) you will put inside), line the bottom with a bamboo placemat or similar aerated/draining surface, put the cheese inside and put the lid on. This will also keep your whole fridge from smelling like old cheese. If you live somewhere dry (humidity < 50%) then you may want to put a wet damp paper towel underneath the bamboo to supply moisture. Depending on the length of time you're ageing, you might want to open this box once a week or so to change the air in it.
Most of the above advice comes from Culture Cheese Magazine, which I strongly recommend to anyone interested in cheese and cheesemaking.
Excellent addition about the humidity. As for temperature- a separate used mini-fridge with a temp controller can be had/built for $100. Something I plan on doing when I make cheese in greater quantity.
I have been aging store-bought mild cheddar cheese at home now for about 25 years. I just purchase a two pound block of Tillamook or other mild to medium cheddar, leave it completely sealed in it's wax or shrink-wrap plastic, wrap it in a couple of layers of aluminum foil, the a couple of layers of newspaper. I tape it up securely and place it in a low cupboard, out of the kitchen area (so that it's in a slightly cooler location). Anywhere from 3 to 9 months later, I retrieve it, unwrap, drain the liquid off, and enjoy. It's deliciously sharp with no mold whatsoever.
How does it compare to Tillamook sharp cheddar? I think I've seen that for about the same price.
I followed Terri Elmore's suggestions for aging mild cheddar cheese. I used a 2 lb. block of Tillamook mild cheddar, still in its original waxed wrap. As Terri suggested, I wrapped it in a couple layers of aluminum foil, then a couple layers of newspaper. I taped it up securely and placed it in a storage closet. (The coolest location I have in a small retirement apartment.) I started it last Nov. 2015 and just took it out on July 17, 2016 (about 8 months).
When I cut away the waxed wrap, there was a small amount of liquid around the cheese which I drained off. There were also small white "bumps" on the surface of the cheese. I rubbed them off with a dry towel, then lightly rinsed the entire block of cheese. I chilled the cheese in the refrigerator for a week and today we tried it. It worked! It was nice and sharp, had a bit of a "crumbly" texture and tasted great. We got the cheese as a gift so this was indeed a great way to have expensive, nicely aged Tillamook cheese. Thank you Terri!
Barbara H.
I live in Tillamook, so I'm glad to see our cheese mentioned. The wrapping isn't wax any more, it's an orange-colored plastic on 2 pound blocks. It's common practice here to buy those blocks on sale and store for months andlocal years in refrigerator. The idea is promoted by the Dairy Wives group. It gets delicious and much, much sharper.
I had a can of Cougar Gold, which is an already aged, superb cheddar (yes, it's sold in a can, but has won international awards). I kept the can in my fridge for what turned into almost ten years (meaning the cheese was 11-1/2 years old when I opened it), waiting for a special occasion. The result? Positively amazing. The can prevents drying, and the flavor crystals were more abundant than a 1-2 year old CG can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Gold_cheese
I've been aging two blocks of cheddar for six years now. They have been kept in the bottom drawer of my fridge. It was just an experiment, but one was just opened and it was as expected, very sharp, and only slightly crumbly. I assume that the lower temperature of the refrigerator means that it will take longer to age something, so it's probably the equivalent of being one or two years in a cheese cave.
I bought a regular 24oz block of sharp Cheddar. I just do this to make my cheese last longer. I make sure I cut away any cheese that's touched by human hands using either rubber gloves or a clean piece of wax paper while i shave off dirty or old sides all around i wipe it dry. I then roll it in wax paper seal it with tape or string then i put it in a brown paper lunch bag and store it in the butter compartment. I have had this cheese for 2 months now. Getting ready to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.153584
| 2012-01-10T17:01:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20320",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"Carol D'Monte",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gustavo Maciel",
"Inazuma",
"LShaver",
"Pau Martí Garriga",
"Sherlock9",
"Sobachatina",
"XT-8147",
"davidvandebunte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7085",
"jscs",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20315
|
What determines how hard or soft a cheese will be?
My knowledge of cheese making is extremely lacking, but what determines how hard or soft the final cheese product is when making your own cheese?
Harold McGee, in On Food and Cooking, is very detailed in his explanation of how cheese "works". He describes three stages.
In the first stage, lactic acid bacteria convert milk sugar into lactic acid. In the second stage, which overlaps with the first one, rennet (an extract of calf stomach - or, to be more precise, chymosin, a protein found in this extract and now also obtainable from yeasts and the like) curdles the casein proteins and watery whey is drained from the concentrated curds. And finally, in the third stage, the cheese ripens, and a whole host of different enzymes do all sorts of things to flavour and texture.
According to McGee,
Acid and Rennet form very different kinds of curd structures -- acid a fine, fragile gel, rennet a coarse but robust, rubbery one -- so their relative contributions, and how quickly they act, help determine the ultimate texture of the cheese.
He goes on to describe how mostly acid coagulation leads to softer cheeses and mostly rennet-based coagulation leads to firmer curds and harder cheeses.
Draining of the whey also strongly affects the final texture, as Sobachatina points out in her excellent answer. Pressing firmly expels much whey and thus leads to a harder cheese; softer cheeses are just allowed to drain some whey by gravity. But there's another important factor here: heat. Some cheeses are "cooked" in their whey at this stage, to a temperature as high as 55C (130F) for a rock-hard Parmesan or about 38C (100F) for a somewhat softer Tommes, and this expels even more whey from the curd particles (and, of course, also affects flavour).
At this stage, salt is also added. Salt draws some moisture out of the curds as well and is a catalyst for the denaturing of casein, thus reinforcing the protein structure.
McGee also discusses aging of cheese at some length, but he doesn't really touch on the effect of aging on the structure of cheese. That effect is certainly there; a very young Gouda cheese is almost as soft as a Camembert, whereas a very old one gets close to Parmesan hardness (if it doesn't crumble to dust). I imagine that this is due to some moisture escaping the cheese, but also due to the fact that the protein networks keep growing more and more interconnected as the cheese ripens.
It is mostly about how much water is left in the curd- how hard and long you press it, aging, and sometimes microbial growth.
Soft cheeses like cream cheese are only barely pressed. Fresh soft cheeses like queso fresco and paneer aren't even pressed at all- just hung to dry.
Cheddar is pressed firmly and aged for a relatively short time.
Cheeses like parmesan are pressed firmly and then aged for months to over a year. Most of the liquid leaves during pressing and then they also dry considerably.
Some cheeses like Camembert are unique in that the mold that grows on them softens them as it digests compounds in the cheese. This is what gives Brie, etc, their unique texture.
Good cheddar is aged for a while—1½ years or more. Of course, its quite sharp by then.
Actually, pressing is a minor player in the moisture level control.
How large or small the curds are cut...were the curds cooked after cutting, how long after adding rennet were the curds cut (the longer the more moisture is retained, how much salt is in the process (either in cheddaring or brining or dry salting) all play a bigger part than pressing in determining how much moisture is in the cheese.
IN a nutshell...moisture level determines the "softness" of the cheese.
There are, btw, soft rennet coagulated cheeses.
But is pressing a major player in the HARDNESS of cheese. That is the question here. What are the factors in making a hard or soft cheese? I'm attempting to make a cheese bone for my dogs, I want it has hard as I can make it. A brick that a human wouldnt touch. What are the factors that would make the cheese super hard?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.154363
| 2012-01-10T16:27:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20315",
"authors": [
"David",
"Dolanor",
"Nate",
"crthompson",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61315"
],
"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
}
|
21557
|
What happens during a cold fermentation that makes bread taste so good?
Many techniques for bread highlight a long cold fermentation. I've read that this gives enzymes more time to work and it contributes to a more 'complex' flavor. What do the enzymes do and why don't they slow down in the fridge as well? Wouldn't the reactions just happen faster at room temp?
Maybe this will help. https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=7E66C720FE37C073&sc=documents#!/view.aspx?cid=7E66C720FE37C073&resid=7E66C720FE37C073%214979&app=WordPdf
A cold/delayed ferment does several things:
Allows for more complete hydration of the starches, and more gluten development.
An enzyme called protease, which is naturally occurring the flour, breaks some of the long gluten bonds, making the dough more extensible. (This is not in conflict with the first reaction, it just controls the gluten length).
Creates flavors through alpha-amylase action converting starches to sugars.
The first two items are lumped into the term autolyse, which can be done in time frames of anywhere from 10 minutes to several hours.
The third item of a cold ferment gets more complex... Additional enzymes (alpha-amylase enzymes) that come along with the flour, yeast, other ingredients added to the flour (malt powders), or grain mashes, perform a set of reactions that break starch molecules into sugars. This reaction is what turns malted grain from starchy soup to sweet liquid in the beer-making process of "mashing". These sugars both add flavor of their own, caramelize to create new flavors, and feed the yeast creating even NEW flavors.
The trick, and reason it is cold, is that the yeast contribute valuable enzymes to this process, but can be too energetic. If they are allowed to ferment wildly they would likely over-leaven the bread. The cool temperatures slow the enzymes down as well, but not as much as the yeast, letting the enzymes catch up with the process.
Now - no part of this process is dogma. There are people who cold-rest their dough and THEN add yeast the next day. Problem here is that you need to allow at least 6 hours at room temperature for the yeast to catch up, and it is hard to integrate yeast into pre-made dough. The results can be similar, but the scheduling is awkward. Other variations include cold resting only part of the dough, or making a liquid "soaker" that includes some mashed grain, allowing that to sit at room temperature without yeast, which is then integrated into the main dough on the day of baking.
Cold-resting dough is also a practical matter - once the dough is mixed and resting, if it spends 12 or 36 hours in the fridge, it doesn't matter too much, and once it is pulled out, only requires a few hours to come back to temperature, final proof, and bake. It sounds like a slower way to make bread, but personally, splitting the process into two days makes it easier to fit into a busy life - I start the dough on one day, then the next day (or two or three days later, if I get busy), I can pull the dough after work, proof and bake for a late dinner that evening. The flavor and dough development are icing on the cake.
To really dive into this process and what drives it, check out Peter Reinhart's books "Bread Baker's Apprentice" and "Whole Grain Breads", both of which go into the process in great detail, and are excellent reads for anyone wanting to improve their baking. It includes a lot of the science, and enough background information to make you feel comfortable with what you are doing, and comfortable experimenting on your own with variations to the process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.154734
| 2012-02-21T16:33:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21557",
"authors": [
"AndriuZ",
"Ausrine",
"Concerned_Citizen",
"Optionparty",
"Wendy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47924",
"phixr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21572
|
How can I reduce the amount of hooch my sourdough starter is making?
Sometimes my sourdough starter goes hooch (the brown liquid, alcohol) nuts and produces a ton. Other times it goes days and produces very little. I've never been able to isolate what causes this.
What promotes and discourages hooch growth in a sourdough starter?
Hooch formation is a sign of a starving sourdough starter. I've never actually had hooch forming on a regularly fed sourdough mother. So this is the short answer.
I've sometimes spotted something similar to hooch, but it's just a false sign; Twice a day I feed my sourdough starter (it's at room temperature), and I clean my glass jar each feeding. Sometimes a small amount of water is left in the jar, and when I pour in my sourdough it doesn't incorporate the water. This water over time moves on top of the sourdough and looks like hooch, but isn't. This might or might not be the problem. Remember, a room temperature sourdough should be fed twice a day. I don't have much experience with cold-storage sourdough, but once every second day should be good.
Wow, I'd not heard that often for a room temp starter. Mine is a fridge though.
@rfusca I fed mine once a day for a period of a few days once - it stopped rising, formed hooch and smelled of alcohol, so I feel confident it's actually necessary. But it's obviously not relevant in your case. How often do you feed it?
Probably twice a week.
@rfusca Since that is not a lot, I'd definately try to feed it a bit more often - perhaps only as much more as thrice a week - that's a little less than every second day. It's worth a shot atleast.
I feed my room temperature starter once a day, with about 1 3/4 c. flour, to about 3/4 c. water, or just so it is quite thick, and I can manage to mix it. I do not remove any, or 'discard' each time I feed, as I am only trying to keep it from starving to death and want the sourness it is gaining.
Once it is getting a bit too full in my container, I use some for something, after feeding... that might be a banana bread, or pancakes, or more recently, I made a pumpkin/raisin/walnut quick bread that called for baking soda.
That usually reduces it back to where I started, or close.
As to the 'hootch', it is formed due to a lack of food, saying it simply. The amount that is forming is just talking to you, it is saying...it is a bit past my dinner time, or it is WAY past my dinner time: What are you trying to do, starve me? If it forms a LOT, you can pour off some, and then stir in any little bit left on top, or if it is forming just a little, simply stir it back in, and feed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.155185
| 2012-02-21T18:18:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21572",
"authors": [
"Dent7777",
"Max",
"greentea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47884",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15384
|
The best way to clean a French Press coffee maker
I have been using a French Press coffee maker for quite some time now, and I have tried a few methods for removing the spent coffee grinds from the vessel. It is always a bit of a chore to this in an efficient manner without making too much of a mess. I am hoping to find a way that is quick, but does not result in grinds all over my hands or excess grinds going down the drain. I wonder if there are any accepted or creative methods for this action.
Related questions Will disposing of coffee grounds in the sink cause drain blockage? Can coffee grounds clean pipes when disposed in the sink?
I have a small sieve (like the one pictured) that I use for this purpose and it is very quick and easy. Slosh water in the press, pour through the sieve and dump grinds in the trash!
A sieve is an excellent way to clean a press quickly. http://espro.ca/faq-espro-press
Yes! Also works to clean the teapot.
Pull press apart. The filter and the filter holder should unscrew from the press stem and handle
Shake off excess grounds from each component into compost bin
Leave on sink rack to dry (over night). When dry, tap or shake off the last of the grinds into compost and wash as normal
Thanks for the response. I wonder if there is a faster way to get the coffee maker clean than letting it sit overnight...
Wash it into your garden at @Heather suggested. Coffee makes your garden smell nice
Just a note, not all filters/filter holders unscrew, especially with cheaper french presses. In that case, just wash the best you can, you'll probably never get it entirely clean :)
Haven't seen one that doesn't? I would suggest not purchasing one that won't unscrew, how could you clean it properly?
They carry them at walmart, which is where I got mine. The filter is riveted to the stem and handle. For cleaning, I usually just give it a good rinse with soap and water and hope it penetrated everywhere it needed to. I haven't died yet! :)
My favorite way to clean a french press is to add water into the spent grounds and pour all the contents at the base of a rose bush. It's an easy way to get all the grounds out, and the coffee grounds are good fertilizer for acid loving plants. Obviously, this isn't an option for everybody, but I used it often at one apartment I lived at where my landlord kept a rose garden out front(with the approval of my landlord, of course!). The roses looked great that year!
This doesn't work always. My parents did it, until the grounds started to grow moldy and the mold catched onto the plants' roots, too. YMMV.
My mother-in-law came up with a brilliant idea. Put a large viva paper towel in the sink and push it down a bit. Swirl water in the pot and slowly pour it over the towel. You must do this a few times then you can just toss the paper towel!
This is one of the solutions that I have been using. I also put the paper towel in a cup and use it like a filter.
My solution is much like @Michael's. I have a fine mesh sink strainer, like this one:
I put a little water in the French press, swirl it around, and dump it right in the strainer. Since you grind coarsely for French press coffee, it forms a pile and doesn't run through the strainer. Although from experience, even more finely ground coffee will pile up and form its own filter and not run through the strainer without help.
Then I just pick it up and knock it into the garbage can.
A long handle strainer works so much to my liking that I've come back to share its wonders.
It's so simple! And very inexpensive. I love it!
Having bought a close-knit wire sink strainer that I like, my system is complete.
With a 6.5" x 6.5" (165 mm²) flat, square-faced strainer, I have ample room to pour directly into the strainer without performing any type of difficult or careful procedure in the morning.
The foot long handle works well for knocking out the grinds into the trash/compost.
Press a large coffee filter in the sink drain. (box of 1000 available at Sam's Club for less than $8.00)
Pour a little water into the french press, swish, and pour into the coffee filter. Repeat until french press is clean.
Bring the rim edge of the coffee filter together to form a pouch.
Squeeze the pouch to remove excess liquid.
Place pouch with grounds in a zip-lock sandwich bag. Zip the bag and put it in the garbage.
What you could do is: Find an empty yogurt container with a lid. Drill a bunch of small holes into the lid (using a very sharp pencil and poking shallow holes may work if you don't have a drill handy).
Fill the bottom of the yogurt container with water. Take screened plunger out of press and thrust lightly, repeatedly, into container until free of most all grinds. Rinse remaining grounds off of plunger with a very light stream of water, as to not add any excess water to the container.
Add about a cup hot water to the press. With a wooden spoon handle or a upside down chop stick rapidly agitate the grounds in the press scraping at the sides and bottom of the press. Move from agitating with spoon hadnle or chopstick into a circular stir and begin to swirl the French press with the other hand and slowly start the tipping pour into the yogurt container with a joined centrifugal momentum until the point where the water and grounds are near to washing out of the press. Note: stiring will need to be a bit of a corkscrew, working from the bottom up whilst both tipping and swirling the press with the other hand, until finally, just before pouring out the grounds, the stiring tool is completely removed to allow for a clean and heavy pour.
Quickly rinse off stir stick into the container with a low flow of water. Add additional cup of hot water into the press and forcefully swirl out the rest of the grounds. (after the second rinse it might only take a small amount of wAter swirled with haste to make for a more final rinse.) With a paper towel, wipe out any stragglers and wipe off stick. Probably will want to was both with warm suddsy water and dry.
Place lid onto container and flip it over slowly and set to drain in sink. (for extra conscious people: before topping with lid set a paper towel across the top of the yogurt container to use as an extra filter and then secure lid by pressing down firmly at all points). Gravity should be on our side as long as care is taken to ensure that the lid is held to the container until the point that an edge of the lid is touching the bottom of the sink.
Whoah.... use paragraphs please. Also... that seems like an excessive amount of work.
Well sorry I had written each step on its own line but... It just chunked it together..
Opps and once you make the container the idea is that you have a system. But yeah it was just a thought. Today I happened to be at a restaurant equipment business here in mashville and saw a large headed, flat strainer about 6"x6" with a Long Handel for $3.19 ... I got it. So probably won't try my own dang idea after all. It's not like I was just laying in bed trying to solve the mystery of the French press cleaning process in a way that everyone could afford and was also environmentally / garden friendly.... Ok... Really I was. I love to think.
@Matthew You have to use blank lines to separate paragraphs. And... you're suggesting that you haven't actually tried this?
For me, french-pressing coffee is most easily done by incorporating an expendable piece of paper like 1/2 of a page of a newspaper. Note: My method here assumes that a few coffee grounds down the sink is not only "not really very bad", but in this case it's unavoidable.
First, when making of the coffee: I dump my freshly-ground coffee grounds into the newspaper piece. This keeps all the grounds in one place, minimizes mess, and makes for an easy transfer into the potful of water by simply folding or funneling the grounds into the pot.
Secondly, when it's time to clean the pot: Dump any residual pot liquid into the sink, (if you don't want to have the grounds go down the drain, just put a small piece of paper towel into your wire drain strainer and that will be like a coffee filter). Then use a spatula or fingers to whatever to get the grounds out of the pot and Dump into that newspaper page. Then roll it up and either throw it away or put it into compost (newspaper is OK for compost). Then rinse out the pot in the sink and dump out the rinse water, trapping the remaining few grounds in the wire drain strainer/paper towel thing.
I have a gold reusable coffee filter I place over the drain in the sink. I pour the leftover contents of the French press into the filter. Then rinse out the press, getting the remainder of the grinds. Dump contents of gold filter into compost pile or garbage. Rinse out gold filter. Easy peasy!
When I used a french press, I would pour out the excess liquid and then let the pot with the wet grounds dry out. When grounds are dry, they are muuuch easier to scrape out. Then I would give the pot a rinse with hot water and use a brush. It's not a good idea in general to wash out coffee pots with soap because of the residue might affect coffee flavors.
I also wonder if people have tried using a basket coffee filter on the bottom to try to catch the grounds so that they could lift them out with the paper filter after brewing. But I imagine there would still be many excess grounds floating all around the crevices of the filter.
I usually fill up the press with water, swirling it around a bit to get the grounds floating around, then flush it down the toilet. IANAP* but I've never had trouble with it clogging there. (though be cautious if you know you have bad/sensitive pipes, and folks with septic tanks might have additional worries?)
*(I Am Not a Plumber)
Cleaning it out immediately makes it easier to rinse all of the grounds out of the glass pot as well as off of the various layers of pressing/filtering mechanism.
You could dump the majority of the spent grounds into a plastic bag (keep the same one for a week, not like they're going to rot or smell up the house) before putting them into the trash if you use a paper trash bag and don't want wet, leaky spots all through it. What little remains shouldn't be too bad on your pipes.
(I'm not a plumber either, but always do mine this way, daily, and have never had a problem with the pipes, have lived in most places at least five years and this one going on 10.)
Fill it up with water, swirl, and dump it in the toilet. Easy.
I scoop the grounds out with a long handled metal spoon. Then rinse the rest into the toilet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.155444
| 2011-06-11T15:15:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15384",
"authors": [
"Aileen Tan",
"Alvin Huff",
"Atlas S. Harper",
"Bikram Duggal",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia Castle",
"Dawn Parker",
"Georgy Pashkov",
"Jeanne Moomaw",
"Jimmy",
"JoshuaRLi",
"Lump Coon",
"Matthew",
"Oliver",
"Scheiber",
"Seeth",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Thomas L. Tannehill",
"aVeRTRAC",
"akf",
"bernie2436",
"cspirou",
"gnzlbg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96893",
"rumtscho",
"sana",
"talon8",
"user127505",
"user138868",
"user32689"
],
"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
}
|
22152
|
How to separate two jammed-together measuring cups?
I have two Pyrex measuring jugs (this type) that have got jammed together, one inside the other, I'm looking for suggestions on how to separate them again.
I've already tried
washing-up liquid around the edge
putting ice water in the upper jug, then dipping the bottom jug in hot water
but neither of these has worked.
What else can I do to separate them?
I'm wondering about filling the bottom jug with water and then freezing the whole lot together so the water pushes the upper jug out as it freezes
Filling the lower jug with water and then putting the whole thing in the freezer worked. I checked it after a couple of hours and didn't think it had worked as I still couldn't separate them, but it mustn't have finished freezing at that point because when I looked again a bit later the ice had travelled up between the two jugs and then at some point the inner jug must have popped free.
Fill top jug with ice cubes. Fill bottom jug with hot (not boiling) water. Let sit for a few minutes. Take a rubber mallett and gently tap the lower section of the handle of the top jug.
I had previously squeezed a little dishwashing soap around the rim of the lower jug, and maybe that helped to release it also. Works!
It worked! Ice in top jug, hot water in bottom. Took a wooden spoon to tap handle of top jug, it moved slightly then turned allowing me to remove it!
This is a common problem. You can deal with this easily if you have a source of compressed air. Simply blow an intense jet of air right where the containers connect and it should blow them apart. It works on stuck buckets too. The other ideas are excellent but I usually have compressed air available and it’s surprisingly effective at dealing with these vacuum based issues.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.156297
| 2012-03-10T11:21:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22152",
"authors": [
"Ari Herman",
"Bruce Basil",
"Glen",
"PhilPursglove",
"Tabassum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55163"
],
"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
}
|
714
|
What's the right way to hard boil eggs?
I find I always have trouble scaling the amount of time the eggs should be boiled, cooled, etc. for different-sized batches of hard-boiled eggs.
I've heard a variety of "folk lore"-type rules for how it should be done, but what's really the right way?
I've never adjusted the length of time based on number of eggs. As long as the water is boiling I don't think it would take any longer to cook a dozen than to cook one (it might take the water longer to come up to boiling, I guess).
For hard boiled I normally bring them up to the boil and then turn the heat off, and leave them for 15 minutes. If you like them less well-cooked, you could reduce this to 12 minutes. Then empty the pan and re-fill it cold water a couple of times to cool them down quickly. Leave rest of them sitting in the cold water while you prepare each one.
Totally agree. The hot-soak concept also makes it hard to overcook them.
What about eggs right from the fridge vs. eggs that are at room temperature?
Does the age of the eggs make any difference in the actual boiling? I hear it does affect how they peel.
Don't know about eggs from the fridge - round here (UK) we tend to keep them in the cupboard. The only difference the age makes is that they are more likely to crack during boiling.
I've switched to this technique. I've found that it produces eggs that are perfectly boiled and never have that dark layer between the yolk and white -- that's an indicator that they were overcooked. ALSO: it's important to remove them from heat when you turn the heat off. You want them to get to a boil briefly and not stay there for any length of time.
Wikipedia seems to think that age does affect "peel-ability" The fresher the hard boiled egg, the easier it peels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiled_egg#Peeling
From my own experience chicken eggs are very difficult to peel straight from the coop. (Especially if they are still warm). The white Sticks to the shell and you end up cutting the egg away instead. Fast cooling also helps with peeling.
There is a whole science on that. Simply saying:
source: blog.khymos.org
Where:
t - time
T - temperature
M - mass in grams
While this is for soft-boiling eggs, I believe you can easily adjust it for hard-boiling.
Even an application, that cosiders all the variables, exists:
Kunsten å koke et egg - Google translated
While for me this is far more complicated, if you're interested you can read all the details in the post "Towards the perfect soft boiled egg".
This is fabulous and hilarious!
I also totally love this post. I'm calculating some basic times right now for our standard egg situation.
I'm sorry, but this answer is virtually useless. There is no practical way to determine the temperature of the egg or yolk when boiling. Funny, but not a useful answer.
Daniel, if you look up what temperature you want the yolk and egg to be (based on how done you want them), you can work out the time to get there.
That equation is missing height above sea level (effects the temperature in which water boils).
The equation includes the temperature of the water, so it does take into account height above sea level.
The question was "hard boil" not "hard math".
@Daniel Bingham....virtually?
@LorelC. According to the referenced source, Tyolk = 85 °C for a hard-boiled egg.
I don't boil eggs enough to keep a feel for the timing... So a few years back, I picked up a handful of these.
They're sold under a few different names, but the idea is the same: sturdy plastic that changes color as it heats. Drop it in with the eggs, and pull & chill them all when the color band hits the spot you're looking for.
Those look really cool! Do you keep it at the same temperature as your eggs?
@Peter: I usually just let the eggs sit out a bit before cooking them.
It also works with the 'take of the heat' method, I do not even keep a close check on the time anymore.
I'm not sure there is a definitive way to cook hard boiled eggs, but the guidelines I tend to follow are:
Don't cook eggs straight from the fridge, let them adjust to room temperature.
Don't use fast boiling water, a gentle roll is enough
For soft boiled eggs, place them in boiling water (enough to cover the egg by about 2cm) for one minute. Remove from the heat and cover. Leave them for approximately 6 minutes.
For hard boiled eggs place them in boiling water and simmer for about 6 minutes. Once done cool them as quickly as possible, by running them under cold water.
Timings may have to be adjusted slightly, depending upon the freshness of the eggs and also personal preference.
My mother taught me this way: eggs not straight from the fridge but don’t have to be room temperature. Use a small saucepan with a lid. (However many eggs, use a saucepan big enough so the eggs don’t touch each other or the side of the pan.) Cover the eggs with fresh water & heat to boiling. When they get to a rolling boil, turn off the burner & cover the pan. Let them sit on the burner for 20 minutes. I get perfect hard-boiled eggs with this method with either electric or gas range.
Running cold water over them in the pan both makes them easier to peel and stops the cooking.
Welcome! This is a nice answer and we appreciate the details. (Twenty minutes would be a bit too long in my opinion, but crumbly yolks are a pet peeve of mine)
I boiled eggs yesterday on a gas range, using this method. The yolks were done but still “creamy.” They do get a bit more done on electric—maybe remove from the burner, covered, 20 min. for creamy yolks?
Put them in the oven. It takes about 30 minutes at 325 F.
The question was "hard boil", not "hard oven".
I steam them in my veggie basket, which holds 6-7 eggs. I read Serious Eats blog and learned this there. Uses same pot and stove as boiled, but not boiled. They recommend 12 min. Eggs are straight from fridge. I can stand the eggs so the yolk is centered for deviled eggs. They peel perdectly, which is why I now use this method. https://www.seriouseats.com/steamed-hard-boiled-eggs-recipe
If you've got a sous vide setup you can set it for about 166ºF-ish for an hour and ensure they're cooked to perfection. However, you need to make sure that you've got it exactly that temperature as if you're too low the egg will come out runny. It's still safe, and arguably tastes better, but it's not hard boiled. In fact, this method doesn't boil the eggs at all, so I guess they're "hard cooked".
For a visual representation how minute changes in temperature changes the compositions of an egg see Figure 4.1 of Douglas Baldwin's "A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking".
The question was "hard boil" not "hard sous vide". I am sincerely just trying to find out how long to boil them for. This answer isn't really helpful for people who want to find out the same info asked by the original poster.
I bought eggs identical in size from various breeds and there is no such a thing as right time to boil egg. You have to know how eggs, that you buy behave and be aware, that egg comes from raw to perfect in 30 second and from perfect to dust in next 30 seconds, so you have like 10 seconds to put all eggs in the pot at once and pay attention to removing them in same time every time you boil them. Lastly icebath. You don't want them to be ice cold, but you don't want them to be cooking any further.
I gave you more questions than answers, this is why the best boiled egg is poached egg. You don't peel, you see how cooked it is, it takes ~4 minutes to boil.
that... doesn't make any sense. eggs don't go from raw to perfect in 30 seconds. Also what's with the giant screenshot at the end of your answer? That doesn't contribute anything to the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.156512
| 2010-07-12T08:38:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/714",
"authors": [
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"BZink",
"Babilicious",
"Charles Beattie",
"Daniel Bingham",
"David26th",
"FinnNk",
"Frank Szczerba",
"Gabriel Hurley",
"J. Thomas",
"James Fenwick",
"Jesse Williams",
"John Dyer",
"Kevin",
"Lorel C.",
"Luciano",
"Niall C.",
"Norman Ramsey",
"Peter V",
"Rick G",
"Sean Lynch",
"Shog9",
"Stephen F.",
"Stephie",
"Techboy",
"Vicky",
"Waldemar Gałęzinowski",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"jcollum",
"mchid",
"s_hewitt",
"user44719"
],
"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
}
|
4809
|
Impact of using egg yolks vs whites in a spaghetti dish?
I'm making a dish that calls for several egg yolks and 1 full egg (all scrambled together) to be poured over hot spaghetti and cooked salt pork (to cook the egg), and I'm wondering how much of a difference using yolks vs using whites makes.
If I could use the entire egg, I would be able to use less total eggs; but if this will have a serious impact on the dish, then I don't want to mess it up.
Thoughts?
What is this dish? I've never heard of such a thing...
Its my family's version of Spaghetti Carbonara. I understand that there are many different versions and makes of this dish, but my father brought this one back from Italy in the 60's, so i'd like to think its the most authentic :P
The Yolk and White are very different and I would expect to see a significant difference in result.
That isn't to say it will be bad, just different.
The Yolk is the source of fat. It is going to impart flavor to the dish and provide a creamier texture.
The White is mostly protein and so will set more, have more of a texture impact.
If it called for several whole eggs and you wanted to take a Yolk or two out for less fat, that would have less of a variance, but switching several Yolks to several Whites should definitely alter the results.
Extra info:
Here is some nutritional information of a Large Whole/White/Yolk.
http://www.incredibleegg.org/health-and-nutrition/egg-nutrients/nutrient-chart
You will see they both carry protein however the Yolk has almost twice as much fat as protein while the White has less than 2% of fat as it does protein.
This makes their behaviors very different.
Whites behave differently (coagulate differently, for instance). If it is a dish you'd likely make more often - why not try both variants and see how you like it? Everyone's got their own preferred style, perhaps it fits you?
Tried this both ways. Yolks only is the way to make this wonderful dish. A little bit of white won’t matter if you don’t separate them completely. After frying the pancetta almost all the way add minced garlic and a little white wine, let wine cook off for a few minutes. Delish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.157342
| 2010-08-10T18:01:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4809",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Dfowj",
"FaultyJuggler",
"Leigh",
"TJIC",
"cammil",
"dres",
"gusterlover6",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9309",
"rob",
"stephan"
],
"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
}
|
1953
|
How to do frozen yogurt
I would like to do at home frozen yogurt. Do I have to use an ice cream machine, or is there a technique to prepare it without a machine?
PS: I don't really like ice cream without the machine as the ice crystals are too big. I wonder if the highest density of yogurt helps.
You can do it sans machine, but you are limited to small batches, and it tends to form crystals. You have two choices, bags or freezer container. Bags tends to make less crystallized product, and is a bit faster.
Bags
Get a large 1 gallon ziploc bag, lots of ice, a ~2 cups salt, a small, 1 quart bag and the mix to be turned into ice cream (or frozen yogurt). Chill the mix in the fridge beforehand. This helps the mix cool more quickly and evenly, meaning smaller crystals, meaning creamier product.
Place the cream mix in the small bag, and leave a bit of air. Make sure it is sealed well, you may want to double bag it. Put the small bag in the big bag.
Fill the big bag about half way with ice and add a few tablespoons of salt. Seal the big bag and start mushing the small bag from outside the big bag, moving it around and getting it in contact with the ice. You probably want gloves or to wrap it in a towel: it gets really cold. After the ice melts down, add more ice and salt, keep squishing until the stuff in the bag gets hard. You can toss it on the floor and squish it with your feet while watching TV or reading. Put it in the freezer for a few hours to condition.
This isn't quite as nice as a machine. To compensate for the extra crystallization, you can add more fat and sugar, since those stop large crystals from forming. With frozen yogurt, I don't think there is much you can do.
Freezer Container
This is easier, but makes lower quality product. Simply put your mix in a large container (leave at least half empty), and place in the freezer. Take it out every 10 minutes and shake vigorously for a few seconds. Repeat until it won't move anymore. Use a fork to fluff the mix.
Now the only problem is to find ziploc bag in Italy! I'll try with a simple fridge bag closing it with a wire.
If you want the ice to remain soft you have to stir it while freezing. It is possible to do it by hand, but you will wish you had bought an ice cream machine.
If you want to make frozen yoghurt popsicles you can do so without stirring. You can use improvised small containers for this, but there are also special containers on the market. My kids love them :)
You are right, but I don't want to buy a machine that I will use just a couple of times in a year...
With most icecreams you can make it without a machine by putting in the freezer and getting out every once in a while and beat it to break up the crystals as they form. You can use a whisk/fork/wooden spoon whatever for this.
The amount of time between beatings depends on how cold the mixture already is, so at the beginning when you first put it in you can leave it 20-30 mins before you need to beat it, but as it freezes more and more you need to beat it more regularly, up to every 5-10 mins.
The more often you beat it the more likely you are to get it 'creamy'
I assume the same would apply to yogurt, although I've never tried it without a machine personally. You may need to adjust the time between beatings for yogurt though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.157573
| 2010-07-19T11:39:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1953",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Type",
"Borbus",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Wizard79",
"ekrempe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5065",
"sorens"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
298
|
How do you open a coconut?
Without killing yourself or others?
is this for fresh, green coconut, or not fresh, brown, hairy ones?
related -- http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/572/knife-chopping-through-bone-or-coconut
English or African :-)
Anyone looking at this after 12 year, do not cut trough a coconut with a knife or a saw! It'll ruin both the coconut and your tool. Do this instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X87QjYFp2A
The best way to open a brown hairy coconut, not a fresh green one (assuming you are right handed, I imagine that sinister people can reverse the instructions, but I've not tried it).
First image the coconut is a head, everything is related to this, so the visualization is important. The three holes are the eyes and mouth of the face. They naturally form an eyes/mouth thing. you'll see that it only really looks like a eyes/mouth one way up. stare into its eyes (this bit is not so important, but I like to do it).
Now hold it in your left palm, under its chin/where the neck would be, with the 3 holes in the coconut arranged like the eyes and mouth of a face looking out to the right, mouth below the eyes, with the hair pointing up. There will be a slight 'seam' running between the eyes and back over the top of the head.
Then take a large, heavy knife and using the FLAT side of the knife (not the sharp edge), a meat cleaver works best, strike the coconut hard across the coconut's 'forehead', where its hair line would be, aiming to impact exactly on the 'seam'. You might need a few goes to get the crack right open, but sometimes it can be done in a single strike.
Get this right and it will crack in a straight line from ear to ear along the hair line. Works a treat. And usually you can use the shell for something as you get a clean break.
Once you have the first crack you can either prise apart or rotate the coconut in your hand and hit it a couple more times on the uncracked parts, following the same line as the first crack, to completely separate the two pieces.
Alternatively you can stick it into the oven for 15 mins, @400F, after which the shell should have started to crack. Then you can use the tool of choice to finish the cracking, rolling pin, hammer, wrench, flat of knife another coconut, whatever. But where is the fun in that?
I work along the seam, rotating / hitting as I go ... yours sounds like you're focusing in one place?
yeah, I find that a sharp blow in the right place creates a crack across about half the coconut, which you can then prise open, or you can rotate and hit again to completely separate. I've added this info to the answer.
This could use an image to demonstrate :)
@jmoeller: I'll work on that. Not sure my ascii art is that good ;)
The easiest way is to use oven. I find that 190C/375F is convenient.
Before placing it in the oven you should drain the water from the coconut. Drilling the 2 of the 3 holes with a hammer + screwdriver works fine.
After removing from the oven after about 15 minutes use a hammer to easily crack open the coconut. If it's not easily cracked, let rest for a few more minutes.
+1: This is absolutely the best way to not chop your hand off. I recommend using an actual drill to drill the holes...It works great. Obviously make sure your drill bit is clean (I actually have a couple I use just for food).
The best way to get the water out without resorting to electric tools is to use a corkscrew. One of the eyes is soft and you can get a corkscrew in and then just pull it out to create a nice clean hole
The brute force way is with a machete :) However, you can also do it with a small handsaw (which is useful if you want to use the shell for something - they make cool hiding places for fishes in an aquarium). Otherwise, you can split it with a wide chisel and a hammer.
For fresh coconuts, the machete is king (at least in Brasil).
I would use a hammer instead.
Along the circumference of the coconut, draw line with water. This creates a fissure line. Then hit hard on this line with a small rock or equivalent & Voila! Dont believe me? Try it!
I've got to try this...
If you're just looking to get the milk out, poke two of the "eyes" and drain. Don't laugh, but find a concrete floor and quickly bang the coconut and it will split into fairly even pieces. Be careful because the edges can get sharp....
Here's a video of how to do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcG3CwqHm0
I removed the portion of your answer which was copied from someone else's. Now all that's left is a link to a video, which isn't terribly useful - we'd prefer you summarize the method here so people can just read it.
When I was a child, my father would bring coconuts home. He would puncture the eyes and drain the juice, then my siblings and I would run up to a second-story window and drop the coconut onto the asphalt. Worked pretty well.
Since you didn't say you want to retain the coconut water, just use a big ol' axe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.158120
| 2010-07-09T22:49:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/298",
"authors": [
"Arn",
"Aron Schöffer",
"Cascabel",
"Curry",
"David LeBauer",
"Joe",
"Madushan",
"Ovi Tisler",
"Piotr Czapla",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Subrata Pal",
"Wizard79",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94652",
"jumoel",
"kajaco",
"mhaller",
"pferate",
"teukkam"
],
"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
}
|
6572
|
What can I substitute for Mayonnaise in a traditional potato salad?
I wanted to make a Potato Salad that was going to be exposed to fairly extreme heat during an upcoming picnic and wanted to make sure it wouldn't spoil as quickly as it does sometimes. Is there something other than Mayo that I can use to bind it together - here is the rest of the recipe:
5 cups peeled and cubed potatoes
1/3 cup lemon juice
1/4 cup vegetable oil
2 teaspoons white sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons seasoning salt
1 1/2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce
1 teaspoon ground mustard
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/4 cup chopped green onions
1/3 cup chopped celery
3 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley
Direct substitution options would include sour cream, plain yogurt, or cottage cheese pureed in your blender to do a one-to-one substitution, but I don't know that these would necessarily solve your issue of having the salad sit out with ingredients that could spoil.
This question has a whole list of substitutes. Tofu is one that might suit your needs, although it would change the flavor profile.
Consider instead a German potato salad, which does not have mayonnaise to begin with. Yes, this departs from your original recipe, but it will definitely solve your issue.
Agreed on the alternate non-mayo potato salads. There's plenty of great ones out there that use a vinegrette, or you can go with an Austrian potato salad, where it's the starch from the potatoes that acts as the binder and gives creaminess
Another option is a commercial product called Vegenaise. You should be able to find it at any health food type store, or Whole Foods. It is really quite a good substitute; not quite as much flavor as say Best Foods / Hellman's, but close, and a near identical texture.
+1 even though the name makes it sound disgusting...
@yossarian It's made from pureed vegans, so it has to be good.
I know this may depart from the answer you are looking for but put it in a bowl of ice. Not your potato salad the bowl your potato salad is in. A picnic in extreme heat could only last a couple of hours and as long as you check on your ice and give it a stir every once in awhile you should be gtg (good to go). Anything longer and the people at the picnic will have heat prostration and will not feel like eating anyway. :)
I would suggest using a really good olive oil instead of a bland vegetable oil. The salad may also benefit from omitting the sugar, and perhaps adding some good black or green olives.
I grew up on mustard potato salad and prefer it to the mayonnaise variety. It usually has some mayo in it, but you could adjust the recipe and omit it.
Yogurt gives potato salad a nice tang; if you try it, use a full-fat brand.
I've used yogurt rather than Mayo for decades. To switch things up a bit, try adding some a lttle sesame oil.
Another way to prepare mayonnaise is with hard boiled egg yolk, instead of fresh eggs. The cooking will kill salmonella, so this mayo will be safer.
Julia Child - http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2008/05/julia-child-cooked-egg-mayonnaise-recipe.html
@roux - salmonella 'could' be inside the egg. That's the whole issue. http://www.incredibleegg.org/egg-facts/egg-safety/eggs-and-food-safety
A nice dolop of creme fraiche can bring a 'mayo-free' potato salad together nicely - and would work well with your other ingredients. It's fairly stable in the heat too.
If you wanted to take things in a slightly different direction, a generous spoon of a wholegrain mustard can really work wonders.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.158609
| 2010-09-02T12:22:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6572",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7151
|
Would the same mixing principles that apply to paint work for Food Coloring variations?
If I wanted to create different shades using Food Coloring, is there a different method of mixing them or would the same principles apply as with paint. Is there a standard mixing chart that details the different variations that would break down the process?
I'm unfamiliar with the principles behind mixing paint. Can you briefly explain how this works so people like me may better answer the spirit of your question?
Adding blue to yellow to make a green, yellow and red make orange ...just guessing that those combinations in food coloring will produce similar results, curious if there is a standard chart for food coloring mixtures...
Yes, the principles are the same as for paint. It is subtractive color, meaning each new color you use subtracts out all of the colors except the ones it reflects. The other kind is additive color, when you are mixing lights like on a stage or out of a television set, and doesn't have much application to food that I can think of.
Here is a bit more detail on the subject: http://www.ehow.com/how_4425121_mix-liquid-food-coloring.html
It's a pigment, so the principles are the same, but there's a few caveats when you're dealing with icing (and other than making fake blood, or dying cookie dough to make pie chart looking cookies, it's the only time I've ever died food for no other reason than to be decorative)
Liquid colors will throw off the consistency of icing if used in any large amounts. Powdered colors (available at cake supply stores) don't fully encorporate right away, and will be a deeper color the next day. Gel colors (available at cake supply stores, and at large craft stores, such as Michaels and AC Moore) are available in more colors, which makes it easier to match colors.
You can also get white powder for lightening shades. (it takes a lot of icing to try to turn red to pink ... you're better off taking a new batch of white, and add a little of the over-dyed icing to it 'til you get the right shade) .. or using pink gel color to start with. White can also be used in non-icing applications to try to lighten things.
Here is a great coloring chart for icings: http://www.sugarcraft.com/catalog/coloring/colormixingchart.htm
@Attila : Thanks ... the wheels's about the same as with paints, but the page has a lot of great information about other issues specific to dealing with icing, liquid vs. powder vs. gel colors, and comments about specific colors from different manufacturers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.158883
| 2010-09-11T23:44:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7151",
"authors": [
"Ashley",
"AttilaNYC",
"Dinah",
"Eric",
"Joe",
"Murali",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jkolash",
"superfav"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5591
|
Is it possible to freeze wine for future use?
I wanted to freeze some leftover wine (about half a bottle) to use for cooking at a later date.
Will it keep at all?
Are there any special ways to freeze it?
Would freezing it in the bottle be safe?
Should it be defrosted first before using, or can I use it straight out of the freezer?
Yes. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1422/how-long-can-i-store-cooking-wine/1431#1431
You could also use the wine and make some home made vinegar with it.
I've heard about freezing it in an ice cube tray - any body else try this? Will it pick up the flavor of the fridge?
Isn't the wine supposed to get better when standing still and unfrozen? ;) If it's not that kind of wine one might want to consider buying new when needed instead of freezing...
I tried freezing leftover wine many years ago, and it does work. You can just freeze it in the original bottle.
The flavors are somewhat muted compared to the same wine unfrozen. Not recommended for drinking the wine, but it is acceptable for cooking purposes.
I'm not willing to contradict this outright but I will say (1) look at Emiliano's answer -- I've heard the same but I haven't tried it (2) I've heard and adhere to the mantra: don't cook with wine you wouldn't drink. Again, I won't swear that this is the final word on the matter, but I've heard it said many times and it's what I personally go with.
Be aware that freezing it in the bottle may break it, it's because the frozen water increases its volume when becomes ice
As far as I understand it, as long as the liquid has somewhere to expand to when freezing, it should be fine. Since this is a half bottle, it should be able to expand up, so I wouldn't worry too much about freezing it in the bottle...assuming it's half full, of course. That's based on my understanding of liquids in general, but I'm not a wine expert at all, so please correct me if anyone knows otherwise. Now, if you have a glass bottle that's of poor quality and can't withstand freezing temperatures...that's another story :) But I would hope wine wouldn't come in one of those...
browsing from a while in the future... but you have a problem if the ice forms at the top first... :)
I have tried this, but not in a bottle, only in icecube containers. They are ok for putting in something like gravy or a bolognaise but I wouldn't use it in anything where wine is a main ingredient, like Coq au Vin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.159131
| 2010-08-19T23:52:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5591",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Camille",
"Dinah",
"Joe",
"Martin",
"firebush",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801",
"jv42",
"kees visser",
"naugtur",
"sina72",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user1286408",
"wootscootinboogie",
"ziu"
],
"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
}
|
28
|
Storage life for goose fat
When I roast a goose, I decant the fat, strain and freeze it. I typically get a pint or more. This seems to work well, I can chip off suitably-sized pieces from the frozen block and use them as necessary. But is this the best way to store it, and if so, how long can I leave it for in the freezer before it's no longer safe to use?
Awesome idea - in the freezer! Never thought of that, I just keep it in a jar until it goes rancid :(
It won't go unsafe if it's refrigerated or frozen, but it might pick up off flavors or turn rancid eventually. You can probably use it for 6 months if it's well-sealed and not exposed to air.
I have used a frozen pot for a year an it was still good. I threw it out after that just in case!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.159361
| 2010-07-09T19:17:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28",
"authors": [
"Fredrik Mörk",
"Joel in Gö",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"jessecurry",
"plor",
"txwikinger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25144
|
How to make softer scones?
I used the scone recipe from here, but the scones turned out really hard and dry. What should I have done differently? More butter, more milk. Less cooking time?
http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/8163/basic+scones
For scones and biscuits (southern US meaning), you need a very wet dough to make them soft. It should be almost too wet to shape. Also, use flour with about 7-8% gluten (the type name will be different depending on where you live).
I don't mean to be a dick (being petty), but sometimes flour won't quote a gluten percentage. Look for a protein percentage (the protein is what is converted into gluten).
I don't make scones myself, but 200ºC 20'-25' is a very hot oven for a very long time. Try experimenting. Start with the oven at 150ºC and 20', and prepare one scone. Test the result. Crank the oven up... until you get your desired result.
We use sour cream or cream instead of Milk ever since we tried it when we were out of milk and they were MUCH better.
The proportions on everything look correct (including the milk!) EXCEPT that is a very small amount of butter for 3C flour. There is also no sugar in that recipe--and even a very small amount of sugar will change the texture of the dough. I personally would triple the amount of butter, add 2-3T sugar, and then re-try the recipe. VERY cold butter will also help with a lighter finished baked scone.
As for the comment that the oven time is too hot and long---the temperature is good--but I would think the baking time would fall more in the range of 15-20 minutes, depending upon whether you are baking from frozen dough or freshly made scone dough. A hot oven, as opposed to a moderate oven (350 degrees F--normal for cookies and cakes) is recommended for biscuits and scones. Since all ovens bake differently, rely less on the actual time and more on how the scone looks--it should be lightly golden on top and not doughy in appearance in the center. A cake tester can be used to be certain that the center is fully baked.
good luck--it always seems to take a little effort to find the scone recipe that you think is perfect!!
That recipe has a very old style problem - it predates modern definitions of "cup". Methinks the cup in your recipe is a small coffee cup.
If you are using 80g (3oz) of butter, that will make a good scone recipe with about 225g (8oz) of flour and about 150ml (5 fl.oz) of milk.
I just weighed a 250mL cup of SR flour, it contained about 155g. The cup in the recipe is a "not quite full" 5oz coffee cup according to my calculations.
There's your trouble ... too much flour and milk. The fact that the adjusted amount of milk needed in proportion to the butter is very close to the customary ratios reinforces the points I have made. Another clue is that the recipe says "makes 16". If you get a lot more than the recipe says, that should ring an alarm bell.
It's the handling of the dough. Too much will yield hard scones. Less is more. Once dry and wet are mixed, that's enough. It may feel a little sticky but leave it alone. Let it rest for 10 minutes before shaping then bake.
More milk normally harden the scones..I prefer a little more butter and yoghurt since it worked for me fme for years now. Once out from the oven cover with kitchen towel or so to help soften.
Add 1 tsp of baking powder into the dry ingredients.
Once baked,leave them to cool wrapped in a tea towel for soft scones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.159470
| 2012-07-20T13:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25144",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"BaffledCook",
"Dijeng Sebusi",
"Eric",
"Jane",
"Jo-ann Jones",
"Kate.R",
"Kathryn W. Kemp",
"M D",
"Mercede Myers",
"Mike B",
"Patricia Rich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9025",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41199
|
How do I get homemade mayonnaise to taste like store bought mayonnaise?
I recently made a batch of homemade mayonnaise, having found myself with left over egg yolk from another recipe. I decided not to flavor the mayonnaise with any mustard. The mayo ended up tasting like mostly oil. I decided not to use mustard since the store brands never taste like mustard. How can I adjust the flavor so that my mayo tastes like the typical mayo you get in stores (particularly Hellmann's brand)?
For the record, here is how I prepared the mayo:
For every 1 egg yolk I have, I added 2 table spoons of white vinegar to activate the emulsifier. Then I slowly dripped in vegetable oil until the mixture started to look a bit like yellow mayonnaise. At that point I started adding and stirring into the mixture large portions of vegetable oil until I got to my desired thickness (I like the thicker mayo). I should note that the color was still a very light yellow, perhaps not enough vinegar.
But...why would you want your mayonnaise to taste like Helman's? The point of home-made mayonnaise (or of top-quality mayonnaise) is that it should be better than Helman's! I would add mustard, though not too much. I also recommend lemon juice (unless it's already sour enough) and pepper. I assume you have already added plenty of salt.
@Cerberus I have a particular pallet and I've grown accustomed to Helman's flavor. I would like to know how to curve the flavor towards Helman's and from there tweak it to where I find it optimal. Also, the price of Helman's is quite a bit more than say Kraft and I can't bring myself to pay the difference, especially when I can make Mayo at home at a substantially reduced price. As for the mustards, I know that different kinds of mustards result in different tastes, so I don't know the right combination. Last time I added honey Dijon mustard and it tasted like the old mcdonalds honeymustard
@Cerberus the honey mustard from like 20 years ago...Not that's a bad thing. I loved that honey mustard, not like that spicy honey mustard they use now. I think their old recipe must have included mayo.
Mustard powder is a better option than actual mustard imo.
Checking the my Hellmann's jar, you'll need to add lemon juice and sugar. Also, whole egg, not just yolk.
While little talked about, I suspect the quality of the oil has a big influence on the commercial products; not sure how you would even find out what characteristics the oil in a commercial mayonnaise has or how to reproduce it at home.
I think you'd be better off adjusting your taste to real mayonnaise flavor. Also, a great side benefit of making your own mayonnaise is that you realize that it's almost all oil. Use good oil; use garlic; use whatever spices and herbs that you like. Homemade food means you're making what you like. The mass-market products are optimized for production cost mostly.
@Pointy there are a large number of different mustards made from different mustard pland seeds and a variety of different combinations. I'm looking for someone to point me in the right direction. I need an answer that is a little less vague than the ones given in the comments so far. I was hoping some else had experiment before and knows how each kind of mustard affects taste i.e. makes it more bitter or sour, makes it spicier, maybe one kind of mustard is more bland than another, which particular ingredient (whether it be mustard, lemon, garlic) contributes to that store bought taste etc
@Nil There is http://www.topsecretrecipes.com/hellmanns-best-foods-mayonnaise-recipe.html ... that came from Google. Haven't tried it myself. It looks sane, compared to the ingredients listed on the Hellmann's bottle (though I'd use the full egg, because the bottle says they did). Also an immersion blender, if you have one, is great for making thick mayo.
Here's a recipe that is similar to the Japanese brand Kewpie, which many folks love: http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/chefsteps-mayo-no-4
@Pointy there is merit in both. And making something that has all the qualities of a storebought product, then improving on it taste and/or health wise sounds fun :)
I have to make both mayonnaise and aioli every day at my job. We sometimes do R&D on off days and we spent quite some time trying to imitate our favorite gourmet mayonnaise. I think that we were successful, here are some tips:
Lemon juice comes closer to that crisp tartness that I taste in even cheaper mayonnaise. Try using the juice from lemons, limes, or both and see where that gets you.
The store bought brands don't taste like mustard, but let me emphasize that mustard is vital to getting you closer to that taste. There is a specific "tang" to store bought mayonnaise that doesn't come from the acid -- you can get very close to this tang with mustard. I use a good quality dijon when I make mayonnaise and the difference is noticeable. Keep adding dijon in small amounts and observe the change in taste. I end up 2 - 3 tablespoons to my batch.
Experiment with fresh garlic and/or garlic and onion powders.
Try adding white pepper instead of black pepper and see where that gets you.
I add a little water at the end. I find that it tones down some of the intensity of the acid and dijon.
Also, you don't have to add your acid in the beginning. In fact, I almost always add mine after the initial "setting" of the emulsification. It is easier to control the thickness and flavor of my mayo; I use my acid for my first thinning and then add oil to adjust from there.
Also: A common trick in lactovegetarian/vegan cooking to make something taste more "eggy" is using black salt (kala namak) ... careful with that stuff if not familiar with it!
Further to JoshieSimmons answer, It's worth pointing out that emulsions of any kind amplify the flavor of the oils in them. You might, for example, have an olive oil that is delicious on its own, over bread, but is overpowering in a mayonnaise, or emulsified dressing. To imitate the 'non' taste of a commercial mayonnaise, you would have to use a neutral oil (sunflower is good), a very mild mustard to help emulsifying, and less acid than most recipes for home-made. Balance an increased amount of oil with water, rather than vinegar / other acid. Taste as you go, first time round.
Industrial mayonnaise is much less yellow because it uses less egg yolk. In fact, a single egg yolk can make up to 6 gallons (!) of mayonnaise if you add warm water in the process (vinegar should do the trick) before adding more oil.
While this may be true, it doesn't explain how to make it taste more like store bought mayo. Are you suggesting that the OP use fewer egg yolks? Is that the only change?
Want the taste of store bought? Add a ton of bad stuff to it, like a ton of E-Number Additives :P
Also the emulsifying process, has nothing to do with the Vinegar, it is the Egg Yolk and Oil, Mustard stabilizes it, i recommend spending 30 Seconds whisking just the Egg Yolk and Mustard, then slowly add the Oil, and wait seasoning it till the end, as well as adding Vinegar / Lemon Juice, that way, emulsify way better, if you need to make smaller batches :)
Also the more Yellow Colour, is usually made by using "Turmeric" as it is healthy, adds Colour, but not really any flavour, just like they do with Curries or other things they want to be "Yellow" :)
E-numbers equals bad stuff? Seems you are a bit misinformed about what E-numbers mean. Turmeric is E-100(II)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.159908
| 2014-01-16T01:29:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41199",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cerberus",
"Janie",
"Kristina Ivanova",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mēššı",
"Nil",
"Pointy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stefano",
"beatrixx",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96094",
"rackandboneman",
"roetnig",
"sneep"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19694
|
What is the purpose of oil or butter in bread?
Specifically in wheat and potato breads, what is the purpose of adding oil or butter to the dough?
I have always assumed it was just for flavor, but I suspect there is some background chemical reasons for adding it.
You can experience the purpose: make one dough completely lean, make another with a lot of oil or shortening/butter (they act somewhat differently), but otherwise the same, and observe the difference: without fat, it'll be much chewier; more fat will make it more cake-like.
Breads get their structure from glutens--a type of protein formed by the combination of glutenin with gliadin. Kneading and resting the dough helps the formation of glutens--I assume by shifting glutenin and gliadin molecules around, this increases the odds of bindings occurring.
Oils can bind to glutenin and gliadin and inhibit these reactions, so fats--oils and butter--definitely play a role in the texture control.
It prevents the dough from getting too elastic, which controls texture. This elasticity change would also change the maximum air bubble size. Altering resting times and yeast quantity also change these, but trading off for a different flavor. Oil may play other roles, but these are what I recall reading about off the top of my head. Yes, it does contribute to flavor as well.
As Eric Hu said in a previous answer, oil reduces the formation of gluten, therefore affecting the elasticity of the dough.
From the chemical and physical point of view, without altering other variables (yeast, rising time, salt, amount of liquid,etc) a dough with less or no oil will me more elastic, allowing bigger bubbles and giving the bread a chewier texture.
This is the case of French bread, for instance; French bread requires longer rising times to develop flavors, slower yeast activity (achieved by adding more salt to the dough), and no oil or fat, to get a more elastic dough and achieve its characteristic texture.
Personally butter and oil adds a particular flavor to bread and in fact the bread looks like cake and seems like chocolate cake. When the bread especially the local type called kumba bread that I produced is oiled with enough butter inside before baking, the bread comes out from the oven very bright and having that coffee brown color so attractive to eat.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I tried to understand just what you were saying, and I edited your answer a bit so maybe it would be more understandable to others. If I was wrong about what you were trying to say, please tell me. Also, I'd like for you to see another one of our sites on Stack Exchange: English Language Learners. I'm there quite a bit too. I'd love to see you again, here or there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.160467
| 2011-12-16T07:19:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19694",
"authors": [
"Ha Duc Tien",
"Jan Smith",
"Jolenealaska",
"Steve King",
"Vickie Isaacs",
"cppcoder",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42939",
"jeff"
],
"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
}
|
21710
|
Does tiramisu firm up in the fridge?
I am making my first tiramisu, using this recipe from Gourmet (with high ratings on Epicurious). My mascarpone mixture looks terribly soft to me.
As per recipe, I foamed 4 yolks with 80 ml sherry (I had no Marsala) and 95 g sugar at 55°C. The yolks were from recently bought M-sized eggs, there were no L-size in the supermarket. The volume increased a lot, but the foam itself was runny. I mixed in the 450 g mascarpone (the egg mass was still warmish), and it seemed to dissolve (I hope I didn't melt it). The result was still foamy and runny. Then I folded in the 240 g whipped cream. The final consistency is similar to egg whites beaten to stiff peaks. It is a foam, and not runny, but very aerated, and I suspect that, if left on a heap (instead of a bowl), it will flow flat over time. It is very unlike the cream layer in tiramisu I've had before.
Is this normal? Will the cream harden in the fridge? Will the ladyfingers soak up some moisture? (They are coffee-dipped in this recipe). Or should I put in some gelatine to make sure it will keep shape? Or some other thickener? I have xanthan, but don't know how to incorporate it, the mass won't survive a mixer on full speed, and it will clump if not perfectly dispersed.
Your recipe doesn't specify 55°C, and I'd be surprised if 5–8 minutes over barely simmering water only gets that hot. Indeed, checking for sources:
McGee, in On Food and Cooking, says:
When the temperature reaches 120°F/50°C, high enough to unfold some of the yolk proteins, the mix thickens, traps air more efficiently, and begins to expand. As the proteins continue to unfold and then bond to each other, the foam rises into fluffy mounds. The key to maximally light zabaglione is to stop the heating just when the foam teeters on the cusp between liquid and solid. Further cooking will produce a stiffer, denser, eventually tough sponge as the proteins over-coagulate
so that leads to the conclusion that 55°C wasn't hot enough, as it hadn't yet reached "the cusp between liquid and solid".
Hans-Dieter Belitz, Werner Grosch, and Peter Schieberle say in Food Chemistry:
Egg yolk can be whipped into stable foam only at higher temperatures (optimum 72°C), the volume increasing about sixfold in the process. Above the critical temperature, the volume falls and the proteins coagulate. The protein coagulation is prevented by reducing the pH value, e.g., by the addition of acetic acid. This effect is used in the production of highly stable sauces
so that'd imply you want 72°C, or maybe higher due to the acid (wine) present. As a side benefit, that'd also pasteurize the eggs.
In summary, I think you should have cooked it hotter.
I doubt it is going to firm much in the fridge, hopefully it is stable enough to not further liquify.
You are correct, McGee specifies 50°C as the lower bound of the "good" interval for egg foams, and I was afraid to take it too high because at some points, the egg overcooks. There is at least one more protein which coagulates at 60°C, and I wasn't sure if this one won't make it too firm. Next time I will aim for 72°C.
The mixture does indeed set in the fridge. It remains airier than the average tiramisu I've eaten (but I don't know what commercial tiramisu contains, probably not a foam based on raw yolks), but it is firm enough to hold its shape when served. If a piece is forgotten outside overnight, it becomes softer again and runs slightly, but properly stored, it is really very good. Still, I will make a firmer foam next time (by using a higher temp for beating).
Here is a piece from the tiramisu, as you see, it supports its own weight.
I think you could have got away with the 55°C if you had let the yolks cool down before adding the cheese. I usually heat the yolks+sugar in a bain-marie, rather than directly; I never really measured the temperature, but I doubt it would be much higher than that.
I think the further addition of cream probably did more harm than good... next time put only mascarpone, as that thickens the compound a lot.
If the ladyfingers were not too soggy they will definitely soak up some liquid, especially if you leave the tiramisu in the fridge overnight, which has also the benefit of enhancing its flavour.
In any case, don't add gelatine! It will definitely ruin the texture.
I'd rather put the tiramisu for 10-15 minutes in the freezer if it is really runny, but I suspect you will not need it. And even if it is a bit runny you can get away by serving it in small containers so that the ladyfingers will be tight and won't float around.
I don't think there is any thing wrong with what you've made. Tiramisu is a relatively recent dessert (forget about the 'Tuscan trifle' which did not even include mascarpone) created at Harry's Bar in Venice. As such there are many variations: some drier, some boozier, some creamier and some wetter and your recipe may just produce a wetter variety.
Take in mind that it doesn't need to necessarily have a thick, almost pipe-able texture as it (I assume unless you've decided not to) will only be spread in a gratin dish so it's ok if it spreads out a bit. In any case it will thicken a bit as it chills as the mascarpone starts to set in the fridge likewise will the cream and to a much lesser extent the egg yolks.
I do think though that they should have been heated more as at 55C they won't have started to cook at all, for next time perhaps try heating them to around 65-70C to form a true cooked 'sabayon' (or I suppose if it's Italian 'zabione'!). If you really want to thicken it at this stage there's not a lot you can do without deflating the mixture although you could perhaps stick in a few unsmoked or soaked very scarcely lady fingers to soak up the excess liquid. Other than that there's very little you can do that wouldn't ruin the texture so I wouldn't try corn starch or even gelatin.
Others say it was created at the "Alle Beccherie" restaurant in Treviso. Anyways, there is almost no doubt that it is not a Tuscan dessert.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.160727
| 2012-02-25T02:23:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21710",
"authors": [
"IanM",
"Jayanth Kumar",
"Nikhil Dabas",
"Silvia Arghir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"sadq3377",
"soapfish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11805
|
Can clotted cream be made with UHT cream?
I've followed a couple of recipes for clotted cream without success and it seems that pasteurization is the issue. I'm told that I need to use either unpasteurized cream or cream that has been low-temperature pasteurized.
All I can find here in Stockholm is cream pasteurized at higher temperatures (85 degrees C). Does anyone know why high temperature pasteurized cream doesn't work for clotted cream? Does anyone have a trick up their sleeve to get it to work?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11336/how-to-make-scalded-clotted-cream
All recipes I've seen call for raw milk, the pasteurisation messes up the clotting action. (see slightly related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1011/what-is-the-effect-of-using-pasteurized-milk-in-cheese-making)
If you are referring to Stockholm Sweden, you probably misunderstand what UHT means. Typical Swedish (e.g. Arla brand) cream is pasteurized, but not UHT treated.
It appears that you are right, that this is not UHT. Yes it's Arla brand I have used. The cartons are marked "högpastöriserad" (high pasteurized). According to wikipedia the pasteurization is done at 85 degrees C.
This recipe seems to suggest that using UHT cream will work, but that it will be a bit softer than if non-UHT cream is used. Perhaps you can compare your technique to the one suggested in this recipe to see where it diverges.
A little further hunting and I found this article (http://www.notdelia.co.uk/confused-about-cream/ ), which perhaps explains some of the problem. Clotted cream is made by slow heat treatment, but by definition, UHT cream has been treated with high heat, so this may have modified the structure in a way that interferes with getting the thickest clotted cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.161190
| 2011-02-03T22:18:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11805",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Confused Engineer",
"Michele",
"Niklas",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5081",
"rsfcralphie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44324
|
Why might I have trouble making butter from Crème Fraîche?
I tried making cultured butter today from a supermarket variety crème fraîche. For some reason the butter hasn't split from the whey although I've "churned" it with the hand mixer for 20 minutes or more.
This recipe for cultured butter suggests that about 2 to 5 minutes is needed with a food processor, and my previous experience with the hand mixer is about 10 minutes for sweet butter.
I checked the ingredients list of the crème fraîche and I don't see anything unusual: cream* and an unspecified culture. That's it. No artificial thickeners for example.
What could be the problem?
Update:
I'll just note one avenue I've already explored: temperature. I've tried varying the temperature during churning from just above freezing to around room temperature.
* The cream is "högpastöriserad" which is Swedish for a pasteurization process where the cream is held at 80°C for 5 seconds. I'm not sure this term translates directly to a common English term.
Hmm...I don't have a clue why that isn't working for you. Have you tried using cream that you have cultured yourself? That's on my list of things to try too if I can get a hold of cream that isn't ultrapasteurized.
I wish we would use that pasteurization process. Here almost all cream is ultra-pasteurized (cooked to death) at 138C. Forget fun things like making butter, we're lucky to get it to whip.
Where are you you in the world? The definitions of cream vary from place to place, as do processing.
@GdD His profile says Stockholm, Sweden.
If you were using supermarket cream, the reason would be very clear: it is not only pasteurized, but also homogenized. This means that it has been mechanically emulsified to prevent the butter from separating.
I don't know if the cream for creme fraiche is homogenized too before creme fraiche is made, but with your result, I'd suspect homogenization too. It won't show up on the label as an ingredient, as it is done by forcing the cream through microfilters.
I'm not sure that homogenization alone can explain the OP's difficulties. I have made butter a few times (intentionally and not-so-much), as far as I know all available cream here is homogenized.
@Jolenealaska I'm leaning towards this explanation. It seems that the homogenization process not only splits the fat globules into many smaller bubbles, but those bubbles become surrounded with proteins (whey and caseins) that stabilize the emulsion.
@ChrisSteinbach Do you have a food processor? That worked well for me when I intentionally made butter with homogenized cream. I have no doubt that homogenization makes it harder, but eventually even homogenized cream will turn to butter. A food processor should get you there without sacrificing your arm to the process. You've got me thinking now. I just tried commercial cultured butter for the first time and loved it. It was ridiculously expensive though.
I find that Jolene's point is very good: homogenization indeed doesn't prevent butter churning completely. It still makes it harder to happen. Sadly, I can't say how much harder. Still, it is the best hypothesis I can come up with, and I find it possible, but not certain.
@Jolenealaska My food processor broke a while back. I'll try in the blender and see how that works out. Cultured butter is the norm here in Sweden. I'm just playing with my food.
@Jolenealaska It worked! The blender isn't the ideal tool for this (it took a bit of shaking) but it got the job done. After about five minutes the whey started to split from the butter fat. The butter is creamy white rather than the usual yellow, so perhaps there are still a lot of protein-bound fat-globules in there. This particular batch of butter has spent too much time at room temperature while I've been messing for me to feel comfortable eating it, but the experiment bodes well for future attempts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.161366
| 2014-05-22T17:23:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44324",
"authors": [
"Chisomo Joline",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eumel",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"NormanKI",
"Spammer",
"cách nạp tiền bk8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user104149"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4130
|
Is there a non-penetrative method for checking cake doneness?
Is there some way to check a cake is done without using a toothpick or other penetrative device?
I like the thermometer idea, but no one seems to know how the heck to use them.
Use another utensil :)
Does anyone have any information on using a thermometer? I've seen Alton Brown use a Thermapen, but he didn't say what temperature he was looking for.
http://www.baking911.com/cakes/data.htm
I found some baking times for specific sized cakes. For me, I just use the toothpick method.
If it's a spongecake, you can check by pressing down on it and if it "bounces" back it's done.
If the reason you don't want to use a toothpick is that it leaves a big hole, you can buy a cheap little item called a cake tester that is just a thin piece of wire with a little handle. It leaves such a small hole that as to be unnoticeable. As a bonus, it is quite useful for checking the doneness of vegetables. This is the one I use.
In the same spirit of using an alternate thing to poke the cake with, I typically either use a skewer (as they're longer, so you're sure they got to the middle), or some uncooked strand of thin pasta (vermicelli, linguini, spaghetti)
Touch the center with the your finger. Texture will tell. It should have some spring back and not be gooey or too jiggly. If the center is cooked, so is the rest.
As for overcooking, I use the edges as a guide. If they're starting to brown, (either the over temp is just too high), or the center is probably done too.
Finally, smell. Fresh cake will have a sweetness. Underdone will still be a bit 'doughy'. Overcooked will start to have bready/crusty/burnt overtones.
Use a digital thermometer.
Finding correct core temperatures is a bit tricky though.
Update: Corriher suggests 98 degrees Celsius in her book BakeWise.
Can you expand on that please
Not all recipes specify the doneness internal temperature.
Alton Brown usually include the temperature, so look
at his recipes to get a feeling for the correct ball park.
In this recipe for carrot cake, the recipe reads:
If you have a thermometer, you are looking
for an internal temperature of 205-210 degrees.
http://noblepig.com/2010/01/15/alton-browns-18carrot-cake.aspx
The temperature for doneness is 98 degreee celsius. This is the temperature that Corriher repeatedly uses in her book BakeWise.
Possibly this answer came in before the answer was editing to specify a non-penetrative method.
Yes. The current version of the question even states that "I like the thermometer idea".
I always wiggle the cake a bit to see if the top moves. If it is undone the top with wiggle like it's wet. If done, it should be firm. If you know your oven well, the timing should be a good estimate too, and then use the wiggle method.
The top can firm up, while the center's still gooey, so this isn't always the best method. It's not bad if it's a recipe you've done before, but if the oven's too hot, the top might set up too early.
As is the case for all eye-ball recommendations, you need to use complimentary methods. That is why I mentioned the time point. But yes, this is definitely an estimate and should be used as a supplement to other methods.
Depending on the cake you are baking you can also listen to it. Some cakes have a slight bubbling sound while undone.
Simply use a fork.
Possibly this answer came in before the answer was editing to specify a non-penetrative method.
poke a wooden toothpick into the center of a cake; if it comes out with wet batter, keep cooking; if it comes out clean and dry, contrary to common knowledge, it's probably overcooked; if it comes out with a few crumbs stuck to it, it's probably perfect.
But the question mentioned without using a toothpick...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.161704
| 2010-08-03T18:38:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4130",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"David Norman",
"Digibitz",
"Ji Ji",
"Joe",
"K2so",
"Kieran",
"Kyra",
"Mark Chance",
"N B",
"Niklas",
"Sardathrion - against SE abuse",
"Zeina",
"dassouki",
"grautur",
"haggai_e",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401",
"joan",
"kogun",
"nicorellius",
"oranJess",
"soegaard",
"user10887",
"utapyngo"
],
"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
}
|
18486
|
Why does whole leaf tea leave a residue in the cup?
I purchased this nice whole-leaf oolong tea this afternoon.
I steeped it in 200 F water for 3 minutes (as directed) in my tea steeping basket:
And when I pulled out the basket, there were some uninvited guests remaining:
Did I do something wrong? I thought this was the kind of results to expect from tea "dust" that might be expected in a bag, but this is whole-leaf tea. Do I need to pre-sift my tea, or something? I'm afraid that as these remnant sit in the tea, they will make it bitter.
Sorry for showing my hand... and the crumbs on the table.
This is completely normal. It's hard to find a strainer that can even filter out the smallest particles. What I normally do is to discard the last bit that's in the cup, so the dust go with it. It should not appear again after 3 steep. What also works great is to let the tea first settle down a bit in the pitcher. Then pour slowly, to make sure the dust stays in the pitcher.
In Chinese tea "rituals" they "rinse" the leaves with hot water before steeping. Fill the pot with water and dump it out right away. Then fill your pot and continue as normal. This gets rid of the majority of the "dust". Like the others said, yes it's normal.
Doesn't this also get rid of most of the caffeine?
You're not leaving it long enough to steap. Just a quick pour through, so I don't think you lose much. Though to be honest, I have no real idea, how much caffeine is lost.
This is normal. Even with whole leaf tea, it's a dried (and cooked) product. You're going to experience some "crumbling," and, in my experience, these grounds are more common with loose leafed tea than with dust-in-a-bag. Just pour out the last of your cup--or get used to the texture.
I'd be disappointed if there were no residue in most teas that I drink. Good Japanese teas often have a fair amount of it. The only way to reduce it is to use a finer mesh, but you'll probably lose flavor as well with most teas. I was advised with a certain green tea to use a finer mesh, but in general, there's nothing wrong with what you see.
The main reason you don't see (much) dust in tea from paper bags is that the paper filters are preventing a lot of that dust from getting in your cup. Even though a lot of the contents of a cheap teabag is nearly dust-like, less will escape the iron clutches of those paper filters.
It's normal in China to throw out the first cup of tea made with new tea leaves. You pour some water over the tea, don't let is steep too long, then through out and seep a second cup, this one you drink. You can keep topping up the tea with more hot water till the tea leaves have lost all there flavour.
That sounds like the kind of chinese tea where you leave the leaves in the cup. Nice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.162193
| 2011-10-21T01:32:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18486",
"authors": [
"Glenn Thompson",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"Marplesoft",
"PaulC",
"Ray",
"Sandra",
"Toss Newsense",
"chevybow",
"cryptonkid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/767",
"itj",
"talon8",
"user69780",
"zeenosaur"
],
"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
}
|
24690
|
What does it mean to broil 4 inches from the heat for x minutes?
I was looking at some recipes online and it said 'Broil 4 in. from the heat for 1-2 minutes or until lightly browned.'
Does broiling mean a specific temperature? I have never broiled anything before and I was wondering if there is a standard temperature range for broiling?
Incidentally, this is about making garlic toast, but I would like to know about broiling in general.
I'm going to assume this is an American recipe, as broiling has a slightly different meaning in Australia & the UK.
With broiling, the oven only heats the top element in the oven, and you turn the element or burner up as hot as it can get. It's not a specific temperature, as in most ovens, that would cause it to cycle on & off. (in fact, when broiling, you typically leave the door open specifically so the oven won't heat up so far that it decides to cycle the burner off to cool down).
It's about extreme high heat, from a single side. (top in the US, bottom in the UK and Australia)
You typically need to pay close attention to whatever's under the broiler, as it can go from golden brown to charred very, very quickly.
There aren't temperature settings, but some ovens do have a "low" and "high" broil setting, I think.
Electric ovens use top heat broilers. With gas ovens, the heating element is located only on the bottom of the stove. In order to broil, one uses the broiler pan located in the cabinet underneath the stove. This does change the location of the heat to the top, as in your answer, but as the location of the broiler pan in at the bottom of the oven for gas stoves, I thought it important to note the difference.
In the UK, the broiler is called the grill, therefore broiling = grilling in the UK - nothing to do with BBQ.
@Fisher Some gas ovens do specifically have top broiler elements... I own one such model. The operative feature of broiling (or grilling, as they would say in the UK) is that the primary--perhaps effectively only--mode of heat transfer is via infrared radiation. That is why the distance to the heat source matters so much. Energy delivery through radiation decreases approximately as the square of distance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.162467
| 2012-06-26T01:10:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24690",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fisher",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56616
|
royal icing and candy atop buttercream
Can I put royal icing snowflakes and hard candy shards on top of buttercream icing one day ahead or will the buttercream dissolve the royal icing and hard candy?
I am not familiar with royal icing, but the hard candy should be fine. It might bleed slightly into the icing immediately touching it but that shouldn't even be noticeable.
isn't royal icing just water and powdered sugar? I don't see a problem especially if you store it at a cool temperature.
I think you'll be fine. I had some buttercream frosting left over from answering a previous question and did a simple test not long after you asked this question (about 16 hours ago).
I put a dish of frosting into the fridge with small royal icing and sugar/starch based decorations on top and I left a similar dish at room temperature. I pushed the decorations firmly into the frosting.
The decorations retained pretty much all their crunch. They didn't leak any of their bright coloring into the frosting either; not that that would be a problem if you're decorations are snowflakes. I'm not sure whether the opposite would be a problem, i.e. if your frosting is brightly colored and your decorations are white.
You can judge for yourself whether the ingredient proportions I tested with are comparable to yours by checking the answer I linked to above. You may see different results if the proportion of wet ingredients in your recipe is much larger.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.162687
| 2015-04-12T11:46:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56616",
"authors": [
"Chef_Code",
"Donal Olden",
"Matthew Read",
"Nathan Elkiw",
"P _SG P_SG",
"Peter Toby",
"Tracey Standing",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28431
|
How to get my croissant flakier and bigger? Is it possible to get a hollow inside?
I am slightly new to the puff pastry process and have gotten the layers and and folding. I use a three fold, and the temperature remains at a cool degree so the butter does not melt or seep out of the dough during the process.
I just can't seem to get them bigger and flakier. I am using 7in / 18cm triangles and I stretch them out and roll them into the classic croissant shape. Then I egg wash them, sprinkle a little sea salt on top, let rise for 40 minutes, bake at 400F/200C for 10 minutes, and then at 350F / 180C until golden brown on top.
Any suggestion or any way to get the results?
I know I would need to make the triangles bigger for a larger croissant. I think what I am wanting is the to puff up bigger.
Are you using any special kind of flour for the dough?
I am using a pastry flour.
I guess pastry flour is weak (low W value / "low proteins") flour. Check the answer I wrote. Fats weaken the gluten. Long fermentation time, too. So you need strong flours for doughs with both of them.
Croissants are not puff pastry. Puff pastry is steam-leavened, while croissants are yeast+steam-leavened. I am not sure whether you are using a correct (yeast-containing) recipe but the wrong term, or trying to use a yeastless recipe. If the second, then you can't expect your croissants to have the texture of bakery-bought croissants.
I am using a yeast recipe sorry for the wrong term, I am just not sure how to get that honeycomb effect on the inside. Any suggestions?
Croissant purists state 32 is the "perfect" number of layers a croissant should have.
In this link seeking the croissant perfection, you can find:
NOTE11, I had the misconception that the more folds, the more layers, the flakier it will be. Wrong. With too many folds, butter layers would be thinner and thinner, and it will be more likely for the butter to melt and leak. Even with perfect rolling, too may layers would mean smaller honeycomb "holes" in the crumb. With no sheeter and TX weather, I find 3 folds sufficient, any more it's risky.
You can get up to 27 layers if you make 3 3-folds. Doing one more folding would make 3^4=81, too many layers.
It's not compulsory, but you can get those 32 layers doing 1 normal-folding and 2 book-foldings:
(image source)
Another reason your flakes are not large enough is the flour used.
Croissant dough usually has butter in it, and long fermentation time; so a strong flour (high W value) should be used.
In order the dough doesn't stretch back, and the layers of dough won't beak (letting butter from 2 layers get toghether), a value of p/l≈0.5.
That's something in common with pizza dough, as I wrote in this answer, so if you don't find flour specific for croissant, you can try with pizza one.
Note that you don't have to get those 32 layers, just approximate the number. And, what is most important: doing 1 more folding (or 1 less) would get you too far from that number. Having too many layers would make them too thin and easier to break and leak the butte.
By pizza flour are you talking about 00 grade, or a high-gluten (ie strong) bread flour?
@GdD I'm meaning those in the answer I linked. Those 00 in Italian (or Argentinan) flours just mean how fine is the grinding: it doesn't have to be linked with the strenth/weakness of the flour.
Thank you for improving the reading of the note, @BaffledCook. I just copied & pasted it and had an odd printing.
No worries, mate :-)
If you are only proofing your shaped croissants for 40mins, that could be your problem. Proofing croissants takes a lot longer than proofing bread.
you should be proofing the shaped croissants at 78degreesF/25~26degreesC for 2-2.5hours at HIGH humidity. If you don't have a high humid environment, then put one coat of egg wash on right away before you proof (this keeps the butter from running). The shaped croissants (after proper proofing) should be puffed up like "jabba the hut" and have a "jiggle" to them when you tap the baking sheet.
If you want to have the beautiful holes in the inside and the flaky layer in the outside here I'll give you some advice:
Use high gluten flour.
if you don't have the specific enviroment to grow the croissant you can put the croissants in a baking sheet and cover it loosely with plastic, so the croissant can grow freely. With the plastic we are making sure that the outside of the dough doesn't get dry. If a rising bread get dry in the outside it would not grow.
Make the croissants in the night (7-8 pm) and the next day bake them.
Remember puff pastry and croissant pastry are not the same, puff pastry dosen't have yeast and in many recipes doesn't have sugar either (27 layers, no more no less).
When you are rolling the triangles make at least 4 rolls.
Try and let me know!
Yeast brand is important too. Sugar is hygroscopic, meaning it attracts and retains water (hence your sugar canister will often have lumps in the humid summer months) and fat encapsulates and traps water (see how much water is in a block of butter when you melt it down). Hence regular yeast will be sluggish as it fights with the sugar and fat to gain access to whatever water is left. For croissants and Danish dough, you need to use Osmotolerant Yeast, developed by the French to thrive in low hydration. That yeast is sold in the US under the SAF Gold label. I buy mine from Amazon but KA Flour stocks it as well.
Proof for at least 1,hour, use wax parchment
2 knead doe to a medium gluten consistency, use hands. 3 use two different brands of yeasts, and let sugar, milk yeast mixture stand before adding to flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.162851
| 2012-11-15T09:19:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28431",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Buzzy",
"ERMA HOOGERVORST",
"GdD",
"Gilbert Aldrich",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Richard Skaggs",
"Sterner",
"Vincentperez1 ",
"William Kuns",
"chillinkwa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65603",
"rumtscho",
"user2153235"
],
"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
}
|
29043
|
Kimchi / Mo-Chu Ka-roo?
I have been looking for this ingredient called ko-chu Ka-roo to make kimchi. I checked in a local asian grocery and I didn't find something with that name. But I found Maesri Chilli Powder.
Is this the same thing? Can it be used?
thanks
The pepper used in Kim chi is actually pretty variable. Not being able to find the genuine Korean powder locally, I've had good luck with 1.5 tablespoons Paprika, 0.5 teaspoon smoked Paprika, 0.5 teaspoon Arbol chili (a medium cayenne also works) per two quarts napa/bok choy etc. mix.
You'd be better off trying to find the real thing.
Kochukaru is slightly sweeter and smokier than standard 'ground chilli' and simply substituting it will give you variable results to what your kimchi should traditionally taste like.
If you know what you're doing, and by that I mean you are able to know what Kimchi is meant to taste like and are able to tweak the amount of standard chilli powder you're using perhaps in addition to some sweet and/or smoked paprika you'd probably be able to replicate the flavour and taste of kochukaru in your kimchi.
If you're not at that level of ability (and I mean that with the greatest respect) then you're probably far better off trying to find kochukaru, perhaps at an alternative asian grocers or even online somewhere.
The Maesri brand will certainly work, as will many others.
There are hundreds of kimchi recipes, and no version is any more authentic than another. Many contain whole or sliced fresh chiles (green and/or red) and may contain other ingredients, without any chile powder at all (sometimes called white kimchi).
The first time I made red kimchi, the only thing I could find in the Asian market was a bag of 2-inch reds marked "dried red chiles" from China. I ground them up and they worked beautifully.
If you're looking for smokey notes, chipotle powder or smoked paprika should serve well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.163366
| 2012-12-09T06:40:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29043",
"authors": [
"Ajoy Roy",
"Alyssa",
"Asped",
"Darleen Blake",
"Jim",
"Mel",
"Rohan Ghadi",
"The Rubber Kitty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67413",
"sai chunduri",
"theRaven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32473
|
Is a partially frozen chicken safe if not immediately cooked at the proper temperature?
I put a partially frozen (inside) chicken in my convection oven, set it to what I thought was 400ºF (200ºC) and left the room with a timer on. An hour later it was discovered the temperature was only 150-200ºF (65-93ºC). It was in the convection oven an hour! I quickly set the correct temperature and finished cooking it. I just don't know if the hour it spent in the convection oven on the lower temperature did something with bacteria. I cooked it to an internal temperature of 180ºF (80ºC) degrees. Is it safe to eat this chicken?
Welcome to the site. I've edited your question to be a little more clear. I strongly suspect that there's a question here that already answers this, but I can't find a good one right now. We do have good questions about proper defrosting, how long you can leave meat at room temperature, and even cooking frozen meat.
See this question about cooking chicken at a low temperature for a long time and this question.
This situation is a bit different because it's a convection oven, so it will heat the surfaces much better than a normal oven, avoiding some of the safety concerns at lower temperatures (similar to sous-vide).
@Jefromi Sure, didn't mean to imply they are duplicates. Actually this answer has better information than the last two links I posted, although once again, not aimed specifically at frozen chicken or convection ovens.
How did the chicken get partially thawed? If it spent little time in the fridge and straight to the oven ride you explained, then @ChrisSteinbach is right, and you should be fine. The extra time spent transitioning through the danger zone isn't alarming.
Possible duplicate of Is there a problem with defrosting meat on the counter?
Assuming you thawed the chicken (to the extent that you did) in the refrigerator, and further assuming that it took less than an hour to reach a safe internal temperature, I would say you are fine. An internal temperature of 180ºF (80ºC) is safe by quite a margin.
The USDA recommends that home cooks do not keep food within the "Danger Zone" of 40-140ºF (4-60ºC) for more than 2 hours. This includes preparation and cooking time. If you thawed the bird on the kitchen counter, or if your chicken accompanied you on a long journey from the supermarket in an unfrozen state, you'll have to factor that time in.
As @Jefromi's comment on another answer notes, simply reaching a high enough internal temperature is not a guarantee of safety since some microbes produce toxins that are heat-stable.
No, do not eat food that has slowly passed through the danger zone.
In my food handler classes I learned that any food that quickly moves from HOT --> Cold is safe, and visa versa. However, it is un-safe to eat food that has slowly moved through the temperature zones.
IMO eat at your own risk.
edit for corrections
The danger zone is from 40F to 140F, and even the initial baking temperature was above this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.163566
| 2013-03-06T18:36:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32473",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"MandoMando",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3114
|
What is the best/easiest way to juice a watermelon?
Last year, I had a lot of leftover watermelon from a full-size melon and I pressed it in a strainer to get out the seeds and pulp, but it took forever.
(I then froze the juice in ice trays and stored them in ziploc bags in the freezer - it makes a great margarita in the blender.)
Now that we are getting great local watermelon again, I thought it would be a good use (I've got a huge half a melon taking up space in the fridge)
Are powered juicers any good for this? Would they work with watermelon (obviously cut up with the rind removed) Would I have to remove the seeds manually first?
(I found this ridiculous video of Rener Gracie, BTW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClIepBc7z6s)
Apparently, they claim that the $20 Gracie Juice Bag (http://www.gracieacademy.com/storeitem.asp?r=74903) is more efficient to use on watermelon than the juicer they sell on the site.
The way that i found to juice mine is leave the rind on, mash the melon to bits inside of it, cut a spout in the rind for easy pouring, line my stock pot with chese cloth (although i'm sure a lot of other things would form a great strainer), then just pour the whole thing into the stock pot. I then wrap the cheese cloth up and tie it off with a rubber band. Then you place a plate on top of the cloth and weight it down with a book. Check back every one or two hours to tighten the cheese cloth up and you end up with a lot of juice and none of the nasty bits. I also tend let the contraption sit in the fridge while it does it's work but it will work just fine on a counter top. The set up takes me about ten minutes.
Maybe put it in a blender and then hang it over a bowl in some cheese cloth or push it through a chinoise? The first option would allow you to let it drip overnight and wouldn't require any extra work on your part. I've made an almond soup like that.
I can't remember how I ended up with a watermellon last year, but the approach I took to make a watermellon ice was:
Cut the watermellon into slices
Cut the watermellon from the rind. (but save the rind for watermellon pickles)
Cut the watermellon flesh into cubes
Put the cubes a few at a time into a bowl and beat the hell out of them with a potato masher.
Pour off what liquid you can
Mash a second time, then pour off more liquid.
Collect the mashed bits for secondary processing
Repeat steps 4 through 7 for the rest of the flesh.
Use a food mill on the bits collected in step #7, or you coul try the tightening cheese cloth as recommended by sarge_smith (or muslin ... even a clean pillowcase that you don't mind ruining)
Hmm .. come to think of this, I think this might've been the incident where I managed to break my ricer. (the beam that attached to the gave way before the flood crushed. I can't remember if I tried using it for the initial crushing, or just to press out liquids at the end; I do remember that I wasn't having much luck with my food mill for the first pressing, and had to go to the hand masher; I avoided the food processor as I didn't want ground up seeds, and I don't own a chinoise, so couldn't go that route)
The Gracie juice bag is a great option to juice watermelon. I have one and it works great; as fare as the price its only $10.
Can you describe this bag a little, or perhaps explain your technique for using it?
The juice bag referred to is simply a cheese cloth bag. I imagine the technique is identical with the first method @yossarian describes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.163831
| 2010-07-24T17:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3114",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Imprimerie Swiazek spam",
"J.A.I.L.",
"James A. Rosen",
"Khal Weir",
"Marco",
"SourDoh",
"alma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5720",
"jon2512chua"
],
"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
}
|
3348
|
Sour pork, causes?
I've been testing brines (something I didn't know about until I read it here :). So I brined (sugar, salt, and some herbs) a handful of pork loins (chops without bones, more or less) and then put it on a pan at medium heat.
Thing is, after it was done, the pork had a bit of a sour taste which I could not attribute to any seasoning I put in it. The meat was relatively fresh (bought on Saturday and kept in the fridge).
This has happened to me before, so I guess the brining's unrelated. Also, it doesn't always happen; sometimes the loins have that bit of a sour taste, and sometimes they don't.
The taste is similar to having added a bit of lemon shavings to the concoction.
So, what's the possible cause? Meat quality? Something related to the way of cooking them?
The only thing that I can think of being possibly related is that I filled the pan with meat, with no spaces between pieces of loin (I didn't want to cook half first and half second).
Ideas?
Did you by any chance fail to cool the brine completely before introducing it to the pork? Definitely want the brining process to happen in a cold environment.
The only thing that comes to mind is meat quality...especially since this has happened when you weren't brining. Even though you used it quickly after getting it, what was the age when you purchased it? Did it feel sticky or have any sort of sour smell when you opened it?
Crowding the meat in the pan would just cause it to steam and not brown, it wouldn't cause it to take on a sour taste.
Nope, they weren't neither sticky nor sour smelling. I do not know how old they were at buy time though (here we don't have very strict rules on that kind of thing). Great to know I wasn't doing anything particularly wrong, except maybe buying at the wrong place :-)
There is a gland on the pig that must be handled carefully or it will produce sourness, funky smell too. Nothing you do can fix it. It must be managed ahead of time. Talk to a butcher or a hog expert.
See instructions for the head here. Two or three glands and nodes that must be excised. Nothing about the soup, just the preparation.
http://buttonsoup.ca/pork-cutting-head/
Other than a bad butchering job (failing to bleed), the only thing that I could think of would be the cleaning supplies you use for your pans. Do you ever put your pans through the dishwasher? Many dishwashing detergents have citrus in them, and many leave a film on pans.
I've had entire pots of soup ruined because a ladle that I left in the soup had been put through the dishwasher.
I would say it is likely to be lactic acid fermentation. In the case where it was in brine, you have created the perfect environment for lactobacillus to flourish - the salt kills off many other bacteria, and the sugar provides a helpful boost.
This is similar to the fermentation process that occur in Italian and French salamis, and various south-east asian soured pork dishes (e.g. Thai naem and sai grok isaan).
However, as you can't be sure this is the reason, and the environment was not a controlled environment specifically for the purposes of fermentation, I would definitely not risk eating your pork raw, if at all.
This is my gut instinct as well. If that's what happened the only thing I could think to address the problem in the future would to be very strict with temperature control. Cold will retard the growth of little neighbors like these. I haven't seen it happen that quickly, and not with meat---but I don't see why it couldn't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.164164
| 2010-07-26T20:54:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3348",
"authors": [
"Cody C",
"Jeff Snider",
"Navigatron",
"Preston",
"Torben Gundtofte-Bruun",
"User",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"mhorne"
],
"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
}
|
3805
|
How to carve poultry?
What's the best way to carve poutry so that you get the most amount of meat? Are there any tricks you've found that will make this easier?
This is difficult to describe without pictures or diagrams. However I have found a great video on YouTube courtesy of Gourmet magazine.
After you have carved the meat from the bones, use the carcass to make stock. After the carcass has boiled for several hours, the connective tissue dissolves into the liquid, and this makes the meat literally fall off the bone, as there is nothing left to hold it. You can usually get a fair amount of meat off of even the most picked over carcass.
I now use an automatic pressure cooker to do this.
Another chicken cutting video; this one is in raw form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iODAToI6_-o
There are 3 ways to use almost all the chicken meat.
Serve the chicken pieces with bones and make it taste so good that people will strip every little piece off themselves. Advantage: makes you popular, doesn't require much work, Disadvantage: no second meal, the meat along the spine is wasted
Cut off the large chunks of meat for the meal, and later use the carcass for soup or stock. Advantage: gives you a second meal, doesn't require much work, Disadvantage: needs large storage in the fridge until being used.
Cut off the large chunks of meat for the meal, and pick off the rest to put in the fridge for sandwiches the next day. Advantage: gives you a second meal, small storage in fridge, Disadvantage: more work, greasy hands
As far as technique:
practice sliding your knife along the bone,
break up curves into more, smaller cuts instead of few, larger cuts,
if the chicken is cooked, go ahead and use a small dish for scraps that won't get served on the table.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.164847
| 2010-07-30T18:04:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3805",
"authors": [
"David Smith",
"Fakhera",
"Jeremy Wiebe",
"Martin Schlagnitweit",
"MostlyHarmless",
"Nathan Ellenfield",
"Sulley Nasir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7068",
"wax eagle"
],
"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
}
|
3795
|
How do I hold my knife to prevent blisters when chopping?
I have a Wusthof Trident Classic 8" Cook's knife that I use for chopping. I thought I was holding it properly but when chopping for extended amounts of time I end up with a blister on the edge of my palm at the base of my index finger where it rubs on the top edge of the knife.
I hold the knife where the blade and handle join together, between my thumb and index finger. I have no problem with arm fatigue or tension, just the rubbing.
Can someone recommend some tips or point to instructional resources that can help me prevent this? Do I just put a barrier on the spot where it rubs?
Friction blisters are usually the result of continuous rubbing on skin that hasn't toughened up.
If you are getting blisters with normal amounts of chopping, either your knife is moving in your hand more than it should, or you are exerting more force than you should need.
Focus on your technique. Are you pushing down with the whole palm, the front of the palm, or the back of the palm? Are you guiding or forcing with your thumb and forefinger? Is your knife sharp and heavy enough for the materials you are cutting through? Are you using a circular motion to chop?
You should start by analyzing your current technique. You should compare this to the technique recommendations I make in my answer to How can I safely improve my cutting technique?
I describe the proper grip to be used for a knife briefly there, but I think images may be best. Here is a guide that shows just that.
The knife should not be moving around in your hand. Besides causing blisters, it's also dangerous and you may end up cutting your finger or worse if you continue.
Another thing you should ask yourself is "Does this knife feel awkward in my hand?". It's rather common for people to buy knives that they haven't tried in the store, or to receive them as gifts. Sometimes a certain brand or style of knife just isn't a good fit for you. If you just shrug off any discomfort you feel, over time it will manifest itself as a blister. It's quite similar to shoes. "Some people" (cough) will cram their feet into uncomfortable shoes just for fashion, and end up with some gnarly blisters. If your body is warning you, listen closely!
Personally, I think Wusthof are great knives, but their boxiness doesn't feel good in my hand. If your technique doesn't need improvement, or you still get blisters after improving then you might want to look into an alternative brand. I suggest trying a Japanese style handle, which are circular and comfortable in my hands. An equivalent knife to yours is the Shun Classic 8-Inch Chef's Knife. I use this in the 10" version and love it.
I completely agree with your fourth and fifth paragraphs. I worked at a kitchen store when I was young, tried a Henckels and Wusthof set, chose the Henckels, and thought it was great because those were the only two I know.
Then I went to a few kitchen stores as an adult and tried Shun, and Global. The difference in grip, weight, and balance is amazing. Until I find something better I will always choose Shun and Global over Wusthof and Henckels, as they just feel better in my hand (all 4 are great knives, no hard feelings to the Germans!)
I'm not sure if this is normal or not, but I have a pronounced callus in the exact place that you have a blister. Is this from an in proper technique? I'm not sure. However, you should eventually get a callus there if you continue as is and it will stop being a problem.
The pervasive belief is that we should hold hold the knife with our index finger on the bolster - the part between the handle and the blade. Many people choke up on the handle to get a better feel for the knife, to "control" it better. the feeling is much more pronounced when you use a bigger knife and is common even with experienced cooks.
This however, is NOT the preferred technique. it commonly taught to compensate for lack of skill / comfort with a knife. This is fine in the beginning, but you get stuck with this grip and it's very difficult to unlearn. It's far better to stick with the uncomfortable grip and with time you'll get comfortable with it.
the proper grip is the naturally assumed one: grip the handle like you would a stick. it should feel comfortable in your hand, but will likely feel a little loose - with a lot of looseness in the wrist. That's actually a good thing - when you become more comfortable with a blade you'll cut at different angles and directions - you'll need the flexibility in your wrist.
situations that you can't use the "choked up" grip:
a) if you use any other knife than a chefs knife or cleaver - boning knives, slicing knives, serrated blades, paring knives don't have a large bolster for you to grab onto. you will have to use the traditional (proper) grip anyways
b) some chefs knives, and slicing knives have a very short (height) blade. if you use the choked up grip, your index finger is very close to corner of the blade and you CAN cut yourself. This is also a problem when you sharpen your chefs knife a lot, and the blade gets shorter
c) the callous. a lot of chefs think you have to earn your callous - a sign of an accomplished cook. that callous is formed from the hard heel of the blade rubbing against your finger. with the proper grip - you don't get a callous. its much easier on your hands
the callous is not only unsightly and unpleasant, for those who cook ALOT it can become a problem. the callous can become so dry and hard that it splits and doesn't easily heal. this is not only very painful, but susceptible to infection in the dirty environment of the kitchen
d) difficult to chop something hard. sometimes impossible since the heel of the blade smashes into your finger. with the proper grip you can chop / smash things easily.
if you use the right grip from the beginning - you'll have fewer problems down the road.
Agree with most of the previous..
Sharp knife, proper grip, proper technique.
A few clarifications
Most of the tension in a proper pinch grip of a chef's knife is in the thumb and index finger, the other fingers curled around the handle exert much less pressure on the blade. The other fingers are only along for the ride, so to speak.
Chopping - we all immediately think of a blade vertically cleaving something. Grand image, bad technique. What should actually happen is the knife drops and moves forward in the cutting stroke. Not talking inches here, just fractions. To demonstrate...grip knife properly, place tip on cutting surface and cut through whatever, using a forward cutting motion.
Something in technique not addressed is stature or body position. Most counters are designed for the average, which leaves many of us out in the cold. The best height for a cutting surface is one where your arm and hand hang naturally, in a relaxed position for cutting. The best marker for cutting height is just below your waist. If you are short, find a box to stand on. If you are tall, elevate your cutting board. Once you find your comfortable height, stand directly in front of the board, relax, then turn your whole body (including your feet) 45 degrees in the direction of your cutting hand. Without moving your feet, turn the top of your body back to the board in preparation for knife work.
Most proper knife work should engage the larger back and leg muscles rather than the forearms and hands. Use your big joints as pivots, relax and let the knife do the work.
I think Tim is on to it. My most likely guess: You're gripping a too dull knife too hard and using too much downward force. The technique Tim described allows the knife to do the work. The sharpness, plus a circular motion creates maximum slicing and minimum friction on your hand.
I'd get a good knife-sharpener if you don't already have one, use it, then check out a few youtube videos about knife technique.
Seconding needing a good sharpening as described by Ocassi and Tim. I was getting blisters with my Henckels until I sharpened it. Then I received a Shun as a gift, which is significantly sharper than my Henckels, and I haven't had an issue since.
Your knife should definitely be doing the work, not your muscles. I didn't truly understand this until I got my Shun.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.165049
| 2010-07-30T15:46:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3795",
"authors": [
"Caramdir",
"Emily",
"Ivey",
"Jacob",
"Mike Keller",
"Ryanmt",
"Shanna",
"Stuart",
"TookTheRook",
"boatcoder",
"chrishomer",
"davidosomething",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7080",
"jcea",
"stephennmcdonald",
"susanafont",
"user515883"
],
"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
}
|
29065
|
How to make cookies without using greaseproof paper or a baking tin?
I don't have greaseproof paper nor a baking tin and I'm baking cookies. What should I do?
What do you have?
What's wrong with putting them directly on your oven's tray? What do you want to avoid?
Most cookies are high in fat, so they don't stick easily, and very forgiving if you watch them closely. You could bake them on an inverted cake pan, for example, although it might not be ideal. The parchment is for convenience and easy cleanup, mostly, although it does mitigate the bottom-browning a little.
You should use what you have available as long as it is flat. Thin is good, if you have no cookie sheets you could use any thin-bottomed pans you have (thick bottoms take too long to get up to temperature, leading to inconsistent results). A layer of tin foil will work in lieu of greaseproof paper in most cases, shiny side towards the cookie.
+1 for foil. I've used a double layer of foil in my toaster oven to bake just a few cookies for one after-meal treat and it works like a charm!
I use aluminum foil for everything, it's awesome, as long as you have something that won't stick.
For years, I never used anything but a good cookie sheet or jelly roll pan. Most cookies have so much oil in them (whether through butter or oil) that they don't stick to anything. If you have a very thin spatula, it helps move the cookies to and fro while keeping their shape (somewhat).
Now, I use parchment paper and love how much faster it makes moving the cookies about. If I don't have it, however, I'm still going to make some cookies. They'll just be slightly oval instead of round.
Grease computer paper and use it as baking sheets, always works
Please elaborate your answer. Many people here might not understand what a computer paper. It would be great if you could add some pictures.
Grease a baking tray with some butter or lard
That won't help since the OP doesn't have baking trays...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.165736
| 2012-12-10T13:17:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29065",
"authors": [
"7yl4r",
"Catija",
"Charlie Whiteley",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ethan Boggs",
"Gorm",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Kelly Mastin",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Michelle Crawford",
"Neels",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah Bell",
"Spencer Yebra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67359",
"laura obert",
"lemontwist",
"reddart179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58027
|
What are the different kinds of cheese?
I've heard people say that the cheese used in pizzas is not suitable for many other things and for this recipe you need to have this particular cheese. Is there some broad principle as to which cheese should be used and where??
I would imagine that one would use the cheese local to the dish being made.
For example, for pizza, one would use (fresh) mozzarella; or for the traditional Tartiflette, one will use Reblochon cheese or use Cheddar for a Welsh Rarebit.
You could substitute cheeses in recipes, but the final taste or texture might not be the same as you would have if using the "proper" cheese, or worse could ruin a dish.
For example, I would never use Camembert for a Cacio e Pepe pasta dish.
Cheeses have different characteristics, some will melt, other will not, some must be eaten fresh, some can be aged.
Normally, you should use a similar cheese when trying to substitute (Grana Padano vs. Parmesan vs. Romamo)
But feel free to experiment and try different cheeses in different dishes.
Max
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.165965
| 2015-06-05T19:00:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58027",
"authors": [
"Alan Riglar",
"Brian Burns",
"Connie Woodruff",
"Glenda McKay",
"Kathleen Barry",
"Wayne Ebeling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21611
|
How should I incorporate oil into focaccia?
Last weekend, I tried making focaccia for the first time. I tried two recipes at once, the one from The Bread Baker's Apprentice and a traditional Genovese focaccia recipe modified for quick-rise (I got this one from a FOAF).
For both, I tried to massage the olive oil (in the BBA case infused with dried herbs) into the dough before the proofing (that's a word at least one of the recipes said, "massage"). In fact, the oil just sloshed around on the surface, puddled in the dimples, and flowed off the bread into the pan. The time spent proofing and baking was enough for the oil to flow completely off the surface. In both cases, I ended up with a loaf with dry upper crust and greasy soaked lower half.
What was my mistake? How should I have worked the oil into/onto the bread to get a nice result?
I tried the one from Bread Baker's Apprentice too, and after getting a similar result, just assumed the recipe was insane. Interesting if there is actually a way to get it to work.
I think the problem may be the quick rise. I ferment my BBA Foccacia for 3 days in the fridge, by which time the oil has soaked into the dough.
In the real "focaccia genovese" oil is mixed in the dough and added on top of the focaccia.
It is a tricky procedure, there is a video and photo sequence here; unfortunately is in Italian, but you can easily translate it with Google and video and images could help anyway.
I did many times focaccia using this recipe and it's the closest thing to real focaccia genovese I can get
Pay attention to the part where water is added on top of the dough!
you should let the dough rise first without any oil (except for the oil which you will add in mixing), after the 1st rise, weigh your dough (if making diff. variations), then add the Olive oil in a pan and add your dough. (put a lot of olive oil in a pan so it wont stick and for a flavorful taste). then wait for a final rise, (double in size again). Then ready to bake.
I suggest following Simply Recipes' focaccia recipe.
Olive oil is part of the dough and is also used in steps 4 and 5
4 In a large clean bowl, pour in about a tablespoon of oil and put the dough on top of it. Spread the oil all over the dough. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and set aside to rise (in a relatively warm spot or at room temp) for an hour and a half. It should just about double in size.
5 Spread a little olive oil in your baking pan or baking sheet (will make it easier to remove the bread). Place the dough in your baking pans or form it into free-form rounds on a baking sheet. This recipe will do two nice-sized loaves or one big one and a little one. Cover the breads and set aside for another 30 minutes.
And then in step 8:
Once the dough has done its final rise, gently paint the top with olive oil – as much as you want. Then sprinkle the coarse salt on top from about a foot over the bread; this lets the salt spread out better on its way down and helps reduce clumps of salt.
Where you can pour a bit of olive oil into a small bowl and use a brush to spread the oil over the top of the dough.
No, I already tried brushing it the first time. It just pooled around on the bread and flowed to the pan bottom. I was asking for other directions, because this didn't work.
When I made it I worked some oil into the dough and then brushed some on top with a pastry brush prior to baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.166103
| 2012-02-22T17:28:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21611",
"authors": [
"Carmaletta",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Rick D",
"Sean Smith",
"ccalboni",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"rumtscho",
"sunil12"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76663
|
Best way to clean copper pots?
I got an awesome set of copper pots as a wedding gift. They are amazing, but the direct flame has created aggressive burn marks and discoloring. I'm aware that this is always going to occur. Is there a way to restore the original color?
If you are going to use them, shining them all the time will be very tedious - and might eventually make you less prone to reach for one .vs. a pan you won't have to polish after each use. I say let the polish go unless you're going to use them as wallhangers.
I love using them. High quality, but I figured I could clean them every couple months just for appearance purposes. A pride thing I guess. Thanks for the recommendation though, more than likely what I will do!
First you need salt, then you need an acid. Some methods use flour because the paste with the flour is easier to control. For acid you can use vinegar or lemon juice; citric acid would probably work beautifully (from Ecnerwal in comments). One of the videos I'm posting here uses white wine vinegar. Their salt is probably Maldon Sea Salt Flakes, which would be even more ridiculous. Lemon juice or plain vinegar along with salt (coarser is probably somewhat better) are all you need to make your pans gorgeous.
Here's a video where he uses 1 TBS flour, 1 tsp salt, and enough vinegar to make a paste.
Dab it on and let it sit for 30 minutes.
Then wipe and rinse off the paste. Voilà!
This is another video where he uses white wine vinegar {rolls eyes} and coarse salt. He doesn't use the flour, and the technique is a bit clumsier without it. It's pretty much the same concept as the first video. He goes a bit further and uses a wee bit of elbow grease with a vinegar soaked scrubby sponge on the burn mark on the base of the pan.
Many other sources on the Internet, including The Kitchn use lemon juice or cut lemons instead of vinegar. It doesn't seem to make much difference, all of the related methods work.
Straight citric acid (if you can find it - I finally tracked it down at my "local" Asian grocery store, 45 miles away...) is probably the most cost efficient acid source - far cheaper than lemon juice, (or lemons - what a waste) and cheaper per "amount of acidity" than vinegar. The untreated part of the top pan looks just like mom's always did, and it's stable that way. Probably also just a hair better at heating, too, come to think of it (not shiny, heat is not reflected)
@Ecnerwal, I have no doubt that citric acid would work beautifully. They sell citric acid at my grocery store in the bulk aisle. White vinegar from a jug and ordinary salt is pretty trivial, though. And the last time I bought citric acid, I was surprised how expensive it was. Of course that was in the bulk aisle of my regular grocery store. Answer edited to include citric acid as a possibility.
Using a bit of tamarind pulp and scrub, I used to clean the copper vessels. It makes it clean and shiny. Hope this helps.
Wiki
In homes and temples, especially in Buddhist Asian countries, the fruit pulp is used to polish brass shrine statues and lamps, and copper, brass, and bronze utensils. The copper alone or in brass reacts with moist carbon dioxide to gain a green coat of copper carbonate. Tamarind contains tartaric acid, a weak acid that can remove the coat of copper carbonate. Hence, tarnished copper utensils are cleaned with tamarind or lime, another acidic fruit.
Buy a few pounds/kilos of barley malt extract, dissolve it in a LARGE pot of water, boil, immerse your pans, take them out shiny.
Now, what we actually do when making beer is to try and remove any corrosion on the copper bits with an acid (vinegar, a citric acid solution, or "star-san" which is a phosphoric acid based sanitizer) before we plunge the copper (cooling coil, usually) into the pot, since whatever comes off the coil ends up in the beer. But if you are not making beer, that's not a problem. The coil comes out shiny-clean every time. Odds are excellent it would work on your pots/pans as well. Of course, the other food-grade acids we pre-clean with might also work, and be a hair cheaper.
Evidently a common adjunct to the acid cleaning which I was unaware of from the brewing perspective is to mix the acid with salt (not dissolve the salt in it) to use the salt as a mild abrasive in rubbing the copper - it may also contribute chemically but I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.166412
| 2016-12-20T20:53:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76663",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lou Giordano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47706"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77171
|
Can you leave chicken in smoker after it quits cooking to stay warm
Can you leave chicken in the smoker after it has stopped cooking to keep it warm?
What kind of smoker? Is there still smoke? What temperature? How long do you want to leave it?
Master built, no smoke, had to cook it at 225, and I want to leave it about to 3 hours.
Safety-wise, as long as you keep the chicken above 140°F, you can keep it there forever. Once you get below 140°F, you're supposed to have it either eaten or cooled to 40°F within 2 hours. (It's actually safe a little lower—but it's best to leave a margin of error!) For details, see How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
Quality-wise, it's going to continue to cook, and its going to continue to lose moisture (unless your smoker is really humid, like a commercial combi oven can be). The hotter it is, the faster it will cook and dry out. Cooking is fairly slow once you get down to near 140°F, though.
Three hours should be doable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.166758
| 2017-01-05T18:02:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77171",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53420",
"user53420"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2690
|
Do you heat the pan first, then add oil? Or put the oil in and heat up with the pan?
As the title says...
I personally heat up the pan first, then put the oil in and after it's heated up add the ingredients. I go with the line of reasoning that doing it this way gives the oil less time to burn, thinking that if you do it the other way, by the time the pan and oil has heated up, the oil could already be starting to burn.
I've never experimented, but I think this is more of an issue with electric stoves since you can modulate the heat more quickly with gas, ie turn it off if the oil's starting to smoke.
An related question with excellent answers: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5815/91
It's interesting that with all this attention and discussion, I see no one actually discussing which approach achieves better tasting food. Except perhaps B Nerone. Who cares about the non-stick pans you bought at WalMart or J.C. Penny? I think the question is incomplete as we don't know whether OPs motives are to simply to preserve his skillets as well as possible, or if OPs intent is to actually produce the best-tasting food. Those two things could very well be at odds.
Possible duplicate of Why do you need to heat the pan before heating the olive oil?
The typical rule of thumb is that if it's a non-stick pan you do add a little oil to the pan first before heating. Most manufacturers usually recommend this to extend the life of the non-stick coating.
For regular pans (those without non-stick coating) you should heat them dry until you can feel the heat radiating from the surface when your hand is held about 6-inches above the bottom. Add your oil at this point. You'll actually need to use less oil because the same amount will spread across a greater surface area due to its decreased viscosity as it heats. Plus, your oil will heat up instantly and when you add your food it's less inclined to stick. Most people get impatient waiting for pans to heat (and in general) and this also ensures that the food isn't going into a pan with oil that's cold or not hot enough. When cold oil goes into a pan and cold food ends up on top of it you'll end up with one big sticky mess. As for adding oil before heating the pan, the longer fats heat without anything else in the pan, the quicker they'll break down and burn.
i will not question the final results of this method, but the why goes against physics knowledge. The sooner you add it the 'hotter' it will be. maybe the only cause here is the time when food is added to the mix, not the time oil is added to the pan?
Adding oil to a non-stick pan is oxymoronic and pointless, and it will eventually result in a hard to remove polymerised oil layer over the non-stick coating, and therefore making it not so non-stick
For large items i.e. steak, oil the item, not the pan
@gcb : not if it starts smoking and has time to polymerize. If you heat the pan empty, you can heat it above the oil's smoke point ... but if you do it, you need to make sure to have the food ready to go in shortly after the oil, so you don't end up with an obnoxious cleanup job.
@TFD : no, it's not. It gives you a signal that the pan is up to heat (the shimmering), and a warning when it's gotten even hotter (smoking). You want this to happen well before you heat the teflon to the point that it'll start to outgas ... not only ruining the pan, but also killing any pet birds and poisoning you, too.
"You should heat them dry until you can feel the pan radiating ..." This is wrong. See my answer to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99543/why-do-you-need-to-heat-the-pan-before-heating-the-olive-oil/99544
@TFD Oil is to aid heat transfer, not just to prevent sticking.
Always heat the oil with the pan.
Heating pans dry damages the pans (especially non-stick ones). Also, there are no warning signs that the pan is hot when you set something else on it or bump into it.
Adding cold ingredients to hot pans also damages the pan, and can scald the ingredients. Even oil. If you guessed too hot, you can damage several things at once, including the meal.
Oil doesn't significantly degrade through normal heating, and certainly not in a single heat cycle getting up to saute temperatures. If the oil starts smoking (with nothing else in it) yes it's started to degrade but you're also a bit too warm.
Tip:
Add some minced garlic or scallions to the oil as it heats. Gives you a nice base for sauteing, and lets you know the oil is up to temperature as they start to cook.
Introspecting, I've never...in my entire life...heated a pan without putting oil in it first. How do you know when it's time to put food in, without something to sizzle?
splash a little water in the pan. if it sizzles, you know
Be careful with splashing too much water, but if you stick your finger under the running water a drop will suffice to know if its ready.
I use my $20 Amazon infrared thermometer every time I heat a pan.
Use caution with the Tip, garlic burns easily, and anything that sits in the oil as it heats is going to absorb a lot of oil, rather than be cooked by it.
I have seen an IR thermometer read lower than actual temperature without oil in the skillet.
It is true that you should not heat non-stick pans dry because non-stick can deteriorate at higher temperatures, but if you are cooking on a carbon steel wok for example, you do want a high heat while dry first and add the oil later. The reason for this is that you want the pan as hot as possible, and adding oil first will cause the oil to go past its smoke point for too long. Those pans are designed to go to very high heats and that style of cooking benefits from higher heat. Just look at the crazy burners they have at chinese restaurants.
Heat the pan first.
In addition to all the things other people have mentioned, if the pan is slightly damp for whatever reason heating it dry first ensures the oil won't spit as it heats.
If the pan is wet, dry it. But it shouldn't spit anyway. Spitting is caused by water rapidly evaporating. If the moisture is gradually heated along with the oil and pan, evaporated gasses will leak out rather than explode.
Heat the pan first so you reduce the risk of kitchen absent-mindedness leading to your walking away from a pan of oil over a fire. If the pan is hot, then sautee quantities of oil will get hot basically immediately and you're ready to start cooking.
Don't get the pan too hot, of course.
So, rather than smoking oil reminding you about an ignored pan, you're trying to melt a pan down? The first warning sign in a DRY pan is a kitchen fire.
I don't know what it'd be about a dry metal pan on a hot burner that'd cause a fire, unless you've got a seriously massive stove or lots of atmospheric combustibles.
Heat transfer to plastic handles, enamel finish on some stoves or pans, or radiant heat eventually over-warming anything in the vicinity. I didn't say it would be in 5 minutes, but the idea of walking away from a pan and completely forgetting you're heating it is a bit absurd in the first place.
Well, I agree I suppose, but you'll find no plastic-handled pans in my house :-)
the silicon under the handle on mines will probably melt after the Al or Cu on the bottom.
+1 For all who say pan hot first. Let's talk method.
Pan hot -- you can check the heat by dropping a little water in the pan. If it sizzles, you have at least 100ºC in your pan.
Put a little oil in the pan to coat it. When the oil looks striated, it's about to burn.
Put your food in the pan and be sure you'll get a nice caramelization on your food.
Warning: Depending on the pan, put it on a medium flame, if the pan heats too much, when you put the oil in it will burn almost instantly, and that's not good.
Extra Warning: If you want to use butter instead of oil, use clarified butter.
Put the oil in first.
A comment on your reasoning — the oil will only smoke when it's up past its smoke point temperature. It could sit for a day 10 degrees below that temperature without smoking. If your pan is so hot that it's going to heat your oil past its smoke point, you shouldn't have heated it that high.
For this reason, (the oil will give you early warning by shimmering when it gets close to its smoke point), and because temperature shocks aren't good for pans, I'd recommend to you that you do them together.
Note that you don't always want to add fats in while cold; there are reasons you might want to pre-heat your pan in other situations, but given your question, I'd recommend you put the oil in first.
It could sit for a day 10 degrees below that temperature without smoking — no, because the oil molecule temperature is distributed according to a Boltzmann distribution. By your logic, water would never evaporate off you when you get out of the shower since it's below its boiling point (on average).
Sorry, late to the game but I think I have some additional insight. No one has mentioned cast iron skillets and pans and pots. We remember when we were young, when we didn't understand cast iron yet, burning the snot out of that poor, nicely cured skillet mom spent years curing... BAD news, indeed. So I would say this answer specifically relates to the type of pan you are using. No right answer for all pans, and this is a common theme in cooking. I think the other answers covered this already, in terms of stainless and non-stick.
To address the comment, I add oil first, and then heat pan, keeping very close attention to not burning anything.
Um ... so that's a 'oil first' for cast iron, then?
The cookware maker Calaphalon recommends preheating the pan before adding oil and to not use a high heat setting to preheat faster. For more info see: Calphalon Cookware Use and Care.
One of the first things a new cook learns is how to "condition" a pan before sautéing, which is when the cook heats a dry pan and then adds the fat before adding the food product.
There is some science behind this method:
Regarding stainless steel pans, this metal has a grain that is full of pores that will expand to allow the oil to settle in those pores when the metal/pan is dry heated first. If you add oil to cold pan the surface tension of the oil is so great that it will "pool" and rest on top of those poors, when you add protien, the weight of the protein will push the food product into the grain which is not lubricated and your food will stick. This doesn't apply to nonstick pans.
It's my experience that you heat the pan first. There's nothing worse than the smell and taste of burnt oil, especially olive oil.
It depends --
If it's non-stick, I always add the oil early, so I have a warning system if the pan's getting too hot.
For other surfaces, I let the pan heat up before adding the oil.
If I'm not yet ready to use the pan, I typically won't put it on high heat -- I'll put it on medium or medium high (electric stove), so I have less of a chance of overheating the pan (causing instant smoke/burning when I'm ready to use it), but don't have to wait as long for it to get to the optimal heat.
I usually add oil to a cold pan, mostly because I’m never adding just oil; I’m adding garlic or onions or other aromatics which would burn in hot oil instead of infusing the oil with their goodness. If I’m blooming some spices first, the oil gets added after the spices are bloomed.
If onions are burning in your pan, the pan is far too hot.
I use a pan that changes color when it's hot enough. I warm the pan first, and then I add the oil, or butter.
I have one of those, but they're fundamentally flawed. What is "hot enough" depends on what you're trying to cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.166909
| 2010-07-21T23:08:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2690",
"authors": [
"AlessandroV",
"Chris",
"Dan",
"David Richerby",
"Debbie Lagrone",
"Derek Jennings",
"Doug",
"Emond",
"FuzzyChef",
"Greg McGowan",
"Harry Sleep",
"JYelton",
"James C",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Jeff the Bear",
"Joe",
"Livia Farina-Geiger",
"Low",
"Marissa Moffler",
"Martin Tighe",
"Michael Katheiser",
"Neil G",
"Ocaasi",
"Paul Brannan",
"PaulRein",
"Peter Elliott",
"Pointy",
"Ryan Ries",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Scivitri",
"TFD",
"TimE",
"gcb",
"glass.rook",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94328",
"janeylicious",
"terdon",
"web20bet"
],
"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
}
|
8713
|
How can I make my pumpkin pie thicker?
My preferred recipe for pumpkin pie uses (approximately, to avoid going into recipe details) a pound of pumpkin, sugar (I use brown), an egg, a cup and a half (total) of evaporated milk and cream, mace and cinnamon. There's quite a bit of liquid in total, and I find that the pie comes out a bit softer than I like.
I'm wondering what the best approach would be to make it thicker. Should I reduce the amount of evaporated milk and cream, or could I do something like add another egg? Or maybe both?
The Cooks Illustrated folks, after much testing, came up with a method where they cook the filling (minus the eggs) to get rid of the excess water. http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2008/11/cooks-illustrated-pumpkin-pie-recipe.html
In the accepted answer to this question, it says that you can try wringing the pumpkin purée out in cheese cloth; or in a comment, that you can let it drain in a colander.
I've come across the same problem when I use fresh pumpkin instead of canned. (even the pumpkin farms recommend using home-canned pumpkin, but I can't plan that far ahead.) There is a huge amount of liquid in a fresh pumpkin.
After experimenting with this recipe. http://www.pumpkinnook.com/cookbook/recipe47.htm , I've found that reducing the milk from 1 1/3 to 3/4 cups seems to do the trick.
I start by cutting the pumpkin in half and roast the halves in the oven until tender. Roasting drives off some of the water, microwaving or steaming just makes it worse. Then I scoop out the now soft flesh and puree it in the food processor until smooth. The final trick is to put it a large colander set into a bowl in the cool garage for a two days to drain. There is a huge amount of liquid that comes out, I empty it every now and then. After the drainage slows way down I make a pie or two and freeze the rest in ziplock bags. I typically get a "cinderella / french" style pumpkin but butternut squash or others should work well too.
http://www.allaboutpumpkins.com/varieties.html
After you pureed the pumpkin you need to cook it down in a pan to concentrate the flavor and evaporate excess liquid.
This is true for a pureed pumpkin, certainly -- does it also help when using pre-pureed (canned) pumpkin?
Yes, it does. There is probably more water in fresh-pureed than canned, but there is still a lot of liquid in canned pumpkin puree. You can also strain the pulp and collect the liquid and cook only the liquid down if you prefer.
I guess a lot of water probably comes out of the pumpkin which is why it is quite soft.
I would maybe try reducing the evaporated milk and cream down to about a cup total, and see how that goes. I think trial and error might be the way to go here - at least you get to eat all the trials!
if you're looking to strictly alter your own recipe, i would do what the other suggestions have stated and reduce the milk/cream and strain the pumpkin.
if you're looking for a new recipe, i found a recipe somewhere on the interwebs that called for cream cheese and pureed cashews that made for an awesome texture and flavor. problem is i have no memory of where i got it, i think if you google "5 ingredient pumpkin pie" it should come up somewhere.
When I want to drain some water out of vegetables, I use one of these techniques, depending on the outcome I prefer for the dish:
I cook them with a steam cooker.
I fry them in a pan. In this case I would use butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.168058
| 2010-11-01T06:19:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8713",
"authors": [
"Don",
"Erica",
"Marti",
"NadjaCS",
"VermontIsGreat",
"William Tegnér",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65348",
"jytou",
"pix0l",
"user17985"
],
"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
}
|
8330
|
How can I substitute or make soft brown sugar?
I have just moved to Germany. I haven't yet been able to find brown sugar of the type we have in Australia ie: soft, small grained, slightly sticky in that it holds its shape well when you dig a spoonful out. The only brown sugars I have seen are granular. You can also buy molasses.
Crushing the granular sugar is both labour-intensive and not that successful.
Any ideas on the ratios of different sugar products required to produce a 'soft brown sugar'?
As context, I tend to use soft brown sugars in things like fruit crumble toppings, as a base for a very dark caramel sauce, and also as a substitute for palm sugar when (as in Germany) it's difficult to get hold of. The granular sugars don't behave in quite the same way when melting/added to hot sauces.
Put the regular (refined white) sugar and molasses (about 2 tablespoons per cup of sugar) in a food processor and give it a spin. Use more or less molasses as needed to get the color and consistency that you want.
+1 This is also how they fake brown sugar when it is much more expensive than regular one
+1: Molasses + white sugar is what brown sugar is. The ratio for light brown is usually around 1 part molasses to 25 parts white sugar, and 2:25 for dark brown sugar.
Thanks for the ratios - I thought it might be something like this, but wasn't sure of the quantities to try.
This doesn't directly answer your question, but a good substitution for brown sugar that is generally easy to find internationally is Jaggery. I find it substitutes very well. You should be able to find it at any Indian grocery.
Thanks - I haven't yet had time to find Jaggery but will be on the look out.
I've only done this once, and it worked out pretty well, but I used a combination of golden syrup and regular granulated brown sugar as a substitute. I got the idea from a friend who used molasses.
The ratio I used was around 1 tablespoon per cup of granular sugar.
The flavour was a little different but completely acceptable and may be better with molasses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.168395
| 2010-10-20T08:55:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8330",
"authors": [
"Andrew Dunkman",
"Crobro",
"Eran",
"KimbaF",
"NSGaga",
"Recep",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Trey Rios",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"user17129",
"user17131"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10594
|
How to brew tasty tea with hard water
At our new home, we have hard water. I had thought that the teabags I was buying were just weak, but the internet seems to indicate that the hard water will actually change the taste of the tea to a more chalky taste with some residue.
Two suggestions I have come across are either brewing with bottled water (I try to reduce the amount of packaging I buy so don't want to do this), or brewing the tea double strength (this makes it a little bitter).
What is the best way to get a tasty brew using hard water?
You can also get a water filter that is meant to help with this sort of thing.
Here in the UK one of the most common brands is Brita, you simply put a couple of litres in a jug which has a filter in it, after filtration use it to make your tea.
I've not used it myself however so can't comment on its effectiveness.
You can also get these filters built into your taps.
The two popular pitcher-type filter brands in the US are Brita and Pur. We used to use a Brita, and it worked OK, but it was a constant annoyance to get certain members of the family to refill it - the pitcher was always empty when I wanted some water. We've now gotten an under-sink filter that works much better - it makes the water taste wonderful (as opposed to the Brita, which was always just barely acceptable) and there's no refilling needed.
We use a brita filter and found that we had to start using it for making coffee, definitely improved the flavor.
I recently started using a Brita filter pitcher as well, for coffee and tea. Our well water tastes perfectly fine, but as its hard was leaving deposits in the coffee maker and tea pot. Using filtered water fixed that problem.
edited original answer to change "Britvic" to "Brita"
In the UK you can buy loose tea/tea bags specifically for hard water. I don't drink tea, but my wife swears by them.
I know this is a pretty late response, but I myself have been struggling with horribly hard water and being unable to drink light teas (non roasted high quality green Oolong or silver needle white tea). So I’ve been having to try all sorts of things. And I too refuse to buy bottled water just to use for tea.. it’s unconscionable to generate more plastic waste (my Amazon shopping does enough of this).
I find that double boiled water with a touch of baking soda or salt and a drop of lemon juice (per every .5liter) helps the taste. Also always only using cold water from the tap — the coldest it can go. Any hot water added gives even more sediment.
What I do is boil water in a pot on the stove and let the sediment float up. Then I filter it out through the fine synthetic mesh (Primula travel pour over dripper is the best for this — red ring w/ black mesh that goes over a cup; but any super fine material will do).
Also, the kettle makes a huge difference. I’ve tried so many.. but all electric ones with a stainless steel bottom heating plate always make water taste worse for me, but so convenient. However, the best water for me comes out of a glass carafes which are range safe. Though they take a long time and you must be careful. And old INOX stainless steel stove kettles, those always give the best results as opposed to regular stainless. I’d also put aluminum into the same category as INOX, though I don’t have an aluminum pot large enough (aluminum Bialetti moka pots make clean tasting water in my experience, and INOX and aluminum are both non magnetic which may hold some meaning here). I try to keep a pot of boiled water on the stove at all times, however annoying this process is.
And I wash the kettle with vinegar every day. Stainless steel bottom gets white spots from the boiled hard water and the inside of the walls gets a thin layer of deposits (INOX never does). Vinegar dissolved those as well as CLR and leaves no smell or toxins (though, yes, vinegar smells.. but it won’t affect taste of tea and airs out quickly).
I’ve tried filtering water, but no luck so far. My fridge has a nice filter and I try to only fill water from there, but I cannot say it’s any better than cold tap. Brita in my experience doesn’t filter enough to help those with such hard water that they can’t enjoy tea (though there are others, but with very expansive filter replacements that people say leads to fishy taste).
I did just purchase an under the sink water filter that’s connecting directly to the water line (filtered water from the tap, no attachments on the faucet). But I’m yet to install it. I might have to still complete the water boiling ritual... but at least it’ll help some.
Best of luck to anyone who sees this! :)
I took chemistry and I got this: just add a few drops of lemon juice.
Your water probably has a high pH, and a few drops of lemon juice will neutralize the bitterness that is characteristic of something basic (something with a high pH).
Tea will brew better when the pH is slightly acidic. I could go on, but the chemistry from here can get complicated.
If your tea is bitter, you might be steeping it too long. Try a shorter steep time. If you're adding extra tea, it should be plenty strong anyway.
I found that the horrible taste with unfiltered water was because of using tea bags. I started using loose tea, and the taste is much better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.168599
| 2010-12-30T10:27:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10594",
"authors": [
"Ahmed Mahmoud",
"Brandon Rome",
"Evangelion045",
"Joel Clark",
"KeithB",
"Manako",
"Marti",
"PaulVO",
"Phil M Jones",
"home cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81921",
"user21719",
"user81912",
"user81917"
],
"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
}
|
11379
|
How can I make my own small pie dishes and still cook pies effectively?
I need to make individual pies this week. I would usually use pre-bought tin foil containers, approximately 10cm diameter, 3cm high. I can't buy these anywhere near me and have left it too late for mail-order! I also don't have any ramekins I could use in the oven.
Has anyone got experience making their own foil pie trays? I am thinking of using a noodle bowl as a mold and just layering the foil. How many layers of foil is optimum?
I am also worried that the pies won't have enough support while baking (they will be filled meat & gravy pies, traditional Australian style) and could burst open in my oven, so was wondering about placing them into a bed of rice/uncooked beans. Would this still allow the shortcrust pastry to cook?
If you have oven safe noodle bowls (ceramic, not plastic) then line them, as you describe with the foil, but do not remove them from the bowls. Bake your pie in the lined bowls, then remove the finished pies, with their aluminum "pan" intact.
Or just make pasties...no pan required.
As you indicate you don't have oven safe bowls and it must be a pie, I decided to experiment, using the double foil idea. I have heavy duty foil. I used a double layer and lined a noodle bowl making sure that there was plenty of foil out past the edge. I then pressed another noodle bowl on top of the two sheets of foil to make sure all is acting as a unit. While the top bowl is still in place, crumple up the excess foil, making a rim. This is what will give you the strength you need. I would then take the top bowl out, and line the now stable foil pie tin with your pie pastry. Fill the pie and if there is a top crust, finish the pie. You can now take the pie out of the noodle bowl and bake it as usual, although I would certainly do it on a baking sheet.
The double foil is much stronger than you'd expect, but the stability comes from the rim you build with the excess foil hanging over the edge.
Here's the finished bowl with the two molding bowls.
I would, but unfortunately the noodle bowls aren't oven-safe in this (temporary) kitchen of mine. Pasties are out too this time - the pies are for Australia Day, so need to be as authentic as possible.
wow, above and beyond the call of duty there! Thanks for the experiment. Definitely better than my experiment involving bits of cardboard and lots of alfoil...while I didn't think your method would be stable enough, you're right about the rim giving it more stability. Looking forward to some good pies tomorrow...
You piqued my curiosity so, naturally, I had to go ahead and do it. I hope they work out for you.
I can't speak from experience, as I've never done this in particular, but I've done a fair but of model making and such, and I'm going to say that simple layering isn't going to give you enough structure to really hold anything. (the layers will slip against each other, as they're not laminated; you'd really need heavier foil to make it work well, or to add some sort of glue in between the layers).
If it were me, I'd go with one of two things:
Go to the hardware store, and get a roll of aluminum flashing, then use that to some tins. (of course, I already have a roll in my garage, and the necessary tools for working with it, as you might have to hammer it around a form to get it to work well). I'd probably still coat it with foil on the inside, as I don't know if they coat the flashing with anything that might not be food-safe.
Use two layers of heavy duty foil (just in case one leaks, not because it's significantly stronger), place it on a sheet pan, and then crumple up a piece of foil into a long snake, then make it into a ring and twist the ends together (and crush down well), so it'll act as a support to keep the sides from being able to fall down.
It's possible that you might be able to get a similar supporting effect with dry beans or pie weights, but it might take a fair bit, as you'd need to come far enough up the side of the pans to support them (maybe 2/3 of the way up or more)
I'd probably try to blind bake the bottom crusts, so it'll be a little firmer before you go to fill them. (and in that case, you're already using beans or something else as pie weights).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.169053
| 2011-01-23T13:26:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11379",
"authors": [
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Jason Axelson",
"JeffDror",
"KimbaF",
"Loretta",
"Manohar",
"Milan Baran",
"Todd",
"castle-bravo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"trevdor"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4036
|
How do I glaze vegetables?
I'm looking to glaze some carrots, maybe some beets, and a decent chunk of the rest of the season's worth of farmshare. I'm sure there's plenty of recipes on the internet, but I'm looking for some general advice as to method: how to do it properly, what to look out for, etc. Help me out?
Trim your carrots, rutabaga, turnips, etc. to consistent sizes and put in a large saute pan. Add stock or water (amount will depend on vegetables and their density along with quantitye of vegetables. Start with enough to come about 2/3 up the volume of veg.) along with some salt, a couple tablespoons of butter and a couple tablespoons of sugar.
Bring the liquid to a simmer and cover lightly with a lid or a circle of parchment paper. Simmer until vegetables are getting tender. Remove the lid and continue to simmer until liquid evaporates and sugar and butter create a nice glaze. Watch at the end to make sure the sugar doesn't burn. Add any desired herbs, taste and adjust seasoning and serve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.169537
| 2010-08-02T23:39:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4036",
"authors": [
"D. E. B.",
"FrankLfr",
"Sridher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7560",
"leavittx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2142
|
I love "Mastering the Art of French Cooking". Can someone recommend similar books for other cuisines?
Mastering the Art of French Cooking does a fantastic job of teaching what you need to do to cook all of the classic French recipes and why you need to do it the way that is recommended.
Can anyone recommend similar books for Northern and Southern Italian, Spanish, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese (Cantonese, Szechuan ...) ... etc?
This is difficult: most places that aren't Europe haven't codified their culinary practices into any right/wrong way to do things. In most cultures, the food is cooked by hungry people in houses, since there isn't enough money to make restaurants worthwhile. This was the case with Indian food until the English got interested in the 70s, and is still true in most 3rd world countries. Not saying you won't find good ethnic cookbooks, just nothing like MtAoFC.
you should really make this a community wiki question, as it's not a question that could have a right answer, and is basically a poll.
@Mike It isn't obvious how to do that
click edit to edit the question, there should then be a checkbox for community wiki.
We need books like MtAoFC because it does a great job explaining the intricacies so guys please post books that you have tried out recipes from for the sake of credibility.
I too love Julia Child's book. The Italian equivalent is without doubt "Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking" by Marcella Hazan. She describes techniques and philosophies of the cuisine, touches on regional information, and answers the many "whys" about the idiosyncrasies of each recipe. I can't recommend it enough.
I should have mentioned that I have that one, and that it is my second favorite cookbook ;-)
Thai Food by David Thompson is one of the best regional cook books I have seen. It goes into a lot of detail of the ingredients, methods and history of Thai Cooking. I have had some great successes and a few epic fails using it.
It can be too much for some, and it makes no compromises on ingredients so if you don't have an Asian store near by it may not been too useful to you.
For Jewish food, The Book of Jewish Food: An Odyssey from Samarkand and Vilna to the Present Day is brilliant, with some lovely stories to go along with the food.
Mimi Sheraton's classic The German Cookbook comes to mind - similar era, comprehensive, etc.
Diana Kennedy's The Cuisines of Mexico also.
This is a great book for Mexican Food.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mexican-Food-Simple-Thomasina-Miers/dp/0340994975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279568735&sr=1-1
This lady was in Master Chef UK and was a fantastic chef in the competition.
Not sure if it is a 'Mastering the Art Of' type of book, but she has some great ideas on food.
I almost forgot my other favorate cookbook of all time The Moro Cookook, this is by the owners of Moro restaurant in london. It has two follow ups but I think the first is the best. While it is not as deep as some of the books mentioned here. It has a good variety of north african influenced cuisine, with some tastes that all but the most adventurous cooks will find new.
Jamie Oliver books are pretty epic when it comes to Italian and English cooking. Though i highly recommend that you watch the videos instead :)
Marcella Hazan is probably the Italian equivalent to Julia: http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Classic-Italian-Cooking-Marcella/dp/039458404X
Of course, Julia was persnickety in a way that Italians aren't. Italians are picky about fresh ingredients, mostly.
The Constance Spry Cookery Book.
http://www.amazon.com/Constance-Spry-Cookery-Book/dp/1904010970
For Mexican cuisine, Rick Bayless's Authentic Mexican is tops in terms of breadth of coverage and detailed explanations of preparation methods. You really get a strong sense of how food is prepared and consumed in Mexico, and some excellent instruction on how to prepare those foods in a non-Mexican kitchen.
I also highly recommend Rick Bayless's television program "Mexico One Plate at a Time". In each episode he goes to Mexico and shows you how some dish or ingredient is used and eaten in Mexico, and then goes back to his kitchen in Chicago and shows you how to prepare a version of it at home.
Diana Kennedy's Mexican cookbooks are also highly rated, and I have one, but I didn't find it quite as engaging as Bayless's book.
If techniques apply, Mastering the Grill by Andrew Schloss (Amazon Link). It's encyclopedic--covers all ingredients, preparations, timing, techniques, marinades, sauces, brines, rubs, cuisines, dishes, spices, trivia. Plus it's very well organized and visually accesible.
If you love books on cooking that explain the what and the why, here are two for you:
"On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee
"Cookwise" by Shirley O. Corriher
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.169676
| 2010-07-19T19:43:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2142",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Andrew Stein",
"CRS",
"David Eyk",
"Dmitriy Shibarshin",
"Durathor",
"Heather",
"Justin C",
"KristoferA",
"Marko",
"Matt DeKrey",
"Mike Sherov",
"Navi",
"Nick",
"PearsonArtPhoto",
"Phil",
"PsyCoder",
"Reno",
"Sean",
"Truncheon",
"antorsae",
"elaine Finchum",
"erator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"interphx",
"jayands",
"rahul pal",
"richcollins",
"technophile",
"zacechola"
],
"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
}
|
6240
|
What coarseness of japanese waterstones is ideal for cooking?
Depending on the grit coarseness you can sharpen very blunt objects or refine an already sharp edge. Generally speaking, one can expect that a kitchen knife is much less heavily used than say, for example, carpenter tools or a pocket knife used to cut wood. I suppose for a kitchen knife there is no need for very coarse stones (say, below 200). Am I wrong here?
Oh absolutely, you certainly don't want to sharpen a kitchen knife on a 200 grit stone! You'll want one medium stone in case you ever need to remove a nick or something (but then you should probably take your knife to a pro at that point), and then probably like 2000-4000-6000 grits for routine polishing. (Note Japanese grit numbers are different than American oil stones).
really rough stones (used for tools) aren't suitable for knives. they can be used to remove chips, but really require a skilled hand to not damange the knife.
most knives are sharpened with japanese waterstones (most easily available & cheap). you'll do most of your sharpening with something around a 1500 grit.
if you want a real fine edge (e.g. for sushi) you can use a 4000 or even 6000 grit for polishing. but that's what it does, polish to a mirror finish - for smoothness. you won't be removing much material with a stone that fine. usually used for finishing / honing only.
Maybe this link will help you find a proper set of grits: Choosing the right grit size of Shapton stones.
For example, a 120 grit stone is recommended for grinding of the following:
Chopping Knife (deba)
Tuna Fish Knife (maguro-kiri)
Knife for Cutting Frozen Foods (reito-kiri)
Poultry Knife (gara-suki)
You can grind the rest of the kitchen knives with a stone of 220 or 320 grit.
For sharpening it seems that you can safely use something between 1000 and 2000 grit. Follow the given link to learn more.
We don't like link-only-answers, because they are very prone to link rot. If there is relevant information about kitchen knives on this link, please summarize it in your answer.
Saying that using between 1000 and 2000 grit for sharpening is a good way to summarize it, I think - I suspect that no matter what this stone manufacturer says, the choice between 1500 and 2000 grit will depend on the type of steel used for the knife, rather than the knife's shape/intended purpose.
@rumtscho: AFAIK only as a side effect. The grit choice in the 1000 ... 2000 interval should be made taking into consideration the other grits used for grinding and honing. All stones of a given grit value should lead in theory to the same result, however the "softer" stones (like Naniwa Homestone series) will also "hone" the edge a bit, showing a more pleasant result to the eye.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.170158
| 2010-08-28T15:17:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6240",
"authors": [
"Ben Clayton",
"James Culbert",
"alexandrul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55707",
"noonan",
"rumtscho",
"skiggety"
],
"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
}
|
609
|
Keeping the bubbles in sparkling gelatin desserts
I've had a few attempts to make gelatin desserts (jelly if your English) using sparkling wine. While I get the flavour of the wine coming through I struggle to keep the bubbles. Is there a technique for doing this?
In some ways, this is the opposite of my question about crystal clear gelatin, where I figured out the right temp for clear jello: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/54070/67 . Everyone says ‘you have to let it set up’, but I suspect it’s more about temperature than time. It would require some experimentation, but I suspect the temperature needed will be near the 160°F that was causing me problems
As Chris says, its to do with the setting time of the gelatine vs the bubbly.
Ensure all of your containers are chilled (maybe even frozen? - I put mine in 3/4 hours before making the actual dish) before you add the (chilled) champagne and get it into the bottom of the fridge as quick as you can.
I suspect though cannot prove also that a smaller container (I use wine glasses or similar) will work better than one large dish (trifle sized etc).
Also: liquid freezes faster in metal containers than in glass or plastic containers.
Most guides I find report various degrees of success with carbonated drinks, but most agree that Club Soda is the best performer.
You may want to use Club Soda instead, or try a mixture.
Club soda is generally salty, and not just with plain NaCl, but with sodium bicarbonate — baking soda. For most sparkling gelatin dessert applications, what you want is seltzer water, which is just carbonated water. If you have a soda maker at home, use that; otherwise, buy the smallest bottles of seltzer water you can find, because they're usually the bubbliest.
This seems to be answering a different question to the one asked.
It really has to do with the amount of time between the addition of the champagne, and when the gelatine sets, thus capturing a bubble. Champagne releases gas fairly quickly, and gelatine sets slowly.
I would probably do the main preparation with a comparable white wine, and refrigerate it until nearly set, and then add the soda water for sparkle.
Ever notice that if you squeeze all the air out of a partially full soda bottle, it doesn't go flat? Me thinks the negative pressure keeps the carbon dioxide dissolved (which is odd when compared to the usual positive pressure we experience when opening a soda bottle). As such, you might try a food vacuum system (e.g. Food Saver) to apply negative pressure to the container in which you prepare the dessert. Be careful during preparation, of course, to not agitate the liquid too much, or it may go flat before you're done.
Post back your results. I'd like to know, too.
"Negative pressure" doesn't keep carbon dioxide dissolved, and carbon dioxide doesn't only dissolve like other gases in water, it changes with the help of water and pressure to carbonic acid (H₂CO₃).
The best way of ending up with a sparkling dessert is re-carbonating it. That might be not as pretty (as you end up with a gel) - but it will be effective (and probably delicious). Add your jelly into a cream siphon (or Soda Plus) and carbonate it.
If you wait for some time, you will end up with a perfectly carbonated jelly.
If you really would like to have a set dessert, which is carbonated, you can add dry ice into a container (e.g. cooler box) with the jelly and wrap clingfilm to have it almost air tight. However you would need to wait longer (over night), until it is properly carbonated.
My interpretation of the original question is that the poster wants to see the bubbles in the set gel. Will your last suggestion achieve that?
Jello brand gelatin in the USA years ago had a recipe. The soda was added to partially set gelatin. But I cant remember the details so I cant reproduce this I did years ago. Picture wont upload, sorry. But looked great in clear glass bowl (4cups)
What you really need is a container with a cover. Fill it the brim with unset but carbonated gelatin (add the carbonated water after the gelatin is chilled as much as possible, then cover and finish the gelling process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.170409
| 2010-07-11T10:42:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/609",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Rebecca",
"Shane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"hwu",
"moscafj",
"soegaard",
"wrygiel"
],
"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
}
|
5510
|
How can I make a Taco Shell?
I've never seen a mold that would shape them - any tips?
If I were you, I'd just buy them. They're not expensive, and they keep forever.
Well, not forever. They do get stale after about 6 months, I've found.
Buy them? Thats not the same thing. Not even close. You gotta fry them by hand. With a fork. Real tacos are made that way. Anything you buy is a lame substitute. Ive never "bought" taco shells, I think I would barf.
This is an art. Anyone who appreciates REAL tacos, can understand that this is not easy. God Bless anybody that can pull this off accurately!
I have it down to a science. I learned from my grandfather. His biggest secret was in the fork you use. We use cooking forks. 3 prong cooking forks (most of the ones I see on google have two prongs). You can use regular forks too, but they arent made for cooking in high temp oil.
First you must get the oil HOT. 350 atleast, preferably 400 degrees. Just before it starts smoking. You need really high oil heat.
Once the oil is PLENTY hot, you hold a tortilla in one hand, and drop it in the oil halfway. It should be at 90 degrees, with your hand still holding the dry half of the tortilla. (Note: keep your cooking fork ready for the next steps)
If your oil is hot enough, it will cook that half of the tortilla almost instantly. Let it cook until it hardens up, which should be less than a minute.
Once the first half the bent tortilla is crisp, use the cooking fork to grab the tortilla half that is crisp and cooked. You will flip it here, putting the dry tortilla half (that was in your hand) into the oil, while the cooked half, sits above the oil with your fork. Now it should cook the other half of the taco shell.
The art is using the fork well enough to create a gap at the base of the shell (for meat or whatever you stuff with). And then flipping it and holding it with the fork while the other side crispens and finishes up.
I would like to make a youtube video that shows this process, and it truly is an artform. Many people make great tacos but horrible tortilla shells. I grew up near Mexico, I was born 4 miles from Matamoros. I have seen my share of taco cooking, in the strangest of places. The best tacos Ive ever had use this method. And the best taco makers Ive ever seen wouldnt do this any other way (by hand).
It's hard to do this without burning your hand(s). Be careful. The dry tortilla absorbs the hot oil, even when your holding it over the grease in the first step. Youd be surprised how a corn tortilla will drink the oil right up to your hand.
Give it practice. You will mess up a few tortillas. Dont worry about that, they make great quesadillas or nachos :)
No mold required!
Simply heat about an inch of oil in a frying pan (less oil if you're making less shells - this is enough for about a dozen), then cook small, flat corn tortillas one at a time.
Cook for about 15 seconds on each side. Once you see bubbles on the tortilla, you're all done if you like soft shells.
If you like more crispy shells, go ahead and fold the tortilla in half, and continue to cook. Keep flipping it over so you don't get it too browned on either side.
You can blot the tortilla with paper towels if you'd like.
Similar topic - you can make your own shell for taco salad by placing a large flour (burrito-size) tortilla in an oven-safe bowl (shaped however you'd like) and putting a big ball of tinfoil inside it. You can also do the opposite - place the bowl upside-down and drape the tortilla over it. Either way, Bake at 350 degrees for 10-15 minutes until it's lightly browned, and you're done! When you remove the tinfoil and the bowl, the tortilla will hold its own shape.
Nice answer... Been using this technique for too many years to remember... In fact, used it last night!
How can i make chalupa shells? just follow hard shell technique above then deep fry?
@mfg - a chalupa is more of a flatbread, so the technique will most likely be different.
I've seen Alton Brown make one out of a large piece of tin foil, folded over several times and molded into a taco shape. See pictures at the bottom of this article: http://www.ourbestbites.com/2010/07/beef-tacos-plus-make-your-own-taco.html
(I haven't actually tried this myself)
Alton Brown uses a lot of shortcuts. Being from the Mexican border, Ive never seen anyone use a taco mold. Ever.
What I've seen for sale didn't look like molds -- they looked like tongs, but as JustRightMenus has pointed out, you don't need molds ... but you can get a taco mold if you want (that particular one's for baked tortillas, not fried, though).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.170768
| 2010-08-19T01:44:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5510",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"D3vtr0n",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Mama",
"Martha F.",
"Veera Raj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"mfg",
"nicorellius",
"sergerde",
"soandos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6267
|
What is a good technique to make Iced Tea?
I've seen methods that call for different variations of boiling tea bags - throwing in ice cubes, soaking tea leaves overnight - refrigerate, slowly pouring the tea over a large chunk of ice after boiling loose leaf tea. It seems as if they all make sense, but I would like to see a technique that works well consistently - what are the pros and cons of these techniques and what works for the different varieties of tea: Bags, Loose Tea, Tea Leaves? I'm not concerned about levels of sugar ect. but the actual techniques involved to make the tea...
This is a rather obvious recipe request. Perhaps you could try some of the different variations you've found and ask for help if you encounter problems.
@hobodave - I disagree - he's asking about method, not recipe. He's not asking the ratio of tea to water, or how much sugar to add, etc.
@Michael: It's still entirely subjective, as evidenced by the different variations he admits to having seen. There really is not an objective answer. It's virtually indistinguishable from "What is a good recipe for Iced Tea?" and "What is the best method for Iced Tea?". The answers to this question will be things like "I always do X", "My grandma's technique is X", etc.
@Michael @Atilla: Compare this to AtillaNYC's other question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6031/how-can-i-prevent-my-fruit-pie-from-being-runny This is a technique question that has an objective answer. If it were asked as "What is a good technique to make fruit pie?" it would be closed as well.
I've moved to reopen and edited the question to ask what the pros and cons of each of the listed techniques are, so it isn't asking "what is the best".
Ok, so there are several ways to make Iced Tea: Boil and let sit in the fridge; Simmer the Leaves at room temperature for 48 hours and then throw in the fridge; Boil and add Ice Cubes; Simmer the tea and then pour over the ice to limit the dissipation of flavor...It's not a recipe question and it's not subjective because one way isn't better than another, only preferred from different viewpoints....Sorry, fellas, thought some people would want to see different Techniques for a universally loved beverage...It's all good :>)
@AttilaNYC: Can you expand your question, and add part of the text you wrote in your last comment?
I still have to see a question on "Food and Cooking" that isn't at least a bit "subjective and argumentative". For the record of the closing-zealots, this is "food and cooking", not "calculus", it is usually not an exact science. Beside this, I see a lot of room for objective matter in this question, so I voted to reopen.
@Lorenzo, you need to stop using words like "zealot" here and trying to explain that cooking is a subjective field. We know. That doesn't mean anything goes here. And as you can see, the system works; the question was expanded/improved and the community reopened it, with the result being a question that's much less ambiguous and more appropriate for SE. Please try to keep the discussion civil; the debate here has been rational and amicable up until this point.
@Aaronut: ok, can you suggest a more politically correct synonym to indicate people that closes questions as fast as they can before (and without) trying to expand/improve them ? Because this question was closed well before any attempt of expansion/improvement.
@Lorenzo: I suggest (insist, actually) that you take such discussions to meta. Comments should relate to the question at hand, not to the people who close them.
@Aaronut: while of course the place to discuss these question is meta, it is still useful (in my opinion at least) to have some in-context discussion.
@aaronut, @lorenzo, someone has asked a similar question in meta about a different question: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/674/
I enjoy the fruity herbal teas as iced tea. I brew a cup and then pour it in a cup of ice. It is a sugar-free cool drink that tastes and smells great.
The general method for iced tea is to boil water, and use double the tea for the amount of water and steep it for twice as long. Once steeped, add an equal amount of ice, and the ice will water down the tea as it melts and cools it down. If you want to sweeten with sugar, do it while the tea is hot.
This is the fast method, as you'll have iced tea as quickly as you can cool it (an hour or so in the fridge).
Alternately, you can steep the tea overnight in cold water in the fridge, using a normal tea:water ratio. This is the slow way. :-) If you want to sweeten the tea, make a simple syrup and add it (sugar won't dissolve very well in cold water).
Whether you use loose leaf or bags is really up to you. Tea purists will always say that loose leaf is better, but bags will work fine if you don't have a refined tea palette. Fruity teas often make really good iced tea, even if you're not a fan of fruity hot tea.
I don't like the "slow way" as I'm not confident in leaving the tea slowly cooling up to the room temperature, as bacteria colonies could start developing inside the tea (the water has been boiled, but it is not a sterile environment). About the "fast method", it really takes one hour to cool to fridge temperature? Which temperature is reached when all the ice has melted?
Sorry I wasn't clear: the slow way involves cold water, in a fridge. You never boil the water, you simply add the tea to cold water and put it in the fridge.
The endless fascination with bacteria and toxins on cooking.se never ceases to amaze me.
Growing up, we'd always make 'sun tea' -- you leave it in a warm place for ~8 hrs (we'd use a glass container in a south-facing window). If you forgot about it, and left it overnight, it was foul -- you start extracting some of the more difficult-to-extract substances in the tea that are very bitter. In the summer time, this could happen in under 16hrs.
So 48hrs seems a little too long to me, even if you were extracting at room temperature, unless that room was in a very cold climate. I'm not sure off hand if there are issues with leaving tea out for long periods, as there'd be with food.
Now, after having lived for a bit in the US southeast, when they talk about tea, it's almost always 'sweet tea', which is always made hot, as you can't get that much sugar to dissolve in cold water.
I know southerners who will make sun tea and then add simple syrup. Seemingly in equal parts sometimes...
made sun tea all the time when I was a kid in Florida. Mom would make it in the morning and it was ready in a few hours. Sun tea can harbor bacteria so the safer alternative is refrigerator tea. Takes longer
Sun tea is risky business (what with the bacteria growth).
@ashes999 : if you're using fresh chlorinated water, the risk is significantly reduced. If you're using well water or other untreated water, then there's an increased (although still small) risk. Also make sure to clean our your carafe between uses, don't just keep re-using it.
This might be a little off from what you were originally looking for, but I believe you will find it relevant. :-)
I'm a lover of tea - hot and iced. As a kid my dad would make Sun Tea fairly often - and I always enjoyed it. A couple years ago I decided I wanted to start making teas to have around the house as my "goto" iced drink of choice.
I experimented with many different methods - but had difficulty finding something that was easy to execute and still produced an excellent result. Ultimately I discovered the Hamilton Beach Electric Iced Tea Maker - and I've been happy as a clam since.
I've found that for straight black tea I prefer the tried and true Lipton's. I use 4-6 bags at a time, and do not load any ice into the pitcher (the direction suggest filling the container with ice). Instead I run two full cycles of water through the tea maker and end up with a full pitcher. I add a little under 1/2 cup of sugar to sweeten the tea, and throw it in the fridge. Serve over ice as needed, and I couldn't be happier!
I make 3-10 pitchers of this tea a week - and everyone (that likes tea at least) seems to love it.
This past summer I bought the same tea maker for my dad - which he said he'd never use. Within a week he became completely dependent on it, and swears by it now - just like me. :-D
UPDATE (2016): I wrote this quite awhile ago, and when I went back to that link, the only sellers of the Hamilton Beach Ice Tea Maker on Amazon were asking over $100+ for it. That's a little insane; I had paid only $30 for the ones I bought. So if you end up purchasing an ice tea maker, you may want to consider another brand or model, as the model I used doesn't not seem to be available at a reasonable price. Happy drinking!
I am intrigued...
I find this to be a great technique for making iced tea:
1) Use double the amount of tea as you normally would for the water. I prefer simple black tea in bag form for iced tea. Loose tea seems a bit high end for iced tea.
2) Bring water close to but not boiling (seems to make the right amount of bitterness for my taste).
3) Steep tea for normal amount of time. Sweeten while hot (so sweetener dissolves) to taste
4) Here is my move... pack a stainless steel cocktail shaker full of ice. Pour hot tea into cocktail shaker and shake vigorously. You will be shocked how quickly the tea cools down.
5) Pack a tall pint glass full of ice. Pour tea from shaker into glass. Garnish with lemon. Sip. Think of easier times.
I have never been a fan of melting ice into hot drinks to cool them off. Maybe you've got some high quality ice machines with high turnover, but I know more often than not my ice carries a few tastes of its own along with it. When it's just residual melting in an already cool drink it's not noticeable, but when you've melted a quart of it the freezer taste tends to add up.
I start off like most of the answers here (brewed hot, twice as strong). Then, I use two big metal mixing bowls of roughly the same size: I put a bunch of ice in one of the bowls, put the other bowl on top of it, and then pour the hot tea into that top bowl. The metal transfers the heat to the ice (and surroundings) very quickly. After a few minutes, the top bowl will noticeably have sunk into the bottom bowl, indicating all the ice is now melted. Depending on how much tea was made, it might be cool enough, or it might require replacing the melted ice with some fresh ice.
This way you don't have to worry about bacteria since it'll only take about ten minutes, and you don't have to make room in your fridge for a boiling hot kettle (and the subsequent heating up of nearby foods and such).
The first thing to remember is that everyone has different taste in tea. The most important thing is to know what you want, especially as far as strength. With you goals and standards firmly in mind, experiment!
When experimenting, only change one thing at a time, and make everything as precisely consistent as you can.
As far as technique goes, we have found:
The water used can make a difference. I use filtered water, but some tea enthusiasts would say to use spring water. Tap water is an option, but only if it's drinkable (not hard or too heavily treated). The best drinking water I ever had was near Mount Shasta in northern California (glacier runoff) - I bet it would make great tea.
Use ice made from the same water, and make sure that it's reasonably fresh. Ice should add nothing to the flavor because when it does, it's always bad. If the ice is coming out bad, dump it and figure out why. Is it the water, trays, or freezer?
Use a glass container to mix and store the result. Make sure it's washed or at least thoroughly rinsed each time. We have a pitcher that we use just for iced tea, so it's easy for me to see if it has the right amount of water.
Steep time is critical. When you steep regular teas for longer than a few minutes, you get a stronger, more bitter flavor. Some people actually like their tea that way. I don't like mine that strong, so I stop steeping the tea after three to four minutes.
Different teas have different flavors. We use a blend with three different brands to get the flavor we want.
you tend to want to get more flavour into your iced tea because adding ice cubes will dilute that flavour, but if your preperation includes boiling water, steeping tea, and then cooling (so not sun tea), don't try to get more intensity into the tea by steeping or boiling for longer than is recommended; use more tea instead. mainstream black tea blends like rose or lipton are made so that they won't go as horribly bitter as some darjeelings or greens will if you oversteep them, but they still won't taste as good oversteeped as they would otherwise.
I agree that sun tea and sweet tea are wonderful. for something different try an herbal like red zinger.
Place tea in clear 1 gal. jug. Set outside on east side of house at 7 to 8 am. In 30 to 45 min. Turn jug 180 degrees in sun. When color you wish is reached. remove to indoors. Add a little lemon or lime. Set in freezer. I 1 hour should be cool. Remove to refrigerator door. For your tea for the day. If more is needed in afternoon. Repeat on west side of house.
I boil and seep cinnamon sticks let it cool and pour over ice not adding any sort of sweetner and it is very refreshing. I also found a lose leaf tea by rishi called blueberry roolbos which i brew and pour thru cheesecloth chill and pour over ice and it is good as well. I am seeking to cut down on sugar, however maybe once a week i will drink a glass of one of the above with kefir plain whole or lite and sweve sugar and it is really good. Cinnamon sticks are fair trade and/or simple organic. I normally use ground cinnamon in steel cut irish oatmeal. Again i am attempting to forego sweetening my food.
Always rinse the ice in the tray to avoid the top layer that leaves a film that floats on top of liquid in glass or cup. Hot or cold water will suffice.
Most teas will warn you of bitterness if over seeped. Candamon peppermint and cinnamon stick teas are a few that one can seep as long as one chooses and no bitterness is experienced that i have tasted anyway. Peppermint with you chose of sweetner and fresh lemon juice is a different taste and really good.
Boiling is just that boiling seeping is how long one allows the tea bag or loose leaves to remain in the water after turning the pot or other instrument off.
To make iced tea bring water to a rolling boil
Bring water to a rolling boil.
Woha, hold your horses! Please don't add lots of comments, instead [edit] your original answer. Learn more about the principles when taking the [tour] and browsing our [help]. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Lots of good answers here, so I'm not gonna be repetitive. What I can recommend is to consider cold brewing as well. The advantage is that the tea will not taste bitter at all, while still have strong flavour. The downside is that you need it to be kept in the refrigerator for many hours before it's ready. You can try this video guide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Oyg_xWjZ4
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.171505
| 2010-08-28T22:22:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6267",
"authors": [
"AJ Henderson",
"Aaronut",
"Anthony West",
"AttilaNYC",
"Barry",
"Engineer2021",
"Fasna",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Marcos Ciarrocchi",
"Michael Natkin",
"Solracnapod",
"Stephie",
"Tim Sullivan",
"Wizard79",
"ashes999",
"avpaderno",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jeromecurtin",
"user52781",
"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
}
|
5626
|
When is homemade wine-based vinegar simply bad wine?
If I am making homemade wine-based vinegar, is there a way to tell if it's just plain soured wine? One recipe described the process as leaving the wine mixture open for a few weeks - is there a turning point: Vinegar versus bad wine?
There is not really a turning point. The way that wine goes bad is the process of making vinegar. From wikipedia:
The word "vinegar" derives from the Old French vin aigre, meaning "sour wine".
The Canadian government limits things that can be sold as 'vinegar' to something with an acetic acid content of 4-12%, so you could do the technical-bureaucratic thing and wait for the acetic acid to get up to 4%.
If you aren't hung up on technicalities, then you can use it as soon as it gets sour enough. It is done when all the alcohol has been changed to acetic acid, but it is a bit hard to taste since the acetic flavor dominates.
You should get a flabby-looking bacterial colony in there called mother of vinegar. That's the little guys that turn the alcohol into vinegar.
I'm not sure how easy it is for it to form spontaneously and/or to introduce it. Mine has been around for quite a while, borrowed a small piece from my parent's when I left the house. I just refill the bottle with red wine and filter as much as I need with a coffee filter to use it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.172720
| 2010-08-20T12:53:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5626",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Bryce",
"Francis Davey",
"Karptonite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11121",
"radarbob",
"twospeeder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
655
|
Proper olive oil tasting technique
I'm looking to buy some really nice olive oil from an artisan shop near my home. Is there an appropriate olive oil tasting technique, similar to wine? If so, what is it, and what dimensions of flavor and texture should I be mindful of?
There's a fairly comprehensive "How to Taste" resource here:
The Olive Oil Source: How to Taste
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.172879
| 2010-07-11T19:57:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/655",
"authors": [
"Krister Olsson",
"gsharp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14517",
"kvkvkv"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19018
|
How to properly prepare a beef escalope (from the topside)?
I've read a number of recipes that call for different cooking times, so I'm a bit baffled.
Normally, the escalopes are cuts from the topside (that's the bottom) of a cow. These are then hammered with a mallet, salt & peppered, passed through flour and sautéed. A pan-sauce is made from the fond and the escalopes are added back in.
The question is: How long?
I've read times ranging from 15' to two hours...
Does it depend on the age of the animal? Or the race? Is there any objective way to determine when it's properly cooked?
Topside is quite a tough cut, so I'd tend towards a longer cooking time; as 'low and slow' as possible, really. With other meats, escalopes are usually made using leaner cuts, like chicken breast or pork tenderloin, which would be cooked relatively quickly, so I'm surprised your recipes call for topside.
Maybe something got 'lost in translation'... (thanks for the edit)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.172950
| 2011-11-19T22:46:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19018",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cheryl",
"Dariel Dato-on",
"Jack",
"Philippe",
"Rodney Sewava I. Tajir Mattar",
"Zack Jacobson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21395
|
How to prevent unwanted taste transfer?
This was surprising to me. Every other week I make straw fries. These are kept on the counter in a plastic container and with kitchen-paper. The container is open because otherwise the fries lose their crisp.
I've made tuna teriyaki twice this week and found that the straw fries have obtained a distinct tuna flavor that I could do without.
The fries are not even close to the stovetop.
Any suggestions?
I hate to ask to the obvious but did anything overlap? Did you use any of the same cooking untensils to cook both, did you use the plastic container with the fish?
Or maybe there was a little splashing action.
Does tuna flavor/aroma persist anywhere else in your kitchen?
@Jay, non of the obvious. I deep fry the fries and I sauté the tuna.
@Aaronut, the tuna is sautéd on a medium heat and the container isn't near the stovetop.
@Jefromi, I haven't found the flavor on anything else, but then again, most things are safely stored (in plastic containers).
I was thinking more about something like... smell a dish towel. Something else absorbent that's been sitting around.
Aromatics are at least half of taste. Its like when you go to a restaurant and have to wash your clothes when you get home because they smell just like what you ate. Potatoes don't have any particular dominating flavor, they generally inherit whatever flavor they are exposed to; chicken is much the same way. Tuna on the other hand has a very pungent aroma. I wouldn't be surprised to see the fries take on the tuna aroma and "taste" a little fishy. Try temporarily covering your fries while you cook other things. That should help.
Welcome here Derrick and thanks for the answer. Next time I'll do that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.173074
| 2012-02-16T08:48:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21395",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"DMK564",
"Harish",
"Jay",
"Pascual Machin Gabaldon",
"S. McCandlish",
"William Steeves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4255
|
Optimal Cheese Melting Bagel Baking Temp/Time
So i'm putting a bagel with cheese and ham on it into a conventional oven to toast it a bit. My end goal is for the cheese to be completely melted and the bagel not too crisp/dry.
What time and temperature combination is best for this?
Broiling would work, but if the bagel is cold and untoasted, you might want hotter all around. I recommend baking/top-rack/at 500 to get both effects. Given the vagaries of oven timing, I'd start with 5 minutes, checking at 3, just to be safe. Experimental, but tweak-able: If your cheese is not browning, go hotter. If your bagel is burning (but all else is well), lower the temp a bit, open the oven door, or switch to a straight broil.
P.S. Toaster/ovens are perfect for this, and probably worth the cost of admission for melting cheese alone.
Just did this and it worked nicely!
excellent. making me hungry
To do this you want to apply heat to the cheese (to melt it) and not to the bagel (so it doesn't dry).
This is probably best achieved by grilling (broiling in the US) the bagel, rather than putting it in an oven, so the direct heat on the cheese melts it, but the bagel is not warmed so it doesn't crisp or dry.
This assumes you have an open bagel obviously. if you are have a closed bagel, with a top and a bottom, then I would melt the cheese on one half under the grill and the put the top piece on.
If you have to oven cook it then it's a trade off between high temp, which will crisp the bagel whilst the cheese is melting and the melting of the cheese should take a short time, or lower temp where the bagel is more likely to dry out as you need to leave it in for longer to get the melted cheese you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.173272
| 2010-08-04T18:54:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4255",
"authors": [
"C4CodeE4Exe",
"Chris Aldrich",
"Dfowj",
"Draupnir",
"Kimball Robinson",
"Marcus Leon",
"Ocaasi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7996",
"nicholaschris"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5094
|
How to suppress bad breath after eating garlic or onion
How can I suppress bad breath after eating garlic or onion?
I think you should dump your partner if they don't appreciate that smell :P... anywho back to the point, sometimes the bad breath is coming from your stomach (especially when burping is involved) and other times it's coming from your mouth. So there the usual, brush, scrub, and gargle. I'd recommend eating parsley.
would sucking one of these help I wonder?
@Sam Holder: Maybe! I'd also suggest mincing garlic, steeping it in hot (not boiling) water, straining out the garlic, and then diluting it 100:1. Drinking a dose of that ought to fix everything.
My buddy literally oozes garlic out his pores when he sweats, he had to cut it from his diet because his wife was complaining. Ouch!
Am I the only one who feels this is off topic?
It's eating-related,ingredient-related, possibly addresses a unique aspect of sulfurous foods, includes foods (herbs, lemon) as components of the answers. I think it's borderline. It would be better phrased to add the 'why' garlic and onions have this effect, so that the food-science is better explained (as well as for potential cures).
The site clearly states that it's about food preparation, but the title of the site is "Food and Cooking", implying that food preparation is only part of the site. Hmm. Off to meta I go!
The title of the site is actually just "cooking" now. The food is just in the logo, and I think it was a regretable choice.
I personally think that both garlic and onions smell great :)
Brush and floss your teeth
Scrape your tongue
Chew gum or mints
Chew mint, parsley, basil, fennel, licorice, anise, cardamom, clove, or cinnamon
Gargle with baking soda and salt
Gargle with hydrogen peroxide
Gargle with water and lemon
Gargle with alcohol or mouthwash
Hydrate
hydrogen peroxide? in the mouth? are you sure?
@iwein 3% hydrogen peroxide can be used as an oral debriding agent (it kills the surface cells and bacteria). It's on the standard bottle instructions for every unit I've seen in the US. Over the counter, any drug-store or market. Gargle for 1-10 minutes. It tingles, foams a bit. Don't swallow. Almost 100% sure.
Make sure it's "Food Grade" Hydrogen Peroxide however.
@jontyc: It doesn't have to actually include the words "food grade" on the bottle. Simply make sure that the bottle label says you can use gargle with it.
@jontyc: Also, "food grade hydrogen peroxide" (hydrogen peroxide 12% or 17% or 35%) is corrosive and dangerous, according to an FDA news release. The Illinois Poison Center writes: "Don’t buy it! Don’t try it! Don’t bring it in your house!" Instead, buy a bottle of hydrogen peroxide 3% that says on the label that you can gargle with it. Look for it in your local drugstore.
Raw veggies are your friend, the more chlorophyll (the green stuff) the better. I say raw because the fibers clean your teeth. The chlorophyll reacts with the sulfur and neutralizes the bad smell. Just keep chewing and you'll be fine.
Eating vegetables if of course not a replacement for proper mouth hygiene, but interestingly with garlic it is more effective to chew parsley than to brush your teeth.
Nothing can really deal with allium breath. The sulfur compounds in the alliums are absorbed into the bloodstream via the gastrointestinal tract, then released into the alveoli of the lungs, where they are exhaled along with carbon dioxide waste when you breathe out. The smell isn't coming from your mouth, it's coming from your lungs. Some of it may also appear in your sweat. None of these recommendations will work. The only way to avoid the smell is to cook the onion/garlic until the sulfurous compounds break down.
+1 here's a source with some references to research: http://www.breathmd.com/garlic-breath.php It should be noted that garlic breath comes from both the lungs andthe mouth. You get rid of the mouth part by all the ways mentioned. I suppose you can speed up the release of the sulfoxide by increasing your metabolism. So after brushing your teeth, go for a run and sit in the sauna for half an hour.
This should be the Best Answer.
I think it makes a lot of difference how you cook with the garlic (or onion). If you put the fresh garlic on a very hot flame for a minute or two, and then put the fire down, you keep all the good attributes of the garlic, but dramatically reduce the smell it creates from your mouth.
Bad breath could also come from other problems. Getting advice from a dentist can help there.
You should drink milk. It is much better than trying to rinse with water. It is actually proven, the study was published in the journal of food science.
The most important sentences fo the abstract are:
Fat-free and whole milk significantly reduced the head-, mouth-, and nose-space concentrations of all volatiles. Water was the major component in milk responsible for the deodorization of volatiles.
and
Milk was more effective than water and 10% sodium caseinate in the deodorization of allyl methyl sulfide, a persistent garlic odor, in the mouth after garlic ingestion.
The work being a bit theoretical, they also insist that mixing the garlich with milk before consuming it results in less bad breath than if you drink milk after eating garlic. In fact, I often don't have the possibility or inclination to do it, and I would be wary to extend the findings to other dairy products (if they had tried yogurt insead of milk, we'd know that tzatziki is a more business-friendy form of garlic than a tomato sauce).
The whole study is available online, no paywall.
+1 tried. actually help. Yogurt works even better i found.
Chewing coffee beans suppresses the bad smell from your mouth. People usually look at me sideways when I order a couple coffee beans in a restaurant, but it really helps. It does not however suppress the odor of your skin a day after you eat onion or garlic.
If a toothbrush isn't handy, Altoids can cover for you for a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.173483
| 2010-08-13T11:04:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5094",
"authors": [
"Abdullah",
"Argalatyr",
"Burt",
"Cascabel",
"EAGER_STUDENT",
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Fallup",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Greg",
"Jesse van Assen",
"KMC",
"Karl S",
"Ocaasi",
"Peter",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Robert C Edwards",
"SSilk",
"Sam Holder",
"Stephane Rolland",
"Travis Pflanz",
"Xabier Domínguez",
"bit",
"dassouki",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9917",
"iwein",
"jontyc",
"stephennmcdonald",
"steven gebbie",
"tutuDajuju",
"unforgettableidSupportsMonica"
],
"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
}
|
5091
|
How can I prevent the odor in my dishwasher?
My dishwasher is emitting a strong bad odor when its door is open. It's a settled odor resulting from a mix of the accumulated dishes together with the plastic material inside. Even if the machine stays empty, the odor is always there.
What can I do to destroy this odor?
Try throwing some baking soda and lemon juice in it and run an empty load without soap. Repeat as needed.
I'd try about half a normal sized box of baking soda and half to a whole cup of lemon juice.
Baking soda is the cleaning solution that powers so much else.
In the US, I've had very good luck with Dishwasher Magic.
Hobodave has the right solution, in addition i would suggest you a product like this to keep the dishwater's odor fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.174132
| 2010-08-13T09:40:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5091",
"authors": [
"Bryan",
"Diane",
"Emre",
"Nick D'Amato",
"Raissa",
"Ralph",
"Ryan Rapini",
"Vika",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9924",
"justkt",
"user1219430"
],
"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
}
|
78521
|
What is the term for 'sunny side up' omelette?
I have a technique when cooking omlettes where you only cook them on one side, and gather up the edges - but let the cheese accumulate in the soft centre.
Friends have suggested several names for this:
scramelette
sunny side up omelette
soft-centred omelette
The thought occurs that there must be a canonical name - which I'd like to know so I can order it at a restaurant.
My question is: What is the term for 'sunny side up' omelette?
French omelettes are usually cooked only on one side then folded
And there's also the Japanese omelette, but that likely won't have cheese. (and would qualify as a 'soft-centred omelette', but maybe not 'sunny side up', as you scramble it while it cooks at first : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/53962/67
Your creation is what I always think of when someone says 'omelette' without any qualifier.
Thanks @canardgras - I'm used to 'sunny side down' omelettes being the default - but agree with you. Sunny side up is the best!
I believe that is called a classic french omelette.
"Sunnyside" comes from frying unbroken eggs, where the yolk resembles the sun, and by not flipping the egg over makes it "Sunnyside up".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.174265
| 2017-02-19T03:11:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78521",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"canardgras",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9844
|
Why did my chicken soup go cloudy?
I made chicken soup tonight in my usual way - recipe is chicken flash fried, then onion, ginger, garlic added, then stock or water, then lid on and cook. Coriander added later.
Usually, I end up with a mostly clear soup, lots of floating bits of herbs, spices, meat etc, which are fine.
Tonight, the soup was completely cloudy. A dense yellow colour, which didn't settle after leaving it to cool for 40mins and then reheating it (which I thought may help it 'settle').
Why would this happen? It didn't seem to affect the flavour too much, although I noticed that it was a heavier soup than normal. Are there any immediate health or safety concerns associated with a cloudy soup?
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this question between soup, broth, and stock. You make soup from either stock or broth. It's not entirely clear whether you actually made this soup from homemade stock, canned broth, water, or even bullion. It would help a lot if you clarified which you used. I'm also removing the health question as such a generally-phrased health question calls for substantial (off-topic) speculation; as a food safety question or a specific health-related question (i.e. "does cloudy mean higher fat content") it's fine.
sorry. I used a small amount of pre-prepared chicken stock powder, added to hot water, stirred well then poured over the other ingredients.
My guess would be that you boiled the soup at some point, possibly for an extended period of time.
If you bring it to a full boil the fat from the meat will emulsify and distribute itself through the liquid. This is the same stuff that foams to the top, the "scum" that a lot of recipes (usually ones that say bring to a boil, then simmer) tell you to skim off. I would venture to say that this distribution of the fat into the liquid is also why it tasted heavier.
When making stock or soups, the most I'll heat them is to just below boiling and keep them at that simmer for a little longer to make up for not bringing it to a boil. When making stock, I strain once through a chinois and again through a piece of cheesecloth in a chinois to help reduce the floating particulates, but this won't really solve the cloudiness problem (though it will help some).
You can also try putting it into the fridge overnight so that the fat comes to the top and solidifies, but I don't think this will solve the problem, only help reduce it.
If it's just the stock that's gone cloudy, this page has some suggestions on how to clarify it, but honestly unless you're presenting it to guests, I see no reason to even bother. I've made cloudy stock and clear stock before and except for a slight "heaviness" difference, the taste is generally about the same. The cloudy stock sometimes has a more oily mouth feel, but it's not a major difference - and I've found some people seem to prefer the soups or rices I make with a cloudy stock.
If you have a hard time controlling the temperature on your range-top, you can use an oven-safe stock pot and cook it in the oven at 180°F to keep it just below a boil.
One other trick, depending on what kind of soup you were making - if you were making (for example) chicken soup, consider trying to turn it into a cream of chicken soup to hide the cloudy broth :)
Almost every method for clarifying broth will rob it of some flavor. Better to leave it cloudy, and cook it at a lower temp next time.
Perfect answer @stephennmcdonald
@GUI - thanks, I've spent a large part of the past 2 months making stock from the scraps in my freezer (over 15 quarts!), and then making various soups from it :)
Your link to how to clarify it is broken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.174564
| 2010-12-07T00:16:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9844",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Ciel",
"KimbaF",
"Kira",
"Matthew Najmon",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sogeking",
"Theodore",
"briankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"sls",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user189618"
],
"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
}
|
15564
|
How to judge quantity of fresh pasta dough per person
Tomorrow I'll be making a big batch of fresh pasta for about 7-8 people.
I know that if I'm using dried or bought fresh pasta, I usually count on about 125-150g per person, depending on the pasta type and whether it is dried or fresh.
When making pasta dough I will add eggs to my flour weight. Should I just approximate the total weight, and again count on 125-150g per person? Or will the weight change while I am cooking?
For instance, if I have 1kg durum flour and 16 eggs, the raw ingredients would weigh approximately 1.8kg in total (based on 50g per egg and not allowing for any reduction in weight during cooking). By my reckoning, that would feed 12 people generously.
Am I correct?
It depends on what else you are having. An entire egg's worth of fresh pasta is a LOT for one person. I usually fix 1 egg for every two people. Since you are talking metric, I assume you aren't an american, so you might want less than that.
Dealing with 8 people is small enough that you might have to consider the people -- children and supermodels would eat less than football players and construction workers. Also, how it's being served -- is it a pasta course before some other course, a side dish to some other main, or is it the main course? And sauces can affect things, too. A light tomato sauce, cheese & butter, or garlic & olive oil isn't going to fill you up as much as a heavy meat sauce, carbonara, or a primavera with lots of vegetables.
Michael Ruhlman (in "Ratio") suggests starting with approximately 1 egg per person, and adding the appropriate amount of flour.
More info on his method: http://ruhlman.com/2011/05/how-to-make-pasta/
I'm a novice but today for the first time made two eggs worth of fresh egg pasta, 200g of 00 flour and 2 large eggs. I ate it all myself, although it was a big portion. I would say that, depending on your sauce and what you are eating the pasta with, 125g is a generous portion per person.
Personally, I was really hungry and had it with just a tomato sauce and nothing on the side, so 200g was alright.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.174924
| 2011-06-17T15:59:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15564",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"FBA",
"Gilbrilthor",
"Joe",
"Julie",
"Nbuckner1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"michael",
"sammarcow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7079
|
How do you get a nice yellow gravy color when making a chicken pot pie?
I'm making a chicken pot pie. Taste is decent, texture is good, however the appearance of the 'chicken gravy' inside is more....dull gray like than a more vibrant yellow. I don't mind it, but most people eat with their eyes first so....
Is the yellow color artificial or natural, and what can be added/removed to create this?
I've only seen that color in canned cream of chicken soup and I'm dubious of its source.
I personally don't feel like it has to be yellow.
If your goal is just color I would use turmeric- it is my yellow-stain of choice.
I was curious so I looked at the ingredients in Campbell's cream of chicken. The second ingredient is chicken fat which is probably where that lovely color comes from. Nice. And yes, I am embarrassed that I own a can of cream of chicken soup.
this. Read the title, and the first thing that popped into my head was "chicken fat" (because it's so digestible cough). Perhaps a nice chicken-fat roux?
Usually that bright yellow gravy colour is from using bouillon cubes or powder to make the broth, rather than making it yourself. The OXO cubes are quite heavily colored (not naturally), and will make your gravy yellow.
Turmeric can be used without effecting the taste too much, all though I agree with previous posters with the analysis on why the color is yellow.
Agreed -- tumeric is the only thing that'll get you bright yellow without resorting to food dyes specifically or significantly affecting the flavor. (and the colorant in curry powder, and likely what's in bouillon, too)
And... tumeric actually makes existing colors appear somewhat brighter, the "glow" from turmeric is not an illusion, stuff's flourescent and gives off yellow light when UV or far blue light hits it :)
Yellow colored chicken soup can be achieved using chicken feet. Old Jewish secret
To get a rich golden yellow color in the sauce of the chicken pot pie, I gradually add 2 beaten egg yolks to the sauce with a whisk so it doesn't curdle. I let the egg yolk mixture cook and thicken along with the sauce. This is like the technique used when making a custard.
Yellow? Hm...the gravy on my homemade pot pie is a pretty off-white, creamy color. It's colored by the half&half and chicken broth that it starts with.
Perhaps if your chicken broth is yellow-y to begin with and you use more of that?
Using a brown chicken stock would help the color and provide some extra flavor. When making your stock, roast the bones before adding them. Brown the veggies before adding them. (Some people add a little tomato paste, too.)
Curry
really? that's going to affect the flavour a lot...
It's the only way I've ever had yellow chicken pot pie. All the others have a more or less white sauce. To the downvoter, it's customary to give a reason.
I did, I think it will affect the flavour a lot.
I agree with @Sam: it probably will affect the flavor... although I'm not sure if it would be bad, I love curry :-) But it's not exactly what the question was asking for.
chicken curry pie sounds like a fantastic idea !
Turmeric is what makes most curry powders yellow anyway.
Not only is that questionable advice, it is also very ambigous given "curry" doesn't intuitively mean "curry powder" in some english speaking parts of the world :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.175162
| 2010-09-10T17:20:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7079",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Etienne Neveu",
"Jacob Colborn",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Martin Beckett",
"Sam Holder",
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"Tomáš Kafka",
"chaospearl",
"chickenbbq",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"nachito",
"rackandboneman",
"stevanl",
"trish"
],
"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
}
|
2628
|
How do you make homemade sausage without meat grinder/sausage stuffer?
I have no desire to spend hundreds of dollars on this specialized equipment to make sausage, which I may only use a few times a year. There must be some other alternatives!
edit: no Kitchen Aid mixer (yes I know it makes this even more difficult)
I think I got my meat grinder in pristine shape at a garage sale when someone was moving. It was in pristine shape, looking like it had never been used, and I got it for under $10. (I got a food mill, too, but it looked like it had seen more use). You don't have to buy everything brand new, and with our older generation being sent away to nursing homes by their kids, there's a treasure trove of cast iron pans w/ decades of seasoning and other great finds out there. (and um ... don't have a sausage stuffer, though)
Sausage patties? Strictly speaking, there's no rule that sausage (the meat) needs to be in sausage (the links) form.
Well, you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars, but you might need to put in more elbow grease. You can get a hand-crank meat grinder for about $30 or so and a manual sausage stuffer for about the same. You could save on the grinder if you have a food processor or blender that can have its way with the meat.
I assume that'd be 'save on the grinder' if you had a food processor. (and in that case, you'll want to pulse it, to make sure it doesn't come out too finely chopped ... I found that out the hard way when I was about 8, and I felt like making the meatball recipe from my superfriends cookbook ... and before I'm asked, no, I have no idea how I managed to use a food processor or the kitchen unsupervised when I was 8)
Do you have a KitchenAid stand mixer? If so, I'd suggest getting these attachments: KitchenAid FGA Food Grinder Attachment for Stand Mixers
and KitchenAid SSA Sausage Stuffer Kit Attachment for Food Grinder. They're under $50 combined, and small enough to fit in a deep drawer or cabinet.
If you're good with the knife work, you can just dice up everything super fine for sausage, but it won't taste as good; you're going to have some temperature control issues when whipping it as well.
I'd second the suggestions to buy a used grinder or a kitchen aid and attachment (Seriously, the kitchen aid is a must have. You'll use it all the time.)
You can buy different ingredients depending on how much effort you are willing to put in:
Many places will do premade sausagemeat which you can but into casing yourself (you could add your own seasonings to this meat).
A good butcher will grind meat for you - I'm sure they would even advise you on the proportions of particular meat (I would use pork belly and shoulder with maybe a little extra fat in) and you could probably even get them to use different meats too (beef?).
One method i've seen (but not personally tried) is using a piping bag with the casing on the end to squeeze the sausage meat into the casing, you'd need to tie it every now and then (unless you wanted giant sausage of course :D )
Well if you want to go totally old school you go out and buy some cull fat. It's the membrane that holds the insides together. Your local butcher can get you some.
Get your meats and fat then start chopping like crazy to make it as small a dice as possible. (Or go to your local butcher and ask him/her to grind it for you. It won't cost much.)
Mix in your spices and such until it's what you want. You know, follow your favourite recipe.
Start making patties/logs/egg-shapped mounds/whatever shape you like of meat and wrap them in the cull fat.
A nice addition is putting a bay leaf inside each wrap.
To cook, you brown them off and either braise them off like a few traditional British dishes (which have a name which isn't very PC) or just toss them into the oven and roast them off.
There you have it. A minced meat like sausage that can be made without the use of modern gadgits.
Mind you there is alot to be said about those cheap $25 hand grinders!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.175512
| 2010-07-21T16:15:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2628",
"authors": [
"GalacticCowboy",
"Haentz",
"Joe",
"John Ripley",
"Moe Tsao",
"Phssthpok",
"Sadin Suraweera",
"caelyx",
"guns",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"officeslave",
"oracle certified professional",
"zcourts"
],
"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
}
|
3012
|
Solutions for when heating chocolate and butter doesn't mix well
Yesterday I tried to make brownies that started out with me having to melt unsweetened chocolate with butter in a frying pan on the stove. This did not work well. The chocolate kindof mixed with the melted butter, but parts of it remained solid. I then had to let it cool before adding the rest of the ingredients; the butter and chocolate separated, and the chocolate formed small to medium solid globs in the butter.
What did I do wrong? If this were to happen again how would I go about fixing it? Should I add something to counteract this and if so what and how much?
NOTE:
I didn't have unsweetened chocolate so I used Hershey's pure chocolate chipits.
I also used margarine instead of butter but have never had a problem with this substitution before.
I can think of at least three things that will cause chocolate to seize - which refers to when melted or melting chocolate suddenly becomes hard again:
Using too high a heat. Double-boiler is the safest, but you can use a saucepan on very low heat.
Sugar bloom and other impurities. You shouldn't get this with baker's chocolate, but if you use any lower-quality chocolate, this can seep into the melting chocolate and cause it to seize.
Contact with moisture! Even a tiny amount will cause it to immediately seize, and it's difficult to recover at that point.
Sounds like you fell into traps #2 and #3 and possibly #1. I would not melt chocolate in margarine; I'd even be wary of melting it in butter, and find it strange that a recipe would call for that, because both butter and margarine contain water!
Melting chocolate in a liquid can actually help prevent seizing, but you have to use a lot of liquid and the liquid has to be completely melted before you start trying to melt the chocolate. It's better to use something like a vegetable oil which has no water content if this is what you're trying to do.
So, in summary:
Definitely stay away from the margarine. Even if you need to use butter, make sure it's completely melted first and try to use only the fat (clarify it).
If you can, melt the chocolate and clarify the butter separately and then whisk them together gradually afterward; not only will this help to prevent seizing, but if commenter @roux is correct and the problem isn't one of seizing, this will still help to guarantee that the chocolate melts evenly.
Use the best quality chocolate you can find. Chipits are generally OK to melt on their own, but if they've been sweetened then this may contribute to seizing if other factors are present.
Melt in a double-boiler or on very low heat.
In my experience with brownies, seizing isn't that big a deal because you end up mixing in eggs and other liquids that'll get you back to normal. The best move here may actually just be to forge ahead undaunted and add the wet ingredients first, which would smooth out your chocolate relatively quickly.
Interesting point @Dennis and that may be true. I don't think I'd want to count on that, because once you get that far down, it's too late to fix it, especially if there are "medium" sized chunks as the OP says. If the seizing is fairly minimal, and the mixture is going to be exposed to slow heat later on, or if you can tolerate a lumpy texture at the end of the day, then I might ignore it.
Chocolate will always seize when vegetable fats are added: animal fat ONLY for best results. However, seizing is only an issue when your mix is primarily chocolate: as you say adding a ton of liquid won't cause this problem.
@Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry but that's not correct. Chocolate reacts to water. Any pure fat with no water content such as clarified butter or vegetable oil is fine; there's nothing special about animal fat. If you look around, you'll see that adding vegetable oil is one of the most common "fixes" for seized chocolate.
@roux: Thanks for pointing that out. I believe that even though the problem/cause may be interpreted differently, the solution in that case is, essentially, the same, as you mention; melt gently and keep the chocolate away from any water-based liquids until it's totally melted. I'll add in the point about separate melting; the OP did seem to imply that the recipe specifically called for melting them together, but it's worth pointing out regardless.
I am sorry, but the accepted answer is incorrect in many details.
When chocolate seizes, it is due to a small amount of moisture. Imagine a cup of sugar. It will pour freely. If you add a small amount of water, clumps of the sugar will stick together and stop flowing. Add enough water, and the combination of sugar and water dissolve together, and flow freely again.
With chocolate, it is the solid particles embedded in the fat phase that interact with water to seize. Adding enough water (about 20% by weight) will un-seize the mixture although it will of course contain much more water.
Similarly, seized chocolate can be recovered for some purposes simply by adding additional water.
This is in contrast to scorching where the chocolate and its components essentially burn, at least locally. This creates a similar texture to seized chocolate, and a terrible flavor. There is no way to recover scorched chocolate.
Of the three reasons enumerated in the original accepted answer, only one is a true cause of seizing:
Using too high a heat. The danger here is scorching the chocolate, not seizing it. You do want to use low and gentle heat, as from a bain marie, double boiler, or simply in the microwave at low power, but this has nothing to do with seizing.
Sugar bloom and other impurities. Neither sugar bloom nor fat bloom cause seizing in any way. In fact, bloomed chocolate can be melted down and then re-tempered, and assuming it has not gone rancid or spoiled, it will be as good as a fresh bar.
Impurities on the other hand, well, it would depend on what they are. Chocolate chips, especially from supermarket brands, often have some of the cocoa butter of true genuine chocolate removed and substituted with cheaper lipids like hydrogenated vegetable oil. These fats do not have the same mouth feel and melting characteristics, but again, are unlikely to change seizing behavior.
Contact with moisture. A small amount will cause seizing. However, it is trivial to recover--add more liquid until the mixture smooths out again. Note that this is again in contrast to scorching, which is not fixable.
So of the first three gotchas, really only the third could cause seizing.
So the most likely culprit for the original poster is low quality chocolate chips, or too high a heat leading to scorching. It is also possible but unlikely that the heat was too high, so that some of the the water boiled out of the butter, leading to seizing—but if that were true, you almost certainly would have scorched the chocolate as well.
Most recipes which direct the cook to melt chocolate and butter together actually have more butter than chocolate, and butter is about 20% water. This is enough that the fully melted mixture should be passed the seizing point.
Using margarine is also perfectly acceptable in terms of seizing. It, like butter, is about 20% water, and so performs similarly. However, if there were some margerine-like product which has a much lower but non-zero water percentage, there might be some danger of seizing.
Furthermore, when melting butter and chocolate together, it is not necessary to pre-melt the butter for two main reasons (I have done this enumerable times, both stove top and in a microwave):
Butter melts at a lower temperature than chocolate, and so will tend to melt first anyway
Assuming the heat level is low, and you stir occasionally, the mixture will not scorch, and so will un-seize when everything is fully melted and stirred together.
Of the advise listed in the original, I would clarify:
Using is margarine is fine, but don't use a product that doesn't contain 20% water, equivalent to butter (or one that contains more water).
There is no need to melt the chocolate and butter separately. Clarifying the butter first is actually counter-productive, as it will reduce the water percentage, but probably not down to zero. This may leave enough water to seize, but not to move past the seizing.
Use the best quality chocolate you can find. This is true, but mostly for reasons of taste, in my opinion.
Melt in a double-boiler or on very low heat. A microwave on low power, with occasional stirring, can also be very effective.
I would add that any recipe where butter and chocolate are melted together should have more butter than chocolate, in general, because of the seizing problem. Given that the total water needs to be at least 20% of the chocolate weight, you would need at least equal amounts of butter and chocolate, and preferably double the butter to chocolate (by weight).
A typical brownie recipe that I have made many times, for example, melts two sticks of butter (8 ounces) with 4 ounces of chocolate. That is 3.2 tablespoons of water from the butter, which is enough top prevent seizing.
One final note: melting chocolate together with a pure fat (such as pure hydrogenated vegetable oil) that has no water content is fine at any ratio.
Coda on the science:
Chocolate is normally a solid suspension of solid particles in a fat phase, with only a minuscule percentage of water. So it is water in fat emulsion. Add enough water—about 20% by weight—and the emulsion will switch to being a fat in water (or sugar syrup, as the sugar in the chocolate will tend to dissolve) emulsion, with suspended solid particles, again flowing freely. See Food Education's chocolate article for more details on the science.
Well written, but a bit confusing to me: why are low quality chips likely the original poster's problem if it's only water content that actually matters here?
To save separated chocolate, immediately put in freezer, let it remain for 5 min. Take out and put on double boiler. Heat slowly (low to start and then to low-med heat) while adding about 1/3 cup of heavy cream. When it glistens - take off and pour ganache immediately
I'm in culinary school and when we make mousse, we melt the chocolate and butter together in a metal bowl over a pot of water. I learned the hard way when they say double boiler is misleading. Your bowl should be cool enough to grab with a bare hand or else your water is too hot. It only needs to be at a light simmer and put the butter in the bowl first and the chocolate on top and then walk away. Don't touch it, give a turn after a few minutes. Do that maybe twice, but don't stir it.
I think you may be heating it too quickly. Try gently simmering some water and putting the butter/chocolate mix in a bowl on top of that.
I was making fudge today, and had my BAKERS chocolate and butter seize up and turn all grainy. Instead of throwing out this expensive mistake I decided to try something to fix it. Over very low heat, in a pot, I remelted the mixture, and than added about 1/4 cup of vanilla liquid creamer. I couldn't believe how quickly it smoothed out and the creamer added a better flavor and creaminess to my fudge! Hope this helps. - Lis
When melting butter and chocolate together in microwave, I have found that starting with FROZEN butter does not work well. (I guess that is because the butter needs to melt before the chocolate.)
Using frozen butter results in separation of butter and chocolate, separation of the batter, and even separation of the final baked product (creating an oily feel). Still edible though. (-:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.175892
| 2010-07-23T15:54:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3012",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dennis",
"Diane",
"Lemon",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Syndic",
"Yozomiri",
"anthony france",
"domen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/986",
"karen",
"noflexxzone",
"rcpi",
"user5410"
],
"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
}
|
6454
|
Substitute frozen cranberries for fresh berries
I just came across this recipe that calls for 1 1/4 cups of fresh cranberries. I was wondering if it was possible to substitute frozen cranberries instead. I am assuming that I have to
thaw the cranberries
pour off any excess water
measure out the required amount (1 1/4 cups)
Is this correct? Will there be any major differences?
As long as your frozen cranberries aren't in a syrup, this should be just fine. The most noticeable difference would be the texture. The flavor will also be slightly concentrated due to the water loss that Michael points out.
I wouldn't bother thawing them, unless they're going to be in a huge block otherwise. For pies with frozen berries, you really just need to cook them a little longer to make sure everything is done...If the top crust browns too fast, throw a piece of foil over it until the whole thing gets bubbly.
I do this with blueberries and blackberries and...Well, I do it with all frozen berries really. It's less effort and the final product is just as good as if you let them thaw. In my tiny brain, I also have the suspicion that thawing allows some of the better juices a chance to escape.
I make a similar dish often, and I have never noticed a significant difference between the fresh and the frozen cranberries.
I'd use slightly less than the required amount by volume, since the berries will have deflated somewhat due to water loss.
I wouldn't use less in a pie. You'll want that missing volume or you'll have a flat sad looking pie.
@roux: lol send a cd
@hobodave: I'd be less worried about it being flat and sad, than it being made from cranberries. Cranberry pie? Really? For those times when you really wanted pie but the store was out of fruit.
@Satanicpuppy - the linked recipe is for a cranberry apple pie. I agree that a cranberry pie doesn't sound tasty standalone?
@justkt: Yea, I noticed after I posted it, when I was halfway through writing about why I always use frozen cranberries in quickbreads (which are the only place I use cranberries, aside from more savory stuffings and such). Ah well. I'll leave my snark for posterity to snort at and yell, "RTFS!" at their monitors.
@Satanicpuppy - been there, done that (not R-ingTFS). I'm still trying to come up with an all cranberry pie that might taste good now, though.
@Satanicpuppy - how about a savory cranberry turkey pie?
@Michael at Herbivoracious: Now yer talkin. I suppose you could also do cranberry sauce in a pre-baked shell...Kinda seems like cheating though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.176853
| 2010-08-31T22:36:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6454",
"authors": [
"Albert Mijburgh",
"Daniel Baktiar",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Natkin",
"Satanicpuppy",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jordanm",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1047
|
What is the effect of the fat content of milk when making cottage cheese
I made cottage cheese yesterday using 1% milk while the recipe called for 2% milk. This got me wondering...
What effect does the fat content of the milk used in the recipe have on the final cottage cheese product? Does using milk with a higher fat content produce more cottage cheese than a milk with a lower fat content?
BOUNTY:
To see if anyone can come up with anything about the quantity of cottage cheese resulting from milk of different fat contents.
I'm not going to answer, as I don't know for sure, but in yogurt, it'll affect the firmness, so there might be similar issues.
Definitely a flavor impact. I've made it a few times at home and with skim you end up with pretty much flavorless, translucent milk protein. Pretty bland.
Either way, without the right amount of salt and re-added cream or half-and-half it will taste pretty bland regardless of fat content from my experience. It's also really easy to over salt.
Thinking through it further to completion, if you're re-adding something like cream or half-and-half the original fat in the source milk will be negligible compared to the additives before serving. (Unless, again, you're simply going for a solid brick of milk solids.)
I cannot cite anything saying a change in the fat of the source milk will produce more, less, or the same amount. I'd imagine you'd have more mass left over, but as for the effective amount of cottage cheese I'd say that primarily depends on the amount of milk proteins and that should have no bearing on the fat content left in the milk used.
Not having made cottage cheese before, I'm unsure of what effect it has on the quantity produced. However, I do know that it has a significant effect on the flavor of the finished product. Just like skim milk tastes blander than whole milk, the same applies to cheese. When you buy non/low-fat cottage cheese in the supermarket you'll notice they add sugar to prevent it from tasting like runny mashed styrofoam.
Update - I sent some emails out to a few food science professors regarding the role of fat in cheese yield, and got a response from Art Hill, Professor and Chair, Department of Food Science, University of Guelph.
Fat is a principal yield component in cheese. Fat is trapped in the casein protein matrix during cheese making. Thus the mass of the fat contributes to the cheese yield. However, lower fat cheese often contains more water so yield loss is partially compensated by increased water retention.
I did some additional research and found that many cheeses have strict MNFS (moisture in the non-fat substance, calculated by subtracting the fat and expressing the moisture as a percentage of what is left) limits in which they can legally be called whatever they claim to be. Take Cheddar for example, the highest moisture, lowest fat cheese that can legally be called Cheddar 56.12% MNFS. To limit the moisture content of low-fat cheddar at less than a 1/3 fat reduction, fat substitutes are used. These can include protein based beads designed to mimic fat globules, and starches.
Sources:
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/cheese/sectione.htm#yieldefficiency
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/cheese/sectiong.htm
http://www.cheesereporter.com/Neville/neville.july.27.htm
From this site on the University of Guelph it says that fat is important in cheese because it :
contributes lubrication and creamy mouth feel
contributes flavour and acts as a reservoir for other flavours
globules disperse light and suppress translucence making the cheese appear
darker
alteration of polar/non-polar constituents affects biochemistry
occupies space in the protein matrix and prevents the formation of a dense
matrix which produces a hard, corky cheese
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.177080
| 2010-07-15T20:49:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1047",
"authors": [
"DaveParillo",
"Drew Stephens",
"Joe",
"blubb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"petemoloy",
"slim",
"sth",
"user1930",
"voithos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1204
|
What kind of wok should I get?
I saw the question on the site about preparing a wok, but I'm curious what kind I should get. I have heard of stainless steel, carbon steel, aluminum, etc. Also, there's a non-stick variety. I'm new to stir fry and will be cooking on an electric ceramic stovetop.
You should get a carbon steel wok with two short handles (not one long handle).
You want the steel to build up a patina of oxidized oils, which rules out stainless steel and aluminum and non-stick. You could conceivably get a cast-iron wok, but those are really heavy.
You want the two small handles so you can pick up the wok, but you don't want long handles that will dump hot oil or food everywhere if you bump them. Unlike a saute pan, you don't toss the pan, you toss the food. (Tossing the pan pulls it away from the flame, which is bad when stir-frying!)
Your best bet is to go to an Asian grocery. You'll be assured of getting a product at a good price. Shouldn't cost more than $25, I don't think.
Oh, one other question is what sort of stove you have. If you have an electric stove, (a) I'm sorry, and (b) you have to get a flat-bottomed wok. If you have a gas stove, you can either get a flat-bottomed wok or a round-bottomed wok, but the latter only if you get a wok ring that holds the pan just above the flame. You want as much heat going into that pan as you possibly can manage!
As one of the electric stove people, I'd recommend the flat-bottomed wok over the ring -- you get better contact, and better heat transfer. I'd prefer using a saute pan to a round wok and just not over-crowd the pan (which may require cooking in batches)
addendum -- if you have a serious commercial wok burner, which you don't, but if you did, then you'd want the long handle so you can toss the pan and get tasty burned oil flavors. But you don't, which is why your home-cooked Chinese food won't be as good as that at a good restaurant.
another addendum -- if you don't have a gas burner, or maybe even if you do, get a standalone induction burner (under $100), and use that for wok cooking. The heat is only in the bottom of the pan, which is what you want. Gas tends to go up the sides, which is inefficient, burns your hands, and isn't ideal for stir-frying.
The Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen testers argue forcefully that a wok on an electric stovetop is suboptimal -- they're designed to sit on top of a fire or gas burner with flames licking around the base, and a wok's small area of contact with the heat source when used on a conventional hob results in something more like stir-steaming than stir-frying. They recommend a 12" frying pan/skillet instead. Other people's experiences may vary, but I haven't bothered with a wok since university and I would definitely question the need for one to make great stir-fry.
The best and cheapest solution I've ever see is the one I have. It requires a deck, patio, or something though.
I went to Chinatown in Toronto and at a restaurant supply store bought a carbon steel wok. It was about $25. You can get them anywhere. The secret to wok cooking is temperature. In the US, burners are generally limited to 15k btu. You need much more for the authentic taste.
What you need is a wok burner. I bought one for one $100 at the same store. It's basically a 7 inch wide triple fire ring burner made of cast iron. It's enclosed in a 15x15 inch frame which the wok will properly rest on. It's very strong and pretty large so I also use my 20 quart pressure canner on it.
This burner hooks up to propane, but you can get ones that use natural gas. It's 66k btu. Absolutely the best and cheapest purchase I've made in years. It uses much less gas than grilling, is much faster, and I use it for a larger variety of food.
Note: these types of burners are not rated for indoor use. They are incredible though.
I would go with cast iron. With a thicker bottom Those are getting hard to find even in Asia. So carbon steel. As you need a hot bottom in them to cook. The wok burner is a + . But not a must. You also want a lid for the wok, A 1/2 round rack & a round rack to set inside it. All set. Most cooking in them is stir fry. But they are good for frying food & steaming with the racks in them. Flat bottom is best for stoves. The thick bottom is best for even heat across the bottom as you stir fry. But as said hard to find.
What brand was the wok burner? I'm struggling to find anything with that level of BTUs less than $1000
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/equipment-how-to-buy-a-wok-which-wok-is-the-best.html
Read this. Great advice.
Woks CAN work great on an electric range. But you have to buy carbon steel, not non-stick.
Don't listen to the nay sayers. It works great. Try it!!
Non-stick is basically a euphemism for "short life span".
Supposing that you have a gas stove, a simple and cheap thin steel wok will stand you in great stead. They are tough, light and easy to shake about, and will take a wonderful seasoning with use.
(Seasoning refers to the layer of cooked in oil which gives the wok its "non-stickness". it is very important to avoid washing up liquid, just cleaning it with hot water and a brush or similar).
I personally like a long handle; but a wok ring is essential as Harlan says.
And to translate for the Americans : "washing up liquid" == "dish soap"
Seriously? "Dish soap"? Wow, learn a new thing every day...
I've experimented with a few. As mentioned here non-stick woks get quickly ruined with the high heat you need and given that you pay extra it probably isn't worth it.
Probably my main advice would be to get a wok of the right size, for cooking at home I suggest tending towards smaller rather larger. Obviously a smaller wok is easier to heat up.
Personally, I would go for a cheap and cheerful steel wok which requires a bit of seasoning. Don't use heavy astringent chemicals or abrasives when cleaning it.
I got an aluminum filled stainless steel wok. One short handle, one long. Gas range.
Works quite well, even, fast heat distribution.
No worries about having to season the thing or dry thoroughly to prevent rust.
Wok temperatures frequently get too high for teflon to last more than a year. You might as well pour money down the drain on one of those.
My Wok is 8 years old, and happy, shiny as the day I bought it.
I use it a lot.
Slightly flat bottom, so it doesn't go rolling everywhere.
I would suggest a flat bottomed carbon steel wok, only due to your heat source of the ceramic/flat top range. Any other type of wok would probably not give you good results. Anything with a non-stick surface is going to be a limiting factor when it comes to high heat. And stir frying needs quite a bit of heat. A round bottom would also not be effective as it would not have the surface area to transfer heat.
If you were able to upgrade to a portable gas cooker, this would greatly improve your stir frying experience. I would still recommend a flat bottom wok, as western style gas ranges are made for flat bottom pans, and do not concentrate it in the center for a wok. Thin carbon steel, as to transfer the heat to the food easier. As for handles, I would suggest one handle, just to keep the flame/heat away from your hands. If you had a wok ring to keep things stable, then a round bottom would be better. The round bottom is easier to flip/move food.
Since you are new to stir fry I would suggest you to buy the non stick one. So you don't have to worry about seasoning the wok and all that. Then if you find yourself in the future in the need of a different wok you can buy it then.
For now I'll go with the easiest one
This is not good advice. The whole point of stir-frying is that the bottom of the pan be extremely hot and the food gets progressively stirred onto and off of the bottom of the pan, developing browning and flavor but not burning because of the constant stirring. You cannot do that with a nonstick pan. You'll ruin the teflon and fill your food with carcinogens. If someone doesn't want to deal with high-heat cooking, they should stick to whatever flat pans they happen to already have. My suggestion is the real wok, plus a copy of From the Earth, a great Chinese vegetarian cookbook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.177397
| 2010-07-16T20:29:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1204",
"authors": [
"Amanda Huffaker",
"Chris A",
"GuyBehindtheGuy",
"Harlan",
"J Bergen",
"Jamis Charles",
"Jason Bunting",
"Joe",
"Joel in Gö",
"Nicolas Raoul",
"Ryan Hayes",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wouter Lievens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85632",
"mru",
"radius",
"user2224"
],
"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
}
|
13867
|
What other cut of meat can replace pork shank?
I have really been wanting to trying this recipe Braised Pork Shanks with Mushroom Dumplings, but I have not been able to obtain pork shanks.
Can another cut of pork meat be used instead? I was considering using pork shoulder.
You could probably get away with pork shoulder, although you will want to consider that the texture may not be what you want -- it may either have too much fat and connective tissue, or it may fall apart too much, depending on how long you braise it for. You will probably have to alter your cooking times, I'd imagine.
Pork hocks are somewhat similar in texture to the shank, so that a possibility. Though you will probably run into the same availability problems.
It may take a small amount of modification, but your best bet may be to go with country-style ribs. They are tender and flavorful when braised, and are readily available in any grocery store.
If you do use a pork shoulder, I would recommend trying to get a bone-in roast. Pork Shanks contain a good deal of collagen/gelatin due to their bone. You could also compensate for the lack of a bone by adding a pack of unflavored gelatin at the end of the cooking (a technique espoused by Cooks Illustrated in many recipes).
I think lamb shanks could be used.
Whatever, that is an Atlantic recipe - so much salt!
Pork shoulder should work. A picnic shoulder (with the skin still on it) would be better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.178345
| 2011-04-08T14:13:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13867",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Gail Smith",
"Robert Paul Hingston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"keios",
"theharshest"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29453
|
Horseradish substitute in creamy chowder
I would like to cook a pot of seafood chowder today but it's Christmas, the stores are all closed and I forgot to pick up horseradish. Is there a good substitute for horseradish in a creamy chowder?
I figured wasabi and mustard might work and those ingredients do turn up in a Google search but I'm not sure that they would work in a chowder. The flavor would be fine, I think, but I'm worried that the final product would be tinted green or yellow depending on the substitution. I could see wasabi and especially mustard working well to replace horseradish in something like crab dip though.
Any other ideas?
If the wasabi is pure wasabi powder, it's only a pale yellow color, not neon green like wasabi you get at a sushi restaurant. A lot of wasabi actually has food coloring in it. Similarly mustard powder is bright yellow... but in either case if you only use a bit of powder (which can be quite strong) it might not impart a lot of color on the final dish.
If the soup needs to be spicy you could try ginger. I also see here you could try black radish, which does have a very spicy taste but apparently it requires advance preparation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.178488
| 2012-12-25T16:19:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29453",
"authors": [
"Emma Nutter",
"Jay Austin",
"Kelly L Gale",
"Megan ",
"Rony Walker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58087
|
What is the difference between marinara and spaghetti sauce?
The title pretty much says it: What is the difference between marinara and spaghetti sauce?
I Googled and got a bunch of hits but none of the answers left me feeling like I actually understand the difference. If anything, I'm more confused now than when I started. The one thing that a few of the answers I found had in common was the idea that marinara sauce is simpler, with fewer ingredients than other tomato-based sauces. Still, the idea does not present the full picture. I guess another way to approach this question would be to ask: What would one add to "marinara" sauce to make it "spaghetti" sauce?
Thx
Spaghetti sauce is a generic term for sauces you can put on pasta. There are hundreds of recipes out there with a huge variety, some have tomato and some don't. Marinara is one type of pasta sauce.
Marinara is a style / kind of a sauce that originated in Napoli usually made with tomatoes, garlic, herbs, and onions. A spaghetti sauce only says where to sauce is used (obviously on spaghetti) but doesn't say anything about what the sauce is exactly like.
There are many dishes which are basically spaghetti + sauce:
Spaghetti alla marinara – which literally translates to "spaghetti mariner's style"
Spaghetti aglio e olio – "spaghetti with garlic and oil", originated in Napoli
Spaghetti alla puttanesca – "spaghetti whore-style"
Spaghetti alla Carbonara – "spaghetti coal worker's style"
and, uhmmm...
Spaghetti with meatballs – an Italian-American invention
I thought Spaghetti and meatballs were from Italy
@RobP. No, it isn't from Italy. I heard from spaghetti with meatballs only in American context. The only thing I know that resembles with spaghetti and meatballs is Ragù alla bolognese.
Interesting - I'm finding a lot of conflicting claims. Wikipedia says 'However, pasta served with meatballs and tomato sauce are found in southern Italy and are documented earlier than the American version'. But plenty of other sources say otherwise. Probably getting off-topic, my apologies.
Marinara sauce is actual a thin tomato sauce used originally on fish foods, hence the name Marinara! In Naples Italy when the fishermen came home with the fish they caught for the day the wives would fix a thin tomato sauce used in cooking and serving the fish. Marinara sauce is not started with any meat or meat flavoring or onions like a thick tomato sauce for pasta is. Spaghetti sauce starts with sauteing onions and meat such as neck bones, garlic and olive oil in the bottom of a pan before adding the tomato sauce and paste or adding meat balls to flavor the sauce besides the oregano, garlic, basil, etc., while it is cooking down.
Although it is not in the original Neapolitan style, you will occasionally find people including anchovy paste or the like in their marinara sauce.
In the U.S. Marinara is a vegetarian Italian style tomato sauce and it may have olive oil and cheese like parmesan mixed in. But never meat or anchovies.
Spaghetti Sauce in the U.S. is culinary slang for manufactured tomato sauce served over spaghetti.
My family (from Italy) makes both, and the only difference I have noticed
is that marinara sauce is a thinner sauce. As for spices, that varies from
Person to person and does not effect how thick the sauce is.
The biggest difference I found in spaghetti sauce and marinara sauce is the use of oregino. Typically spaghetti sauce does not have oregino in it and a marinara sauce does which is usually what gives it is flavor.
Why do you think that spaghetti sauce doesn't have oregano in it? Do you have a source that states this is the case?
I don't think there is a big difference. Spaghetti sauce is a little
Thicker and can come with meats added to it and more vegetables. Marinara sauce is more liquid but you can add meat and vegetables to it or leave it as is. Either way they are both good!
My family is from Naples where Marinara originates.
Marinara never has meat.
Im Italian and Sicilian which is kind of a greater mix of the two because it's rare when they don't get along and we do use oregano in spaghetti sauce and either way there is not no much difference and yes they both taste the same well both taste great, out here in the US they do say that pizza sauce is marinara sauce you can use it all the same and yes meatballs and (Italian sausage) which is not mentioned is part of Italian I would say one of the biggest part not US. So let's get your facts straight and correct.. however yes and all in all actuality it is and does vary from person to person
DV - sorry, this is not clear.
Sonny Silvaroli had the best if incomplete answer. Marinara should never be cooked for more than a half hour. Where as spaghetti sauce more correctly know as Sugo di pomodoro usually cooks for an hour or two. But marinara was made by the fishermen themselves usually on the beach or on board the boat and would never have meat in it.
In my Italian opinion, spaghetti or standard "sugo" tomato sauce is fairly smooth, whether thick or thin, likely using strained tomatoes. Marinara is a little more chunky or pulpy in texture, or "rustic" lets say, probably using crushed tomatoes.
This will definitely vary depending on who you ask and where so you probably won't get a definitive answer. Gotta love Italian cuisine, huh?
Both are interchangeable depending on application and preference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.178643
| 2015-06-08T00:17:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58087",
"authors": [
"Barbara Moffett",
"Catija",
"Charles Stachera",
"Ching Chong",
"Dave Sallmann",
"Eliot G York",
"Emma King",
"GdD",
"Jay Nordstrom",
"Joy Clark",
"Lauren Sahnas",
"Mark Fidani",
"Mary Jo Arrowsmith",
"Rob P.",
"Serena Daubney",
"Tammy Binning",
"Todd Jennings",
"Tree Stevens",
"Wick Land",
"fredia taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6250",
"tchrist"
],
"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
}
|
16217
|
How to make Latte art on a Cappuccino?
It's Sunday morning and I just missed my latte art, as usual.
I have no difficulty to make an espresso with enough crema and to get a big layer of foam from my steamed milk, but I cannot achieve to draw any pattern with it. The milk just push the crema on the side.
Is there a particular technique? or maybe I'm doing something wrong?
Perfect Q to answer with video. Consider entering entering latte art in the Google Video, or YouTube search. Examples found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4xTz_OwlSQ or check out minute 1:29 of this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB2Vwh0nLzQ ..there were quite a few videos to see.
A cappuccino is probably not what you want to try latte art on. The amount of froth in a cap will probably cause the milk to be too thick to pour with.
You want to start with your milk texture. You want stretch the milk and texture it so that it is suitable for a latte or maybe even a flat white. Correct micro foam will be integrated with the milk. It won't float on top. The surface will appear shiny and it will have the consistency of cream. For a free pour this is really important.
Crema can also be your enemy. If your beans are too fresh, it can be a bit difficult to cut through. You can swirl your cup. You can also break it up a bit with your milk since you won't start pouring immediately.
Once you can get your milk texture right, a good way to start is with some basic shapes. It can be useful to have a jug with a pronounced spout.
1) A basic dot in the middle of your cup. As you get to the top of your cup, tilt your jug a bit more to let the foam push the crema out of the way.
2) Basic heart. Same as the dot. But instead of just stopping the pour, push through the dot and slow the pour down quickly at the same time.
3) Layered dot. Starts like your basic dot. But as you increase the pour rate, wiggle your jug left and right smoothly. This will pull coffee in between the layers of the milk. Then just stop pouring.
4) Layered heart. Same as the layered dot, but pull through the dot like the basic heart.
5) The Rosetta. This is probably the iconic latte art pattern. This uses the skills of your layered heart. But you start your pour from the back of the cup with relatively large wiggles, then start to pull back and make your wiggles smaller. This gives you the curls at one end of the cup and the tapering "leaves" at the other. To finish, pull through like a heart.
Other patterns are then variations on these themes. Like the tulip, swan, multiple hearts, multiple rosettas. And some combine free pouring with a bit of etching eg. smoking dog, pac man.
Edit:
This is how I learned to froth milk for a standard jug. The jug should be at an angle so that you can form a whirlpool. The tip of your steam wand should be just under the surface of the milk. Then turn on the steam. So I stretch very quickly and then spend the rest of the time texturing. You shouldn't be moving your jug up or down very much if at all.
I think you nailed down my problem with your indications about the micro foam; I had a tick layer of foam floating at the top. Thanks for this detailed answer!
Yes, the correct texture of the micro foam is THE relevant part!
I use a spoon to hold back the microfoam created from the steaming process and pour it in, and then I start pouring the foam.
It seems to be about the rate of pour, angle of the cup and probably a bit of luck and practice. Some shops use a cocktail stick to adjust the pattern afterwards. Have a look at this youtube video for idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.179119
| 2011-07-17T14:23:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16217",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"Candice Amos",
"DavRob60",
"Paulb",
"Puppy",
"george",
"groovingandi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6238",
"rb512"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5119
|
I have difficulty finding "ANGOSTURA" bitters, is there any substitute?
My preferred pre-dinner drink is the Manathan, but I have difficulties finding ANGOSTURA bitters.
Is there anything else that I could use instead of it?
Where are you looking for it and where do you live? In Atlanta, every liquor store and every grocery store would most likely stock Angostura bitters.
I'm in Québec, Canada. Here most alcohol (except beer and some wine) is are sold in the SAQ (a government-owned corporation responsible for the trade of alcoholic beverages). Meanwhile, I found it in a grocery in the past, but we moved and I cannot find it anymore.
Go to your local Pub and ask the manager if you can buy a bottle or two. At the very least he'll tell you where he gets it from. Typical in BC is the grocery store like you already know about. Usually next to the Lime Cordial and other mixes.
You could try Peychaud's Bitters (difficult to find), Fernet-Branca, orange bitters or other types of bitters. Worcestershire sauce may also be used as a substitute but works well in savory dishes. I wouldn't recommend it for a Manhattan.
Or, if you're very ambitious you can try to make your own bitters, although the ingredient list is somewhat intimidating! Good luck!
http://spiritsandcocktails.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/how-to-make-bitters/
While another kind of bitters will round out the flavor of the cocktail nicely, it will have a completely different flavor than the inimitable Angostura. Fee Brothers' Old-Fashioned Aromatic Bitters are the most similar in taste.
I agree with @David.
You can also order bitters from Amazon. I don't know for sure if they can ship them to Canada; try it and let us know. Fee Brothers is a very old company that makes some terrific varieties. I particularly like their grapefruit bitters.
KegWorks sells Angostura bitters and will ship to Canada - CAD$10 for a 4-oz. bottle, or CAD$23 for a 16-oz. bottle, plus shipping. I've used them (for shipments to the US) and had nothing but good experiences.
Also these guys. http://thecraftybartender.com/shop/angostura-orange-bitters/
In Quebec, it easily available in most grocery stores (Métro, IGO, Provigo) in the aisles where they have syrups (grenadines...)
@vecta has provided the canonical answer to which I agree.
Others provided alternate replies to the effect of have you tried this source, an example being Amazon.
Amazon Canada: ANGOSTURA Aromatic Bitters, 100 Milliliters.
A good substitute for Angostura Bitters is to dissolve a couple of
Ricola Herb Cough Drops in a Canadian Rye Whiskey - such as Hunter Rye -
and let set for a day to dissolve.
no. that's just gross
... but perhaps that's the attraction...
a Manhattan is whiskey and sweet vermouth. I've never put bitters in a Manhattan is my 25 years of bar tending. I do use them in Whisky old fashioneds, though.
I think this can be seen as an answer, as it points out that there is a version of Manhattan without the bitters, and thus the OP can try just making a cocktail without a substitution. So I won't delete it despite the flags. It could be better worded, though.
@rumtscho This answer is not answering the question of “is there a substitute for ango” or a similar “what can I use in place of ango”. It's also factually incorrect and relies on personal experience over higher quality sources, such as the rich literature on the subject…or even Wikipedia.
@coreyward "factually incorrect" doesn't matter when a moderator has to decide whether to delete an answer. As for whether the "don't substitute" part should be considered an answer, this is certainly a relevant discussion. I tend to err on the side of "consider it an answer" because we frequently enough get questions where "leave it out" is indeed the best answer one can give.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.179550
| 2010-08-13T16:07:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5119",
"authors": [
"António Mauritti",
"Bryan Johnson",
"Chef Flambe",
"Daniel Chui",
"Daniel Griscom",
"DavRob60",
"David Phelan",
"Derin",
"Drew",
"Fredrik Nohrborg",
"Grzegorz Wierzowiecki",
"Martin Jevon",
"Sami Liedes",
"coreyward",
"hasan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9970",
"rbp",
"rumtscho",
"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
}
|
22738
|
Should I use my microwave's 'popcorn' button?
My microwave oven has a "POPCORN" button. Its manual reads:
Touch this pad when popping popcorn in your microwave oven. The oven's sensor will tell the oven how long to cook depending on the amount of humidity it detects from the popcorn. See page 31 for more information.
Page 31 clarifies:
POPCORN lets you pop commercially packaged microwave popcorn.
(As opposed, I suppose, to popping kernels in a paper bag, which I also do.) Fine. Other microwave ovens have a similar button (though I must admit I haven't checked their manuals).
The problem is that my "commercially packaged microwave popcorn" bag reads:
Do not use popcorn button.
I've seen it on other microwaveable popcorn bags, too.
So... which of the two manufacturers is correct, and why? And why does the incorrect one claim what it does?
Googling yields some suggestions (and some rants), but I seek a well-reasoned (or sourced) answer.
I'm guessing that not all microwaves have humidity sensors like yours does.
The pedantic answer would be to not use commercial "popcorn bags" :-)
A better instruction would be "do not rely entirely on the functionality of the popcorn button on your microwave, since microwaves vary widely as do bags of popcorn." But that's longer, and kind of complicated, so they abbreviate it "do not use popcorn button".
There's no problem with the power setting of the popcorn button, only with the timing. You should hang around near the microwave, and when you hear the pops slowing, stop it, no matter what your popcorn button thinks. And if you get a lot of unpopped kernels, and the popping didn't slow before the button said the microwave was done, consider doing it yourself next time and letting it pop for a little longer.
The problem with leaving it in too long is that the corn scorches (usually from the centre out) and the whole bag is inedible. If the energy is no longer going into popping kernels, it's going in to scorching what you already have. Get it out before that happens.
In a sense, both manufacturers are correct.
Most older microwaves do not have a humidity sensor; in these microwaves, the Popcorn button is a simple pre-programmed timer. Some allow you to adjust the time by 10-second increments as you use it and will remember the new value, but even cheaper ones simply come pre-programmed. The manufacturer is simply saying not to cook popcorn by time. I'd venture a guess that the manufacturer chose this wording because one too many customers complained that their product burned and stopped buying a particular brand because of it.
However, since your microwave uses a sensor to pop popcorn it should be ok to use. I suppose the popcorn bag could say "Do not use the popcorn button unless your microwave is fancy and has a humidity sensor" but since most microwaves do not have this sensor, most people probably wouldn't know even if it did, and popcorn pops just fine listening the "old-fashioned" way, they have gone with the simple wording. Sensor prices are coming down and more microwaves are becoming equipped with temperature and humidity sensors, so you this wording might change in the future. Or not, seeing how every coffee cup these days has the "Caution: Hot" warning on it...
I suggest trying your button a few times just to make sure it works as you expect, then you're probably safe to use it.
+1, eminently plausible. This would be a great answer (and I'd grant it the checkmark) if it would contain some proof (citation) of the facts it claims.
I did a google search about how this popcorn function worked and it came up with an answer that said a microphone circuit is used. It went so far as to show the patent, circuits and an in-depth explaination as to how it worked. It seems that it would take the place of you listening for the popping to almost stop.
Nice find, I wouldn't have thought of that as being a method. If it's http://www.google.com/patents/US4952766 you're thinking of you could edit the link and patent number into your answer as a reference.
The existence of a patent doesn't meant that the major manufacturers have incorporated the technology into the their product lines; that would also be important information.
If the microwave-button works by measuring the humidity, it might rely on the permeability of the bag and doesn't work for bags that are more impermeable than other ones (some of them seem to have a coating inside).
I'd recomment to build on the popcorn bags hint, but maybe you should just give your popcorn-button a try. In that case, you should stay near the microwave to interrupt it, if it doen't stop when you think it should.
+1. Certainly possible. Do you know of commercial microwaveable popcorn with a more permeable bag than others'? Does it lack the "don't use the 'popcorn' button" instruction?
Doubtful that the permeability of the bag has much to do with it -- commercial popcorn bags always let steam escape from the top as soon as a little pressure builds up.
My microwave has a popcorn button that then asks you to select the size (in ounces) of the popcorn you're about to pop. It's remarkably accurate for the 'standard' ~3.5oz bag, but would burn the little single serve sizes. For my microwave at least, it seems it's a simple time/power setting depending on the size of the bag.
You might like using your bags to avoid the scorching issue that @kate-gregory brought up. The commercial bags can scorch because they have special material that "absorbs" the microwave energy to produce a heating element in the bag, therefore, it acts like a little heater.
I pop corn in a brown bag and it doesn't scorch. It usually doesn't pop every kernel especially if my corn is not fresh. This is because my regular brown bag doesn't have that material to give a little heating boast to pop all the kernels.
For starters, if you are popping LIGHT popcorn, and it say not to use the popcorn button, it's not kidding. You will almost certainly burn the popcorn if that is the case. The logic for preset power and time is for normal oil levels.
Otherwise, if your microwave has the right weight setting for the popcorn, it will probably work. But always supervise it, and use the audio rule the first time you pop a brand. If it shuts off on it's own when the popping slows down, feel free to use the button in the future. If it quiets down too soon, don't use it again. Very few actually use an audio sensor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.179912
| 2012-04-03T06:32:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22738",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"GardenOfEden",
"Loupax",
"Max",
"Nathan Tran",
"PeterJ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"The Technology Professionals s",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90024",
"mjh",
"msh210",
"serg",
"snipe",
"user3124306"
],
"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
}
|
22268
|
How should I store beansprouts?
Bean sprouts are a common ingredient in stir-fry recipes, but they don't seem to last very long in my fridge.
How can I keep bean sprouts fresh for the maximum amount of time?
Looks like ehow has the best reference guide thus far to storing bean sprouts
After purchasing Bean Sprouts should be stored and washed after purchasing in growing. The article indicates that the best methods for storage are the following:
Wash them after you purchase them.
Wash bean sprouts after purchasing or growing. Wash them in cold water to remove seed
coats, roots and other residue that may be present. If you are using
them within a day, store them in the refrigerator at 40 to 45 degrees.
Place the sprouts in a plastic bag with a wet paper towel to keep them
moist.
Store in icy water and change the water few times a day
You can also store sprouts in a bucket of icy water and change the
water a few times a day. Depending on how long the sprouts were in
transit or on the store shelf, they should last longer than when
stored in a plastic bag.
Freeze them
Freeze sprouts for the longest storage. Wash sprouts as described in
Step One. Then heat one layer at a time in steam for three minutes.
Cool right away in icy water and drain. Put the sprouts into plastic
containers and seal.
It also mentions in the article to just grow them to provide the best freshness.
Apparently the shelf life of beansprouts should only be stored up to 3 days
Source: http://www.ehow.com/how_6178837_preserve-bean-sprouts.html#ixzz1pAEZ12Jp
Note: ehow is paid for content, though it is often screen scraped, or just plain wrong
It shouldn't discredit the answers i've provided. I've reviewed them with other sources.
I've been keeping them in a jar in the crisper section of the refrigerator, and they seem to be still fairly crunchy going on two weeks.
I found a jar of them last week that'd I'd forgotten from the previous week and they were in much better shape than the ones bought nine days later but for which I didn't have an available jar.
I don't rinse mine until right before I use them; most of my vegetables seem to keep longer that way (presumably because they'd be nearly impossible to dry thoroughly).
Edited to clarify: I always cover everything thoroughly, so the newer sprouts were wrapped in wax paper, then aluminum foil.
The best way I found after trying many other ways, was to just put them in a sealed plastic container immediately after you bring them home from the supermarket, fill it with water and store them in a fridge. They will last for weeks.
My sister got these green veggie storage bags in Walmart. They make everything last longer. Not sure what they are called about 8x16” in size. Great for lettuce. Havent tried with bean sprouts yet but, great for fruit and veggies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.180431
| 2012-03-14T21:15:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22268",
"authors": [
"Aleksandr Kovalev",
"David",
"Death by Words",
"Giorgi Gzirishvili",
"TFD",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63823",
"madsroskar"
],
"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
}
|
12948
|
Are there alternative ways to test fruit preserves for doneness?
I've tried twice to make fruit preserves using only the natural pectins in the fruit. The first time with plums where the jam was much to thick, and yesterday orange marmalade which came out tasting great but a bit on the runny side.
In both attempts I tested for doneness by letting a few drops of hot jam fall onto a cold plate and letting it cool before pushing it around with one finger to see if a crinkly skin has formed.
In my hands this test is clearly not fool-proof. Are there alternative techniques for those of us who have not yet developed an eye for crinkliness?
Have you tried using a candy thermometer and testing the jam when it's at 220°F?
An alternative to the method that you use is to use a spoon and do the 'two drop test'. If you dip a cold metal spoon into your jam mix and then lift it. When the mixture is only just boiling it will drip off and be light. As the mixture continues to heat the drops that fall from the spoon will be heavier When the two drops form and fall off the spoon it should be ready. I'll be honest though I much prefer the method you use and this is just an alternative.
Great answer. Is it enough for the jam to reach 220°F or does it need to stay there a while?
@chris the temperature is a function of how much water is in the jam. The less water there is, the higher the boiling point. So you are effectively using the thermometer to gauge how much water is left in your jam. You need to take it off the boil as soon as it reaches the right temperature, because if it gets any hotter, your jam will end up thicker.
I'd add - just like oven thermometers and meat thermometers, sugar thermometers are pretty cheap and provide a way to get reliable, repeatable, foolproof results.
I agree with 'slim', it's best to wait until it's just at the right temperature
The pectin temperature is 104°C (220°F) (adjust -4°C per km in elevation). It can take an hour of simmering to get to this temperature
To test the pectin level add one teaspoon of jam to three teaspoons of methylated spirits in a cup swirl the solution. If it forms a single clump you have enough pectin
To fix low pectin levels, simmer for longer and add a little acid (lemon juice is fine)
Old preserving stories say using plum stones or apple cores will increase pectin levels, YMMV on this
Apple is high in pectin, so the apple core story may be using that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.180701
| 2011-03-08T22:09:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12948",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Martha F.",
"OneHoopyFrood",
"Ronald Warrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"jfoo",
"nixy ",
"rjb",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13132
|
Is it safe to use oil at its smoking point?
Teflon toxicity and second degree burns aside, are there any health issues related to cooking with oil at or past its smoking point? Googling a bit I found one article that went so far as to say you should always "discard oil that's reached its smoke point, along with any food with which it had contact". Other searches showed pages suggesting cancer risks.
I've never given it a thought before and I often use peanut oil at smoking point to brown meat.
Closing the quickly gave no space for an interesting tidbit: At least one type of culinary oil (old school mustard oil) is, in the cultures where it is used, considered unsafe/unhealthy when NOT brought to smoking point for a moment.
The smoke produced from a heated oil isn't all too different from the smoke produced by a fire. You are essentially burning that oil and causing rapid, incomplete oxidation (or rather peroxidation).
In actual fact, the peroxidation will start to occur long before you hit the smoke point; however, smoking is an indicator that this is happening very rapidly.
The net effect is very similar to that of rancidity, in that it will produce many peroxides and free radicals, and while this isn't the place to be debating whether or not that's bad for you, I will simply point to the aforementioned link on free radicals and say that at the present time, the prevailing belief is that these free radicals have deleterious effects. It's up to you decide what level of risk is acceptable to you.
The effect may in fact be identical to that of rancidity, although I can't confirm that with a source at this time; all I know is that heating an oil up to its smoke point will increase the oxidation rate (make it go rancid faster), and rancidity in turn lowers the smoke point, so the two are definitely related.
So what I'd say is, if you don't mind the idea of occasionally eating rancid fat, then go ahead and smoke it all you want; otherwise, you might want to be more careful.
Several studies also indicate that the fumes are hazardous, even if the actual ingestion isn't. So again, be careful. Avoid overheating oil if you can.
By the way, saturated fats like coconut oil, animal fat or (clarified!) butter tend to have the most immunity to this particular chemical breakdown, as evidenced by their naturally higher (unrefined) smoke points. Lipid peroxidation works on the double bonds, which don't exist in saturated fats (polyunsaturated fats have the most).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.180941
| 2011-03-14T22:08:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13132",
"authors": [
"Boris the Spider",
"Elaine serure",
"Maggie",
"Tara Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"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
}
|
11732
|
Why refresh lentils before making lentil soup
I recently made lentil soup from a recipe that involved bringing the lentils to a boil and refreshing them before a more prolonged cooking together with the aromatics.
The soup turned out great, but I wonder why the refreshing step might have been necessary. Does anyone know?
I'm not familiar with 'refresh' used this way. Are you rinsing them? Changing the water?
The recipe says "refresh under cold running water" after boiling and draining the lentils.
I didn't find that step in any Italian recipes for lentil soup. I cannot say it's really necessary, or it's something necessary depending on the type of lentil.
I always thought that lentils were the only legumes which did not need refreshing. And I have tried refreshing, and they came out tasteless. Maybe the recipe wanted the taste from some other very prominent ingredients that you added later.
It's been years since I've cooked lentils, and I haven't done it very often, but I'm going to guess that the issue is that like other legumes and grains, you can end up with a gummy exterior, so by rinsing it in cold water, you both stop the cooking process and rinse off any starch that might've been over gelatinized.
If you hadn't done it, the most likely difference would've been a a thicker soup, and possibly overcooked mushy lentils. (I don't know how lentils behave when colled; some starches will behave differently if you cool then reheat it vs. if you keep it warm the whole time it can get mushy)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.181176
| 2011-02-01T20:43:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11732",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Joe",
"Joseph10545",
"Marc K",
"MrBoJangles",
"Vass",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"user24106"
],
"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
}
|
3828
|
Can clarified butter be used for beurre noir?
The first recipe of "The Nero Wolfe Cook Book" by Rex Stout is for Eggs au beurre noir. For the black butter sauce he gives the following instructions:
"In a skillet melt [...] four
tablespoons of butter over a medium
heat. When white waxy particles have settled to the bottom, pour the clear liquid off into a bowl.
Return the clarified butter to the pan and continue to cook until it has turned a deep golden brown..."
Now I have tried this recipe with unsalted butter, with salted butter, using a low heat, a medium heat, enough heat to create a fire hazard. I also tried different methods of clarification, all to no avail. The "deep golden brown" is only achievable, as far as I can tell, with unclarified butter. Indeed it appears to be the toasted butter solids that produce the golden brown.
I would have given up on this recipe altogether if it wasn't corroborated by other sources. It makes me wonder if, for example, American butter differs substantially from European butter. Does anyone know if black butter sauce can be made with clarified butter?
Hmm. I always understood the dark golden brown color is produced by the browning of the milk solids in the butter (unclarified). I've never heard of starting with clarified butter and trying to brown it.
@Chris: Does the recipe from the Nero Wolfe cookbook say anything about dumping the milky/watery portion out of the pan before returning the butter to it to brown?
Clarified butter WILL NOT brown, that is the purpose for clarifying it. The milk solids are what brown. The portion that usually goes to the bottom will be the whey and the milk solids initially tend to form the "scum" on the top. To me it sounds like he's trying to suggest that you should pour the butter & solids off, dump out any whey, and then return the butter to the pan so you can heat it to the point of a dark brown without it splattering (which is caused by the water in the whey). 4 tablespoons of butter isn't going to have much whey in the first place so just cook the whole butter to the beurre noir point.
This does makes a great deal of sense. If that is indeed the case, though, then the directly quoted "clarified butter" is a misnomer... a case of poor paraphrasing perhaps?
Yes, I think that's the case.
No paraphrasing: the quote is from page 4 of the 1973 printing. There is no instruction to dispose of the whey so your answer satisfies me that I have mistakenly read that into the recipe. Thanks.
@Chris: I actually meant poor paraphrasing on the author's part, not yours (FYI).
There's recipes for beurre noisette and beurre noir in my go-to book, the Joy of Cooking, and neither of them call for clarified butter. Just plain, ordinary, unsalted butter.
The "clarified" part of clarified butter is just fat, and to the best of my knowledge, fat doesn't brown/toast. It would almost certainly be the solids that do that!
In fact, ghee, a similar product, is basically butter left to simmer for an hour or so - and during this time, the milk solids will separate and turn brown - that's how you know it's done.
I'm pretty sure the answer is no; beurre noir is not made with clarified butter. Something's not quite right with that recipe.
Beurre noisette or noir cannot be made with just clarified butter. You need to add some sugars and proteins to it. The linked recipe is probably copied without being tried by its author.
Fanny Farmer also has Eggs au beurre noir - very simple.
Butter
Pepper
Salt
4 eggs
1 teaspoon vinegar
Put one tablespoon butter in a hot chafing-dish; when melted, slip in carefully four eggs, one at a time. Sprinkle with salt and pepper, and cook until whites are firm. Remove to a hot platter, care being taken not to break yolks. In same dish brown two tablespoons butter, add vinegar, and pour over eggs.
Note that Nero Wolfe somewhere has a discussion of Eggs au Beurre Noir that
INCLUDES adding vinegar - and does not mention clarified butter.
I don't think that "browning" involves milk solids....
Browning is the caramelizing of the sugars in meat.
So I think this is possible to be done with clarified butter.
I "brown" meats usually with olive oil, which also does not have any milk solids.
Browning is several reactions, including caramelization of sugars and the Maillard reaction between amino acids & sugars. Both of those definitely happen in places besides meat, for example bread. You can brown meats in clarified butter, yes, but you can't brown clarified butter itself (at least not without setting it smoking). Non-clarified butter contains sugars and proteins and thus can be browned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.181351
| 2010-07-30T20:25:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3828",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Boz",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Hallgrim",
"JoeShopping.com",
"Kenny DelMar",
"Lou Valencia",
"MHansen",
"Michael Fox",
"PhilJ",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7319",
"papin"
],
"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
}
|
4979
|
100% Rye Pizza Base Recipes?
I'm looking for a 100% rye pizza base recipe. The recipes I can find all combine the rye with other flours (typically wheat based). I know it is possible to create 100% rye based pizza bases as I know of one pizza place in town that sells them.
I understand that they had to do something special to keep the pizza base from falling apart. I don't mind experimenting a bit to find a recipe that works, but I could use some ideas on where to start - what sort of ingredients might bind the rye so that it doesn't crumble as a thin pizza base and maintains a low glycemic index for my diabetic wife.
The only dietary requirements would be that the various ingredients maintain a low glycemic index or a specific ingredient with a high glycemic index can be counteracted by some other ingredient. And only using rye flour.
I added rye and low-carb instead of low-gi. We already have the 2nd tag, and it suits the general category without being overly technical. 2) What are your exact dietary restrictions; it might determine what people suggest as binders. 3) Welcome to the site...
I edited your post to make it a bit more concise. There's no need to greet people every question (though this is your first!), or to thank them: that's what we're all here for. I also removed the tag request, since it's completed, and the note that you are using these at home (there's no commercial restriction here anyway). If you don't like any of the changes, just click edit in the lower left of your post and add it back, no problem.
This is a little close to a recipe request, though I think with a little editing all traces of recipe request can be removed. This can become an excellent discussion of how to put together a rye based pizza dough. If you're not sure what I mean about recipe requests, see meta: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4/should-i-need-a-recipe-for-x-questions-be-off-topic
I don't mind experimenting a bit to find a recipe that works, but I could use some ideas on where to start - what sort of ingredients might bind the rye so that it doesn't crumble as a thin pizza base and maintains a low glycemic index for my diabetic wife.
Psyllium husk is the general go-to binder for low-carb bread, but I have not seen a recipe using it in rye pizza dough. Another alternative is to give up on substituting bread and use the same toppings with something else. A frittata does not add much extra work and works well with standard pizza toppings.
Have you considered using 100% rye bread as your beginning and going from there, rather than pizza crust? Peter Reinhart's Bread Baker's Apprentice has a 100% rye sourdough bread that might suit your needs, although it will be a time consuming process. A preview is online in Google Books. The recipe is similar to a Neopolitan pizza dough - just basic ingredients with no fat. Because of this, I'd roll out the pizza very thin, New York style, for a crackling crisp crust. If you don't want to buy the book, many local libraries carry it in the US, at least.
Reinhart also has a new book out on wholegrain breads which may give even more info about how to work efficiently with 100% rye doughs.
@bikeboy - I got this book over the holiday season. I didn't look in too much detail into the rye breads, but he does have new info on sourdough in there that's not in any of his other books.
You need to work rye flour much longer than ordinary flour for the gluten to start binding the dough. I use a hand beater with dough hooks and start off with a very moist mix that includes olive oil and egg. Let it rise for a few hours then work more rye into the dough by hand kneading until it is nice and springy.
We used this recipe which uses 50% rye and 50% whole wheat flour but replaced the wheat flour with rye. The 100% rye dough was perfect as a base and delicious. Same cooking times and everything. The recipe uses baking powder which cuts down on prep time as well.
Welcome! Please don’t post answers based on links - just imagine what would happen if the site you linked to disappeared.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.181863
| 2010-08-12T12:14:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4979",
"authors": [
"Anas",
"Chris Diver",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Jer",
"Martin",
"Ocaasi",
"Stephie",
"Taye",
"Vidya",
"bikeboy389",
"chayote",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9638",
"ierceg",
"justkt",
"mcotton",
"noob",
"quipish",
"yngling"
],
"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
}
|
1582
|
How long should it take to bbq half a chicken?
I know how to tell if a chicken is cooked, but has anyone got any idea of approximately how long it would take to bbq half a chicken in an uncovered barbecue?
To clarify:
I'm thinking of cleaving a 1.5kg (maybe slightly smaller) chicken in two, and putting each half on the bbq. The chicken will be between fridge and ambient temperature.
The chicken will possibly be the first thing on the bbq after it's ready to cook on (I use charcoal).
I'm just looking for a ballpark figure.
In addition if anyone has any reasons for why this isn't a good idea then let me know :).
Depends on the size. Broiler-fryer?
just to clarify, you're talking about grilling chicken, correct? barbecue is slow cooking over low heat.
@dave thieben: Not everyone here is from the US. The rest of the world calls it barbecuing; we call it grilling. Grilling to them is what we call broiling. Fun huh? http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36/cooking-terms-glossary I've gotten into the habit of clicking on the persons name to see the country listed in their profile.
I usually spatchcock them. Cut out the spine, and lay the entire bird flat, folding the wings and legs over top. Then press down enough to break the breast bone.
Generally, it takes about 20 minutes. 5 minutes of grilling/searing, and then 15 more, bone side down, with the lid closed over low heat. (although I usually leave a burner on high on the other side of the grill.
Way too many variables. If you knew how warm the chicken was before cooking, how hot the cooking area is (and whether that will change during the cooking time), how thick the chicken is, whether you're cooking white or dark meat, and more, you might be able to make a good guess.
I would not recommend cooking just thawed, thick pieces of chicken on an uncovered grill. Too easy to make it hard on the outside and dry on the inside.
I wouldn't estimate lower than 20 minutes, but it will almost certainly be longer.
Edit: Here's a "Good Eats" video about doing chicken on a grill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAvy4YksJgM&feature=related It's better to go ahead and cut the chicken up the rest of the way for grilling so that each type and size of meat can be on it's own cooking schedule.
Thanks, I've attempted to clarify the question a little.
Like Tim Gilbert pointed out, even if you follow a recipe perfectly you should expect variations in cooking time. Differences of 30% in baking time are common. When I barbecue whole chicken breasts, I have them out of the fridge for 30 minutes and they take 20 minutes with the burners on medium. I use the finger test, refined over many attempts with a thermometer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.182221
| 2010-07-18T00:43:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1582",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"John Alexiou",
"Michael",
"OgreMap",
"Zain Shaikh",
"dave thieben",
"dsas",
"ericso",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/947",
"sixtyfootersdude"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1863
|
Expiration Date on Milk
What does the expiration date on milk cartons mean?
I have different experiences with the date:
There is still about a week before the expiration date but the milk has gone bad
It is 1-2 days after the expiration date but the milk doesn't smell or taste bad
In both case, the milk was kept in the fridge.
Also, even if the milk's sour (as opposed to rancid), you can still use it in baked goods. (some even call for sour milk; use it as a replacement for buttermilk, or adjust your leavening to replace baking powder with baking soda to compensate for increased acid)
There is a lot of variability in how fast milk will go bad.
How long the milk has been opened
Pasteurized vs ultra-pasteurized
Temperature the milk is kept at
Thermal cycling: how long and how often is it kept above 40º
Where in the fridge it is kept. The door will have more thermal cycling than a shelf, higher shelves tend to be warmer than lower ones.
All of these influence how long milk stays good. The big date on the top is used by grocers to determine when it can't be sold. If you look closer there will be text to the effect of, "Use within 7 days after opening". This isn't a guarantee. Leaving the carton out while you cook will allow it to go bad faster, as will keeping it in the door. Also if your fridge is too warm for some reason, things will spoil faster.
I'm of the opinion that how long it's been opened has more impact than the date itself.
The type of container also seems to have an impact. I've noticed that, on average, the cartons with a "spout" don't seem to last as long as the ones with screw-tops.
The given date is a sell by date, like others said. What determines the date the milk will actually expire, is the conditions it was stored in. If it was a bit warmer than usual it can expire a week early. Other times, it can expire after the given date. It also matters when you actually opened the bottle. This is why every time you use milk you should smell it (or taste it) before use. the first thing that goes off in milk is the taste - this is because the germs cause fermentation before it is actually unsafe to consume.
In short, if it smells good, use it.
+1 I use this rule for pretty much everything in my fridge.
@Ruben: This rule doesn't apply to everything in your fridge though. You should watch out with any prepared food (as the spices outweigh the bad taste), and with lots of other foods which go off before they taste bad.
The date stamped on milk cartons is neither an expiration date, nor a best by date (at least in the USA). Milk cartons are stamped with a sell by date. This is distinctly different. This is used solely to designate when the store must sell it by. The date the milk goes bad is some time after that.
From personal experience opened milk keeps in my refrigerator for 7-10 days beyond the sell by date. Smell your milk before drinking or using it. Obviously if it's chunky it's also well past bad.
With regards to sell by dates they are generally specified to give the "average" consumer time to consume the product once purchased.
In my comment above on the question I specified USA.
I clarified. "International" doesn't mean exclude the USA ;)
In addition to the things others have mentioned, how the milk is handled during shipping can have an impact on whether or not it lasts to the best before date. Most of the time it goes from one refrigerator to another, but if a driver gets busy and leaves it sitting out for a while and if the store also leaves it out for a while, it can warm up enough to shorten the lifespan.
The rule of thumb a few decades ago was: pasteurized milk has 2 weeks from out of the cow until spoiled. I imagine that depending on different variables (such as those listed by sysadmin1138) and improved technology, you might get up to about 3 weeks total.
Yep. The ultra-pasteurized stuff has a longer shelf-life than the pasteurization in use a few decades ago. This is popular with those of us who don't go through a carton of milk in a week.
It means nothing. Go by smell. If it smells normal or even sweet, you're fine. IF it's slightly acidic, you're getting close. If it's sour or worse, don't even try it.
I give the milk a quick swirl to get rid of the gas which accumulates at the top of the bottle and can be a bit stronger. Texture is the final determinant. If it's not smooth, run.
p.s. I have never used UHT milk, so I'm curious if it spoils with the same pattern.
Based on this highly scientific reference source, I can assume they feed people whatever the food or drink is, and then once people start getting ill, they subtract one day for the shelf life time they will add to the production date -
Like most other dates on food - it is a best before date, that means that the packager/store guarantees that, if stored properly, it will be good until that date.
So if it goes bad before then, as it may, as you are dealing with real-world objects, you can return it to the store.
After that, a store is less likely to refund.
No milk carton I have ever seen has had a "best before" date. It is clearly marked as a sell by date.
Perhaps it depends on where. Mine is definitely a "best before" on every carton in my fridge (in Toronto, Canada)
Sigh. Why can't everyone just do what the USA does. ;)
Keep in mind that an expiry date applies only to an unopened container.
That commercial caesar salad dressing with an expiry date 18 months in the future? Throw it out 60 days after opening.
High acid foods like pickles, mustards etc, will last along time, as will "Italian" dressings, but anything creamy has a pretty short life span.
We get our milk delivered so it doesn't normally have a date on it and the bottles get mixed and i forget what order i'm supposed to open them in.
So I think the best way to tell is to use your nose and or take a little taste.
if its not tasting good or smelling proper then bin it. unless your going for sour milk to cook with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.182492
| 2010-07-18T23:02:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1863",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Willis",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Eldros",
"Federico Tejeda",
"Joe",
"Paul Smith",
"Ruben Steins",
"Ryan Reich",
"Shalom Craimer",
"Stewbob",
"Tablemaker",
"Wodzu",
"aarvesen",
"chrispt",
"configurator",
"crasic",
"heltonbiker",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/879",
"sdg",
"sysadmin1138"
],
"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
}
|
4153
|
Turning Left Over Broth From a Roast Into a Soup Or Stew
Two nights ago, I made a roast. Not wanting to waste anything I kept most of the left over beef broth (about 3-4 cups).
My current idea is to turn this beef broth into a soup or a stew. Here's what I was thinking:
Skim the fat chucks off the top of the broth (left there by the roast)
For a stew I would add in carrots, celery, onions, garlic, and use a potato to naturally thicken the broth as it cooks.
For a soup, I would probably just add the vegetables mentioned above minus the potato and then thicken a bit with some cornstarch.
Is this the best way to go about it? Is this a good use of the left over broth?
You have 3-4 cups of juices left after a roast? How big was the roast?!
We cooked it in a slow cooker and added about 2.5 cups of beef broth to the slow cooker before turning on the pressure. :D
The broth can be used for pretty much any soup...if the soups says to add in stock, use the broth instead.
I use broth from ham for making lentil soup, and from a roast use it in pretty much any kind of soup!
Sounds tasty :)
Enjoy!
Cook a risotto with it (pour the broth slowly to the rice while cooking and stirring continuously)
You could use it as the broth base to make a traditional minestrone. Search the web for "minestrone beef broth" and you'll find plenty of recipes.
If I have good beef broth I'd make French Onion soup which needs a very meaty stock. Its easy to make - just make sure to really sweat the onions down - this will make or break the soup.
If yours comes out like my neighbors (she uses a huge roaster that'd probably fit a small turkey for doing her roast), you could do a few things:
turn it into a gravy for the roast. (of course, her roast comes out so moist, it doesn't need it, but it still goes great over the mashe potatos.).
use it in place of most anything that can use broth (but not stock; it's often too watery, without the necessary gelatin to get the same mouthfeel as stock, as it wasn't made with bones). However, as it's typically cloudier (I think she throws in a can of cream of mushroom soup, so this might not be true in all cases), I'd stick with stews and other things where you're not trying for a clear final product, so you don't have to bother trying to strain it (if it's even possible).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.183010
| 2010-08-03T23:01:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4153",
"authors": [
"B Butler",
"Levi Hackwith",
"Monty",
"Zelda",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/819"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4302
|
Baking My Own Sweet Potato (Yam) Chips - Help Correct My Current Methodology
A while back I tried baking my own sweet potato (yam) chips and I ran into some problems. Here's what I did on my last attempt:
Using a mandolin, I sliced the potato into one-eighth of an inch size medallions.
I placed those medallions on a baking sheet that had been covered with a greased sheet of tinfoil.
I set the oven to 350 (it was a total WAG in terms of temperature) and placed the baking sheet on the middle rack.
I watched as the potatoes began to curl and shrink. "Hooray!" I thought to myself. "I should flip these suckers over just to be safe".
I flipped the chips over (still soft) and returned them to the oven.
After another 5 min or so I took the chips out of the oven. They were hot, some were burnt, but none were crispy or chip-like.
My question is: What was my fundamental flaw? was it temperature? timing? What is the fundamental secret to getting them to be crisp without frying?
The dense nature and high sugar content of sweet potatoes can make them difficult to turn into crisp crunchy chips without burning, even when you ARE frying them. This is the reason so often sweet potato fries are soft rather than crisp.
I have never tried baking them into chips but your method seems to be very sound. Any higher temp is going to burn them even more quickly and a lower one is going to just turn them to mush by the time you cook them longer to try crisping them.
Here's a slightly adjusted method: Try slicing them closer to 1/16th of an inch and then place them between two pieces of greased foil or parchment paper. Preheat two baking sheets in the oven for about 15 minutes so that they're hot when the sheet of potatoes goes onto it. Put the sandwiched sheet of potatoes on the first hot pan and place the second one on top to "press" them so that they're essentially "oven frying" between the sheets of paper/foil. This still may not work as the steam will be trapped but pressing them between two preheated pans may help.
My primary suggestion: Fry them and don't eat the whole batch. OR Fry AND eat the whole batch and don't do it too often.
Many times it's just best to do things the traditional way and enjoy it, than to try substituting and having a less than ideal result.
Wonderful suggestions. What about regular potato chips? Same methodologies but with crisper results?
Yes, you'll have better luck doing regular potato chips this way. I used to do a garnish for entrees by sandwiching parsley leaves between two VERY thinly sliced pieces of russett potato and baking as described.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.183224
| 2010-08-05T03:44:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4302",
"authors": [
"Annette",
"Beth Lang",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Levi Hackwith",
"Misty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/819"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1672
|
Should I refrigerate eggs?
I've read a lot of conflicting advice on whether it's advisable to store eggs in the refrigerator. The case against seems twofold: (1) that eggshells are porous, and eggs can take on unwelcome flavours, or even spoil faster in the fridge, and (2) that cooking with cold eggs can be problematic. But lots of people refrigerate eggs through perceived necessity.
Do eggs last longer in the fridge, and is the shelf life gain worth it? Or should I just stick them in the cupboard?
2+ years after this question was asked, Forbes magazine might have given the answer of why there's conflicting advice ... Darin hinted at the washing, but part of the reason that other countries can get away with lack of refrigeration is that they vacinate their chickens against samonella (which just isn't done in the US). They also mention that the reason for lack of refrigeration in stores is to prevent condensation when you're taking them home.
can i get vaccinated against salmonella? imagine not having to worry about food poisoning!
The exterior coating on an egg is known as the "cuticle". It helps to protect the (porous) shell and minimize moisture loss, but it eventually breaks down as the chick matures and prepares to hatch.
The reason that eggs in the US are typically sold under refrigeration is because they are washed with warm water and detergent to remove the large amount of bacteria that are deposited on the shell while being laid. Once the cuticle is removed the egg becomes more porous.
Most bakeries that are using whole eggs will typically keep several flats out at all times to have them at room temperature. Eggs will store better and longer in the refrigerator but if being used frequently and fairly quickly, they can also be left at room temperature. Howard McGee in On Food & Cooking says that egg quality deteriorates as much in one day at room temperature as it does four days under refrigeration.
In Israel each egg has two expiration dates printed on it - with and without refrigeration, with about a month apart between them (in favor of refrigerated eggs, of course).
I guess climate plays a big part here - in a warm country it never even occurred to me to keep eggs out of the fridge.
Ideally, for freshness and safety, eggs should be stored at temperatures below 20°C (70°F). So a cool pantry or larder will probably be OK; otherwise just use the fridge.
I read somewhere, that eggs have a protective layer on the eggshell (smiliar to the acid mantle on the human skin) which keeps bacteria like salmonella out. When the eggs are stored in the fridge this mantle is destroyed. If this happens the eggs have to stay in the fridge because salmonella multiply less in the cold.
That means, when the store you buy the eggs at stores them in a fridge you should do it, too. Here in Germany there are also two expiraton dates (usually about two weeks between them). The first one says how long you can store them outside the fridge and after that you should put them in it, because the protective mantle loses its effect after some time.
It's not that being in the fridge destroys it. It's that other processes (certain kinds of washing) do, and the processors who know they did that keep them in a fridge as a result. So when you buy them from a fridge it's a signal to you the coating is gone and you should keep them in the fridge.
The egg cartons here in the Netherlands state that you should 'store them in a dry, cool place'. Supermarkets don't keep them in refrigeration anymore, which used to be the case until about 10 years ago - which probably means some government directive changed. At home, I just keep them unrefrigerated on the shelf, usually my box of six lasts a week maximum anyways.
While I can't attest what effect it has on shelf life, I can tell you I don't refrigerate my eggs. I grew up in Indonesia, where eggs were commonly sold on shelves, and it's just become a habit even after returning to the States. I've not had any "incidents" so far.
That said, I do keep the eggs in a relatively cool pantry, away from the stove and sunlight. I would personally also not store eggs in the refrigerator door because of the temperature fluctuations, which I've always believed does more harm than leaving eggs in a less cold but stable temperature. (And it certainly helps if you feel like whipping something up and not having to plan to pull eggs out of the fridge.)
In the US, eggs may sometimes be salmonella-contaminated. The USDA FSIS says you must refrigerate the eggs. See my answer, below. If you're concerned about temperature fluctuations, keep the eggs in a cardboard carton in a cold part of the fridge: not in the door.
How quickly are you using the eggs? If you can't get through a carton of eggs in a week (no matter the size you're buying), I'd store them in the fridge, simply because eggs will age faster at room temperature -- I normally estimate a week of aging for every day out of the fridge, but it varies with time of year, etc.
Also, consider how you're going to be using the eggs -- if you're making crepes, whipping egg whites and other recipes that require warm eggs, I'd be more likely to leave them out.
Personally, I refrigerate -- not because I think warm eggs are unhealthy, but because I don't have a good place to store them otherwise. Also, as I don't have central air conditioning, I don't air condition my kitchen, and it's been in the 90s or above (F) for the last few weeks.
I also don't know how much truth there is to the eggs picking up flavors -- I tend to add things to my eggs (onion, pepper, etc.) that I don't know I'd have a clean egg flavor coming through; maybe if I were making meringue I'd be concerned, but I could also just put the eggs into a container that seals well. I guess as you can easily keep eggs for a month or more in the fridge, it'd have more time to absorb flavors, if nothing else.
Here in the United Kingdom I never refrigerate my eggs. Here most of our hens are vaccinated against salmonella. You can tell if they aren't because they won't carry the red "little lion" stamp which certifies that they are from vaccinated hens. I buy mine from a shop that sells local eggs and I keep them in the cupboard next to the fridge, so it's fairly cool anyway. I've done this for very many years and my family has never yet had a case of poisoning. The only time I use unstamped eggs is when they are a gift from my daughter, who keeps her own hens, because I know how fresh they are and how the hens are kept.
You don't have to store eggs in the fridge. The ideal temperature for storing eggs is between 12 and 15 degrees Ceslius (50 – 69 F). Don't keep the eggs in a place that's too dry though.
Btw: somebody told me that it's better to store eggs pointy side down, because of the air sack in the egg is at the rounded end. So you keep that end up and it helps the egg retain its moisture.
Someone ended up asking about this: Store eggs upside down or not?
If the eggs have been washed, then unwash them by lightly oiling the shells with vegetable oil. This diminishes the porosity and helps reduce the transfer of flavours and extends their shelf life, in or out of the fridge.
Welcome! Can you please cite some source that corroborates this information?
In the US, the USDA FSIS says you must refrigerate eggs (source). If you own fowl, and they lay eggs, I'm not sure if you must follow that advice or not. Phone the FSIS and ask what they think.
But your profile says that you live in the UK. So I don't know what advice to give you.
P.S. When asking location-sensitive questions like this, it's best to specify in the question what country you're in.
@unforgettableid : It's bad to link to documents that long rather than the specific item which says that "Refrigerated eggs should not be left out more than 2 hours". Note the qualifier of refrigerated because they also say : "FDA's Egg Safety Rule requires those transporting eggs to maintain an ambient temperature of 45 °F beginning 36 hours after laying of the eggs." (so your attempts at rewording are bad, as it makes it sound like that they must be chilled down immediately)
Dear @Joe: dear Aaronut: thank you. I have edited the post further.
Yes, eggs can take on unwelcome flavors when stored in the fridge, if they're not protected. It's not hard to protect them, though; Christopher Kimball recommends* storing eggs in the paper cartons they come in for exactly that purpose.
*: Talevich, T. (2009). Storing food right. Home cooking the Costco way: fantastic recipes using Costco products (p. 13). Issaquah, Wash.: Costco Wholesale.
Fresh unwashed eggs - a reason to buy locally from a non-commercial seller - are best stored and used at room temperature. Only exception is in summertime or in warm climates. True free range chickens produce the tastiest and most nutritious eggs.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Mario. Your answer could be improved if you presented more complete information: why is a room temperature egg a good thing (which you seem to imply)? What about washed eggs - where should those be stored? What support do you have for the claim that free range = most nutritious, and how is this claim relevant to the question at hand?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.183482
| 2010-07-18T07:41:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1672",
"authors": [
"Agent_9191",
"ArtOfTheSmart",
"Bernadette Geric",
"Catija",
"Corey Mathis",
"Daniel A. White",
"Gert Vedel Sørensen",
"GiorgioP-DoomsdayClockIsAt-90",
"Harsha M V",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mariano Suárez-Álvarez",
"Marti",
"Philip Wallace",
"Pops",
"Pylsa",
"Rony",
"Scott Weinstein",
"Shawn Mclean",
"Spammer",
"ahong",
"bike123",
"bitesized-danni",
"conorgriffin",
"enkrates",
"ergodicsum",
"fixit7",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94669",
"sbotopasia spam",
"shambulator",
"unforgettableidSupportsMonica",
"user371366"
],
"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
}
|
2218
|
Does searing meat lock in moisture?
I just saw a claim to this end in another thread, and it is perpetuated about the internet and in many cookbooks.
So: Is it true? Does making a nice crust (maillard reaction) on a roast seal in juice and yield a juicer end product?
No. As you noted, searing beef performs what's called the Maillard Process (or Reaction) which is a specific form of caramelization. Nothing is "sealed" into the meat because the meat isn't sealed by the process. It's still porous and will therefore leech moisture during cooking. You can retain moisture in cooked beef by buying quality beef and not cooking it beyond medium-rare to medium.
Here's an actual test: http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/the-food-lab-how-to-cook-roast-a-perfect-prime-rib.html See 'The Myth of the Sear' "meat that was seared first them [sic] roasted lost 1.68% more juices"
The Maillard reaction is not "a specific form of caramelization". It is a different chemical process altogether.
Alton Brown did an experiment in an episode of Good Eats called "Myth Smashers". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW9npAc2Sgw
If you are measuring the overall progress by internal temperature, then searing the outside will not result in juicier meat.
However, if you are new to cooking and trying to measure doneness by the outward appearance you see at a steakhouse, then by the time the steak looks "done enough", it will probably bone dry inside.
On the other hand, there is usually a reason behind most myths. It might be that the savory result of the crust combined the greater contrast between the texture of the crust and the center of the meat makes your brain interpret it as juicier.
What matters most is what you enjoy, so cook one steak with searing and another without. Do a blind taste test and see which one you actually like more.
Searing meat is beneficial for developing color (color = flavor in cooking) and for "jump-starting" the cooking process.
As noted in the previous answers the more browning and crusting (within reason) that you develop the more flavorful the meat will be. A good experiment to compare the difference that browning has on the flavor of food is to saute a piece of chicken breast and poach another chicken breast. The sauteed will have a richer "meatier" flavor than the poached one.
Searing also "jump-starts" the cooking process by quickly transferring the heat to the interior of the meat so that it will take less time when roasting in the oven. If a large roast is simply seasoned and placed in a preheated oven the exterior of the meat has to first heat up before the heat is conveyed to the interior. If another roast of the same size is first seared and then transferred to the oven at the same time the first one is put in, the second roast will reach its finished desired temperature quicker because the exterior has already been heated and the oven heat will continue to keep the exterior temp. elevated to quicker convey to the center and cook.
Bill Buford in [HEAT][1] discussed this, and came up with the conclusion that we brown meat simply because it tastes better.
There are many fallacies that have crept into our kitchen culture because of careless cookbook authors. For example, The Joy of Cooking is responsible for the American need to rinse off pasta before saucing. (Something you should never! do).
As well, it has been shown that there is no harm in washing mushrooms, other than the hot fat/water splatter if you don't pat them dry.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Heat-Adventures-Pasta-Maker-Apprentice-Dante-Quoting/dp/1400034477/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279638666&sr=8-3 HEAT!
@roux. I agree. I always rinse pasta before making a salad. However, the post was referencing rinsing BEFORE SAUCING, which I hope was clearly about hot pasta and sauce.
To eliminate the juice, the best thing to do is to let the meat rest for around 10 minutes after you take it off the heat.
If you start cutting the meat before it has rested, the juices will run no matter how much it was seared.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.184636
| 2010-07-20T01:26:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2218",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"DHall",
"Falkayn",
"Joe Holloway",
"Jon P",
"MJ713",
"Mitch",
"Nicolas",
"Rian Schmits",
"Swoogan",
"haha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65187"
],
"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
}
|
1911
|
How can I remove the peel and pit of an avocado without the whole thing turning into mush?
Making solid pieces out of a ripe avocado is a difficult business (for me, anyway). What is the best way to remove the peel and pit without ending up with a pile of green mush? I can sometimes remove the peel without too much difficulty, but that pit always gives me grief.
The answers below are excellent, but I think the basic problem you have is that you are envisioning removing the peel from the avocado, when in reality what you should do is remove the avocado from the peel.
@nohat: that is an excellent point. The image in Jon Galloway's answer shows it, but it certainly helps to have it spelled out. Thank you :)
The currently accepted answer to this question is obsolete, and is depreciated by the California Avocado Commission in favor of an algorithm which IS based on removing the peel from the avocado, not the other way around.
@MickLH That's pretty much the way I've always done it. I'm a bit puzzled by the use of the term "algorithm". This isn't a calculation, it's a method..for separating avacados from peels.
@Jolenealaska I call it an algorithm because it's an automated system of reasoning. One which produces a dynamical step-by-step procedure for processing data stored as physical matter.
Thus, so I feel the terminology is appropriate. Your brain is the processor, and hands are the memory controller, computing a peeled avocado.
The California Avocado Commission recommends this (safe but wimpy - see below for a better way) three-step process:
Start with a ripe avocado and cut it lengthwise around the seed. Rotate the halves to separate.
Remove the seed by sliding the tip of a spoon gently underneath and lifting out. The other common seed-extraction method - striking the seed with a knife and twisting - requires some skill and is not recommended.
Peel the fruit by placing the cut side down and removing the skin with a knife or your fingers, starting at the small end. Or simply scoop out the avocado meat with a spoon. Be sure to sprinkle all cut surfaces with lemon or lime juice or white vinegar to prevent discoloration.
Source: California Avocado Commission
Notes:
Another (and my favorite) way to remove the pit is by holding the half with the pit in one hand and striking the sharp edge of the knife used in step one into the pit, then twisting to remove. This is the "pro" way to do it, but takes a little practice. The video Nate referenced in the comments shows how to do it, it's not that hard.
If you're going to be chopping the avocado up, you slice it up using the tip of the knife still in the shell, then scoop the sliced avocado meat out with a spoon.
The "striking with the knife" method works for me.
Video of the "striking with the knife" pit-removal method, which is pretty easy: http://www.chow.com/stories/11526
Phooey on not recommending the strike-and-twist pit removal method. I'm sure that's just the Avocado Commission's lawyers afraid of getting sued by someone who doesn't know how to use a knife. The spoon pit removal method is much trickier and much more frustrating. Do it just like in the video @nate posted. It's super fast and easy.
I just made homemade guacamole last night actually, and used that very method. Works every time... including the knife into the pit technique.
The "strike with a knife" method doesn't actually require you to hit the pit with the blade. The pits are soft enough that you can just press the blade into the pit while rocking it back and forth. This is somewhat safer and just as easy.
This method is obsolete, and no longer recommended by the cited sources!
To note, you often miss out on the green part if you scoop out with a spoon, peeling is definitely the way to go unless you are very strapped for time.
I’ve found that smooth skinned avocados (which also tend to have thinner skin than Hass avocados), are very difficult to separate from the skin. The spoon method tends to not to work, unless I leave a very a lot of fruit by the skin. Is there an easy way to separate the fruit from these thin/smooth skinned avocados?
After 4 years... the classical spoon based method for avocado processing is obsolete.
The Triptych Peel Method
This combines a well known method to remove the seed, with a scheme for conservatively reducing the skin tension by a series of shallow cuts along the surface. This process allows for direct removal of both seed and skin, with minimal effort and minimal wasted fruit.
Get a ripe avocado and make sure your workspace is clear for cutting on. If there is a produce sticker, remove it. Gently cut through the skin until you find the seed.
Rotate the avocado itself 360 degrees, firmly maintaining the knife against the seed.
Take the avocado with both hands, and twist each half in opposite directions, to unlock one half from the seed. (Sorry for the blurry image, the camera rig got bumped during exposure)
Gently press the knife into the seed, until you have gripped it well.
Use the leverage of the knife to turn the seed until it unlocks. (Sometimes moving back and forth helps here.)
This concludes the standard seed removal, now for the triptych skin removal.
Cut a small notch upwards, out of the avocado at the 1/3rd point.
Cut another small notch upwards, out of the avocado at the 2/3rds point.
Hold the avocado on your cutting surface so your notches are at the top, be sure your grip does not put your fingers in harms way! Now make two shallow scratches down the surface of the avocado, starting from each notch, just deep enough to split the skin.
Take the skin by a corner and peel it off. Make sure to start on the side with no hole, to avoid the skin cracking.
Enjoy! I have exaggerated the lines here as a visual aid, but the avocado half is still in one solid piece. Can be sliced into "rings" which are wonderfully convenient for sandwiches.
I've reduced the size of the images to make this easier to read through. I also removed the references to the California Avocado Commission, which seemed misleading and unnecessary: your method is definitely not the same as theirs, and they've had their method on their website for at least a year and a half before you posted this.
Thanks for the cleanup! Although in my defense, I only claimed the insight is the same: Extract the impurities efficiently, instead of extracting the reagent inefficiently!
Cut the avocado in half (around the pit)
Jab the pit with the pointy end of a knife
Twist the knife to dislodge the pit, hit it on the side of your sink until the pit flies off and hits you in the head
Use a big spoon to scoop the flesh out of the skin of the two halves.
You can also use just the normal cutting edge of the knife in rather than the point if that appeals to you more, but the idea is the same.
@Chris Thompson, I think the pointy part is probably better for not messing up the avocado, since it takes significantly less force (less surface area).
I've poked myself accidentally when using the "pointy part" method. Believe me, the "edge" method works as well, and is less likely to poke!
Hm, I guess I'll have to try that.
I'm a fan of the edge method. On short hack, and it's embedded in the pit pretty well.
A related tip to prevent browning:
Put lemon juice
On the avocado that you are serving and
On the half that you are putting into the fridge with plastic wrap.
The vitamin C (ascorbic acid) prevents the oxidation that turns the flesh brown.
UPDATE: The top answer on this question: Browning Avocados - What Helps? strongly suggests that my answer here is incorrect and just the propagation of a food urban legend.
Also, on the half you don't use, keep the seed intact! That significantly helps slow the oxidation process.
Thanks for the plug! And keep your eyes open for an update, I suspect we'll see great things with ascorbic acid and sodium bisulfite. The substances are easy to acquire, but I'm picky about my guacamole! :)
You need to have a ripe fruit. It is ripe when the neck (narrow part) just gives under a light squeeze. You can tell a ripe fruit because the peel will come off in large pieces, not sticking to the fruit and tearing or coming off easily and crumbling. Take a knife with a sharp tip and cut through just the skin as if cutting the fruit in quarters lengthwise. Then, following the previous cutting of the skin only, cut the fruit in half to the seed. Then twist the two halves apart, the seed will stay in one half. Hack the knife into the seed embedded in the half avacado and twist the seed out. Then peel the two pieces of skin off of each half, if you have a ripe avacado, each 1/4 skin will come off as one piece. Enjoy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.185054
| 2010-07-19T04:32:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1911",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Anantharaju",
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris Thompson",
"Elroy Mac",
"Fambida",
"James Eichele",
"Joe Lencioni",
"Joel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josh Stodola",
"Koobz",
"Laserallan",
"MickLH",
"Nate Kohl",
"Nick",
"Paul Reiners",
"Sam Goldberg",
"Spammer",
"Tomas",
"Travis J",
"dyve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/934",
"mayko",
"nohat",
"offby1"
],
"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
}
|
44319
|
What's the best way to cook BBQ ribs in the oven and grill?
I have some pork ribs that I want to barbecue, but being relatively inexperienced with BBQ and lacking a decent grill thermometer, I want to simplify things by cooking them partly in the oven and partly in the grill. Researching online has thrown up many variations as to temperature, timing, and which order to cook them in. So, some sub-questions:
Is it better to grill the ribs first, then put them in the oven, or vice versa?
In either case, is it best to use indirect or direct heat on the grill to get the necessary smokiness and glaze?
What temperature should the ribs be cooked at in the oven and for roughly how long (I know outcome is more important than timing)
Should the ribs be wrapped in foil in the oven for the entire cook?
FWIW my instinct is to grill (with some wood chips for smoke) first, then oven, but my concern then is how to get a good glaze.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1143/67 (most of the answers call for oven (or low temp cooking), then finishing on a hot grill or broiler.
The goal with ribs is "low and slow" cooking to break down connective tissue. But a quick sear will help to lock in juices and provide a good smoky flavor. I find it's preferable to do this first so that the smokiness can work its way into the meat over the slow cook to come.
After seasoning, I would start with a sear on your grill over direct heat (8-10 minutes per side). Then, either move to a very low indirect heat on the grill and cover, which will provide a more smoky flavor, or transfer to your oven at a very low temperature (most home ovens go down to about 250F which is what I'd use). Baste both sides every half hour or so if you're using sauce. It should take about 2-3 hours at this low temperature to get good results, although you can let it go a lot longer if you want. I would have no problem at all cooking ribs for 6, 8, or 10 hours assuming you've got the time.
If you're cooking on the grill the whole time, the smoke will help create a delicious glaze. If in the oven and the glaze isn't as thick as you'd like by the time you're ready to serve, you can crank on the broiler and place the ribs underneath for just a couple minutes to dry out the glaze a bit.
You do not need to wrap them in foil during cooking if you have quality ribs and cook them slow. The only time I'd wrap them in foil would be at the very end once you have finished cooking, in order to keep them warm until you're ready to serve.
Good advice. Searing is just for flavor though. No juice locking happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searing#cite_note-McGee-1
This worked well. I did cover the ribs with foil about halfway through as they were starting to blacken a bit, even at only 120C. Ribs were delicious, nice bark and pull off the bone tender.
I regularly have really good ribs at a local rib place, the cook told me to grill first then wrap in saran type wrap put in oven at 180 if possible. she said bone side down on grill, but I can't remember how long on the grill, I am gonna give it a try
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.185828
| 2014-05-22T15:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44319",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Revdebra Miller",
"Sobachatina",
"The arabian Adventure",
"hsk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"preferred_anon",
"user15676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20090
|
What is Molecular Gastronomy?
There is a lot of material on TV, magazines and on the web recently about molecular gastronomy. Techniques like sous-vide and spherification seem to be popular. But what makes a cooking style "molecular gastronomy" and not "regular cooking"?
Is there a list of techiques or ingredients are a hallmark of molecular gastronomy?
Or maybe it's a philosophical distinction.
Regardless, how do I know if I'm serving "modernist cuisine"?
Have you looked it up on Wikipedia? Can you comment on what's unclear? At present, this seems like an invitation for navel-gazing; in reality, "modernist cuisine" has about as formal a definition as "French cuisine" or "Italian cuisine" - which is to say, not formal, varies by culture/geography, and subject to change over time.
Others have adequately answered this question, but I will offer you a wonderful resource for learning something about "Molecular Gastronomy". The Book "Cooking for Geeks" (on amazon @ http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Geeks-Science-Great-Hacks/dp/0596805888/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_t_1). This is a fun book about cooking which includes sections like "Cooking with a Centrifuge" and "Cooking with Liquid Nitrogen" that are entertaining and 'on topic' for you. Also you should be able to find episodes of "Marcel's Quantum Kitchen" from the SyFy Channel in which MG techniques are demonstrated.
First of all, the term "molecular gastronomy" is almost universally derided by those who practice it and "Modernist cuisine" seems to have become the accepted nomenclature. The book Modernist Cuisine has what I regard as an excellent introduction to the movement and drawing the analogy with other Modernist movements in other artforms. The Modernist movement was about rejecting the lineage of everything that had come before and re-examining basic questions such as "what is perception". Similarly, we can trace a direct lineage from Escoffier to Nouvelle Cuisine and Modernist cuisine seeks to break that lineage.
The best way I've come up with to describe the Modernist philosophy is "the use of technology to gain direct, precise control over temperature, humidity, pressure and texture".
When you're poaching fish in a simmering stock, you want to bring the fish up to 45C by putting it in 80C stock that's heated by a 600C flame. You control point in this scenario is the knob of the stove which is the second derivative of the temperature of this fish. What's more, your feedback loop is entirely perceptual and based on human sensing and control. Modernist cuisine starts with the goal of bringing a fish up to 45C and determines the optimal way of accomplishing that goal which is sous vide. With Sous Vide, you are directly controlling the temperature of the fish and you're doing it precisely because you replace humans with automated feedback loops.
Another example might be reducing a sauce. In this case, you manipulate the vapor pressure of the liquid through the indirect application of heat. What you really want is to drive water off but you end up causing many inadvertent changes as well. With Modernist cuisine, you use a rotovap to control pressure directly and vacuum evaporate liquids without heating.
Same with using a roux or cornstarch to thicken a gravy. Instead of indirectly controlling the texture of a sauce by picking from one of the dozen common, natural thickeners, Modernist cuisine starts from asking exactly what textural qualities you want from a sauce and then figuring out the right combination of starches, hydrocolloids and proteins that accomplish that task.
Modernist cuisine may seem complicated on the surface because so much of it is new and unfamiliar but I find it actually to be radically more simple than traditional cooking once you understand this ethos. Rather than a hodgepodge of tradition built up over millennia, Modernist cooking is simply about starting first from your desired goals of flavor, temperature, pressure & texture and then figuring out the appropriate use of technology to accomplish that goal.
I would say that hallmark techniques of molecular gastronomy include sous-vide, foams, spherification and various uses of things like carbon dioxide, liquid nitrogen and natural gums and enzymes typically used in mass-market consumables.
The goal of Molecular Gastronomy is to not only truly explore and understand the science of cooking, but to leverage that knowledge to introduce non-traditional aromas, flavor profiles, textures and looks into food to provide your diner(s) with a unique experience.
Everyone has had a good steak. Not everyone has had that same delicious flavor presented in a unique and interesting way.
From a not very experienced cook, I'd say it's impossible to cook without 'molecular gastronomy' since all prepared foods are simply chemical reactions induced by the cook.
However, you could probably say that cooking with 'molecular gastronomy' in mind is when you are mindful about the chemical reactions that occur, with atleast moderate understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Molecular Gastronomy is the science of phenomena that occur during cooking. They try and understand the transformations that go on during cooking and put them to practical use.
So that would be your distinction. Making use of the knowledge in your cooking. It's one thing to just boil an egg so that you know it is cooked, it's another thing to know that you need to cook it at 65 degrees to ensure that only the white is cooked while the yolk remains running.
If you want further information, look for the papers (or books) written by Herve This.
I am not sure myself about the definition of modernist cuisine. While they use molecular gastronomy knowledge for practical purposes, I would not consider a perfectly cooked steak modernist.
I did not mean to imply that a perfectly cooked steak was modernist in my answer. Rather, if the same flavor profile was presented in a unique and interesting way via unexpected texture or presentation, then it could be considered modernist.
Modernist Cuisine rejects or re-interprets traditional techniques and cuisines in favor of using new techniques to create entirely new combinations of flavor and texture, or to re-interpret dishes in a new way that would not be possible using traditional techniques. As part of the Modernist movement, traditional techniques steeped in Enlightenment-era thinking are deemed to be obsolete, limiting, or even false, and thus must be re-worked or rejected entirely in order to move forward creatively.
Molecular Gastronomy is the use of food science, chemistry, and techniques/equipment/ingredients used in industrial food production and scientific laboratories in the home or restaurant kitchen. This is where many of the techniques used in Modernist Cuisine come from.
The definition of Modernist Cuisine here is, in my opinion, begging the question. Clearly modernism is the opposite of traditionalism - stating that as the definition simply diverts the question from "what is modern" to "what is traditional", and provides no answers for the latter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.186200
| 2011-12-30T23:02:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20090",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Corsara",
"Cos Callis",
"Jacob G",
"Joanna",
"Kseniya",
"Maarten",
"camilo.forero",
"dabadaba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5978
|
Artificial Wood Chips/Smoke for smoking meat
I am looking for alternatives to using wood chips for smoking meats. I would like the process to actually smoke the meat. Liquid smoke/marinades are not what I'm looking for.
Has anyone heard of any projects or items that could be used? I'm thinking of a more environmentally friendly way to smoke meats without relying on wood such as apple, cherry, hickory or mesquite. The cost of obtaining these woods in some parts of the world make it cost-prohibitive.
I'm confused.
You don't want fake smoke but you don't want to use wood? Are you asking for a synthetic substance you can burn that will not be worse for the environment than burning wood?
First of all- burning wood is not bad for the environment- that carbon has not been sequestered and so it would be released into the atmosphere anyway when the wood decayed.
Secondly- mesquite is a cancerous weed here in Texas and I encourage everyone to smoke with it to restore the damaged ecosystem.
Thirdly- You can't fake the taste of smoking with wood. That's the point. Even liquid smoke is actually made by distilling real smoke.
(I originally posted a comment and decided to modify it into an answer.)
You actually end up sequestering more carbon smoking with wood if you bury the charcoal (or something else, as long as it isn't burned down to white ash). The carbon isn't driven out of the wood when smoking, and nothing will eat the wood once the cellulose has been converted to carbon. So smoking with wood is a net positive vis a vis atmospheric carbon.
@Adam - You've motivated me to do my part to help the environment and smoke a brisket tonight.
I am more interested in the process of smoking meats without the use of wood. I was curious if it was possible to smoke meats with other materials such as oils or some other plant based alternatives. The idea being, "How do I get the hickory smoked taste when there is no hickory wood available?"
That makes sense. I apologize for misunderstanding the question.
But to get "hickory wood taste" you'd need hickory wood. This is like a vegan saying I'd like to eat bacon so can you recommend a way for me to eat bacon but still be vegan. My answer is no, you can't have it both ways. If you want hickory flavor your going to have to smoke with hickory or use liquid smoke. Every country/cuisine smokes so your going to have to adapt your flavors to the lay of the land.
@Brendan No, it's like a vegan saying "I'd like to eat something that tastes like bacon so can you recommend something that tastes like bacon but is vegan?"
i made a smoked salmon recently that used tea leaves (from tea bags, specifically chai and a black tea with citrus), and it was very subtle and awesome. highly recommended. i used, i believe, 3 tea bags total, plus 2T of brown sugar and 2T of white rice in a lightly folded foil packet.
I believe that cooking on a plank of wet wood will give you some of the flavor of smoking without actually burning the wood. But I don't think the flavor will be nearly as strong.
it is possible to smoke foods with products other than traditional wood chips. however i have achieved best results by mixing with wood. i like ginger (sliced the same size as a wood chip), star anise, cinnamon stick (broken to roughly the same size as a wood chip), garlic, thyme (soaked in water), tea (i enjoy using jasmine tea), rosemary, peppercorns (soaked in water), citrus peel, chips from wine casks or bourbon cask. any type of woody plant stalk will do as well.
There are many different woods used for smoking throughout the world, each giving a characteristic flavor, intensity, and color to the foods that are smoked with it. You are not going to get the "hickory smoked" taste by using anything but hickory. Here is the list of common smoking woods given by Nathan Myhrvold in Modernist Cuisine Vol 2:
grapevine
straw
ash, elm, hornbeam, chestnut
tea leaves
alder
apple
cherry, peach
corncob
heather (dried)
mahogany
thyme, marjoram, or sage (dried)
walnut
linden
birch, poplar, willow
hickory
pecan
laurel
rosemary, dried
beech
juniper
camphor laurel
oak
mesquite
Additionally, in some areas where vegetation is less available locals use dried manure or peat to smoke meat.
Other sources:
http://www.deejayssmokepit.net/Woods.htm
Wow. You would have to really want your meat preserved to smoke with manure. At that point it's not really cooking- more like desperation.
The best alternative to wood chips is a new product called Smokin-os and they are sold on Amazon. They give great smoke and are very simple to use. All you do is preheat your grill and put one on the grill surface where you put your food. They are made of fruitwood trimmings that are normally piled and burned. The trimmings are ground up and then extruded under high heat and pressure putting the wood back together denser (up to 2 times more dense) than it was in its natural state. Therefore it takes less of it to produce a lot of rich smoke. Its the only product that I'm aware of in the market. This process is done using heat and extreme pressure to bind the wood back together using the woods natural resins.
If they're made of wood, are they really an alternative?
Ryan, your post is hovering pretty close to the fine line between a useful answer and blatant advertising. One is very welcome, the other one might get deleted really quick. Please see this post on meta (http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1914/recent-answer-to-cast-iron-teacup-question-spam) and edit your post accordingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.186909
| 2010-08-25T19:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5978",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"BamaGrl",
"Becky Schmidt",
"Brendan",
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Hair Botox NYC",
"It Grunt",
"Leah",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76408",
"illmaticmd",
"wendy killoran"
],
"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
}
|
55656
|
When is it best to do stretch and fold versus mechanical kneading?
I have recently starting making bread using the stretch and fold technique, getting much better results in terms of crumb than previously using my kitchen aid and mechanical kneading. I'm wondering what doughs/products this technique is NOT well suited to. Of particular interest are things like bagels, boiled fruit dumplings, hamburger buns and doughs rich in eggs and fat in general.
Are there particular types of products that benefit from SaF and some that inherently do not? I already suppose one indicator for SaF suitability would be high hydration and desirability of larger holes in the crumb.
A really similar question : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21675/67
Actually, I now realize that this is in some ways the opposite of that earlier question ... (ie, when does mechanical mixing not make a difference)
I can think of one case where yeast doughs shouldn't suffer from mechanical mixing:
If you're going to be rolling out the dough (eg, for filling & making dumpling-like products, or rolling balls for monkey bread), you'd normally end up compressing the air bubbles when rolling it. Mechanical mixing has the same problem, so the difference between hand-kneaded and mechanical-kneaded shouldn't be noticeable.
I also tend to use a mixer on doughs that have so high of a hydration that they're more batter-like ... but I'm starting to question that practice after your question. (they're not that hard to stir with a wooden spoon ... it just takes a little time).
Most of the breads that I make in my mixer are enriched breads (lots of butter or milk), and have small bubbles. (what rumtscho refers to as 'cakelike crumb').
I also use a mixer on breads that take so long to knead that I wouldn't make them without a mixer -- it might result in an inferior loaf, but it's either a fresh slightly sub-par loaf, store-bought (which is likely also machine mixed), or no bread at all. You can work some larger air bubbles back into the mix by not punching it down (or doing it gently), but using a more gentle stretch and fold before shaping and the final proofing.
Do you ever use a bread machine for kneading? (Not baking for heaven's sake, but just kneading?)
@Jolenealaska : nope, I don't have one.
As explained in my older answer Joe linked in a comment, the purpose of stretch and fold is to align the gluten sheets, producing the typical structure of kneaded bread. Depending on your final shaping, you end up with either a sheetlike structure (e.g. in ciabatta) or with spirals/threads in kozunak and other braided breads.
One reason to not do the stretch and fold is when you want to achieve a cakelike crumb with yeast dough. The mixer does develop the gluten, but it makes a regular crumb with no discernible direction of the dough structure. For Pullman style loaves, or also for some types of "cake" made with yeast dough (sorry, English doesn't have the correct word here) such as zwetschgendatschi, a mixer will produce better results. From your list, the hamburger buns will be closer to fast food restaurant style if you use the mixer, it's up to you to know if you want them this way.
The other, and much more common reason, is convenience. While kneading dough can be a very pleasant, relaxing thing to do, sometimes you just value your time over the perfect bread texture, and do it in the stand mixer, so you can take care of other stuff in the meantime.
The third reason why someone would choose the mixer is to avoid the learning curve of doing stretch and fold, or not knowing that the results of proper hand kneading technique are superior. This is, in my eyes, a false economy, since learning to knead properly is easy and a skill worth having even for casual bakers.
Thank you for your answer. Things like zwetschgendatschi or germknodel are exactly what I had in mind. Czech and German cuisine probably have lots of these in common, so your answer is very relevant to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.187404
| 2015-03-13T08:21:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55656",
"authors": [
"Cort Conover",
"Dena Aker",
"Gary Moore",
"Georgann Price",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"VoY",
"davetapley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lynn zzzzz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58584
|
Does type of starch used for thickening make a difference in a fruit sauce?
I'm making fruit sauce to spoon, say, over a piece of cheese cake. American recipes typically call for corn starch to thicken it, but around here most people tend to have potato starch in their pantries. Does corn starch have any advantages over other thickeners for this particular use?
In my experience, no, but I can't back it up with reliable food science. I have used both but never noticed any difference.
Unfortunately no science here either. I would say that if you're making that kind of sauce I'd strongly consider arrowroot as an alternative. It leaves you with a lovely clear sauce, without the clouding you get with cornstarch.
I will look into that, it will probably take research to find out where to get it. Does it have any disadvantages, too?
Per this page from The Cook's Thesaurus many starches can be used for thickening but some work better than others for certain applications. For the purpose of a fruit sauce arrowroot would probably be your best option.
arrowroot starch = arrowroot powder = arrowroot = arrowroot flour This starch thickener has several advantages over cornstarch. It has a more neutral flavor, so it's a good thickener for delicately flavored sauces. It also works at a lower temperature, and tolerates acidic ingredients and prolonged cooking better. And while sauces thickened with cornstarch turn into a spongy mess if they're frozen, those made with arrowroot can be frozen and thawed with impunity. The downside is that arrowroot is pricier than cornstarch, and it's not a good thickener for dairy-based sauces, since it turns them slimy.
Arrowroot also imparts a shiny gloss to foods, and while it can make a dessert sauce glow spectacularly, it can make a meat sauce look eerie and fake. To thicken with arrowroot, mix it with an equal amount of cold water, then whisk the slurry into a hot liquid for about 30 seconds. Look for it in Asian markets and health food stores. Equivalents: One tablespoon thickens one cup of liquid. Substitutes: tapioca starch (very similar) OR Instant ClearJel® OR cornstarch (Cornstarch doesn't impart as glossy a finish and can leave a starchy taste if undercooked.) OR kudzu powder OR potato starch OR rice starch OR flour (Flour makes an opaque sauce, imparts a floury taste, and can easily turn lumpy. Use twice as much flour as arrowroot.)
The article lists each thickener with details on the best uses for each, downsides, and substitutions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.187735
| 2015-06-27T13:05:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58584",
"authors": [
"Bruce Hearn",
"Ioan Feier Sr.",
"Jerry Floratos",
"Joe Strong",
"Karen Wann",
"Stephie",
"VoY",
"goobering",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36468"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8473
|
How can I make McDonald's type French Fries
I have eaten french fries from most popular fast food joints. McDonald's has been the best by far.
Crisp & crunchy on the outside yet moist inside, still maintaining the potato taste. Also it does not go soggy after taking it out of the deep-frier. I have tried my best to recreate what they do, I even went to great lengths to get their pre-fried fries from their outlet.
Anyone have any idea how to make this?
The most detailed French fry investigation I have ever seen comes from the French Culinary Institute's Tech 'N Stuff Blog. You can read The Quest for French Fry Supremacy Part 1 and The Quest for French Fry Supremacy Part 2 for a complete overview not only of their technique but also of the hows and whys behind the decisions they made.
The fries of McDonald are very dissimilar from the real French fries in my honest opinion.
If you are care about aspects other than texture... You might be interested to know that McDonald's fries are beef flavoured.
In The book fast food nation it is pointed out that McDonald's fries distinctive flavour comes from the fact that they were cooked in 'beef tallow' (lard). In the 90s they stopped doing this and moved over to vegetable oil but started adding artificial flavourings to keep the lard flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.187961
| 2010-10-24T19:37:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8473",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"Pippa Gander",
"Webfire",
"ex0du5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"jbr",
"sylvia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10928
|
Why are many chinese sauces so dark?
I've noticed that many sauces used in chinese cooking (hoisin, oyster, bean etc.) are relatively dark, and often black in color. What's the reason these sauces are so dark? Does it have something to do with the fermentation?
You're close. In actual fact, however, most of the commercial soy sauces and other Chinese sauces you buy are not fermented at all; they're acid-hydrolyzed.
Fermented soy sauce (or other soy-based sauces) are actually translucent and fairly light in colour. But fermentation takes months, so manufacturers hydrolyze instead. The process is completely chemical, and involves boiling the beans in a strong acid and then neutralizing with a strong base (normally, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide).
This process makes a much stronger, glutamate-heavy sauce than natural fermentation. It also produces a much darker colour. That's why so many of the sauces you see are dark.
Some of the sauces aren't actually hydrolyzed or fermented but will contain artificial colour, if you look at the ingredients. I guess the manufacturers figure that consumers are so used to the dark colour that they would be suspicious if it wasn't there.
Here is a picture of naturally brewed soy sauce:
Compare to the commercial hydrolyzed kind:
Some brands, like Kikkoman, claim to be naturally-brewed, but the colour suggests otherwise; either they do something to speed up the fermentation process or they're adding colouring.
Note: As requested, I've updated the original image to one I found of a bowl of what certainly appears to be the hydrolyzed kind, in order to give an "apples to apples" comparison. However, it's hard to find a picture of a bowl of soy sauce that tells you which brand it is, other than the Kikkoman, whose origin is questionable.
For the sake of completeness, there is also one other reason why soy sauce might be very dark (other than actual "dark soy sauce" which contains molasses), which is that the sauce might actually be from black soybeans. Those are not common, however, and unless a sauce specifically says that it is from black soybeans, it probably is not.
Those pictures are somewhat misleading because you're comparing a very thin layer of one with an entire bottle of the other. It would be nice to see a comparison between a bottle of fermented soy sauce and hydrolyzed soy sauce where they're both in bottles or both on a plate.
I think this is a good answer, but possibly a little oversimplified. There are also various styles of light and dark soy sauces; dozens of kinds in fact, involving different ratios of ingredients, aging times and protocols. Any of these can produce variation in color. I believe it is quite possible to make a very dark naturally fermented soy sauce, or a light colored hydrolyzed one, but your generalization probably has a lot of truth to it.
You're absolutely right, @Michael - that's one reason I edited in the note at the end about black soybeans and I'm sure there may be a few other factors as well. I think the generalization is necessary in order to answer the question "why are the sauces so dark?" - were it not for the hydrolyzation method, I think we'd be seeing a lot more variety in the colour, even if some might still be dark.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.188094
| 2011-01-11T01:01:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10928",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bohr",
"Brendan Long",
"Holly Cummins",
"Howy Jones",
"LasVegasOle",
"Manny Reyes",
"Meo",
"Michael Natkin",
"domu904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"maria"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8725
|
Making soy milk: best way to separate okara?
When making soy milk, what is the best way to separate the okara (fibrous material) from the hot liquid?
My observations:
When pouring through any kind of a screen, the screen becomes clogged almost immediately, and the material removed from the screen still contains a lot of liquid.
Cheesecloth works well to remove the remaining liquid, except that it is a difficult and awkward procedure because the liquid is so hot.
Does anyone have a "secret weapon" for this process? Some thoughts that have occurred to me (but which I haven't actually tried) include:
Using a large French press (of the type ordinarily used to brew coffee)
Sending the thick liquid through a Juiceman-type fruit juicer (because juicers seem to do a good job of drying out and ejecting pulp)
Using a smaller version of the centrifuges used in soy milk factories (but where to buy such a thing?)
Simply waiting for the liquid to cool before attempting to separate it (time-consuming, but definitely would simplify the cheesecloth approach)
What is the best way?
When straining things that clog up the screen, I tend to use a spoon or spatula to move the stuff around, so you can get expose un-obstructed parts of the screen.
Of course, you might end up pushing some of the pulp through the process, but it's generally minimal.
You can then either dump out the pulp as you go (possibly into muslin or cheese cloth, let it cool, then give that part a squeeze), or use the back of a large spoon or a rubber scraper to push the pulp against the strainer to get out some extra liquid. (or use an oven mitt, covered in a plastic bag ... it's messy, but it works).
Of course, if you have a cheap strainer, too much force on it can cause the whole screen to pop out, splashing you and making a quite large mess. (I've since made sure that my strainers weren't basically a screen just held in by pressure to a loop of metal that attached to the handle, but are actually one integral part).
...
If you're looking at buying new equipment, I'd look into getting a chinoise with the proper sized stick (not sure what it's called), which you can use to basically compress all of the pulp into the bottom as you're working.
Nice. I do not have a chinoise, but it does look like a perfect tool for straining hot soy milk.
I have done this in a few different ways and Cheesecloth works the best for me.
The only difference between you and me is I separate the okara (fibrous material) when it's cold. I usually separate the okara as soon as I get the mixture out of blender. I then boil the liquid (soy milk) afterward, so it's pretty simple.
I like this idea of blending first and then boiling. I had been using a Joyoung soy milk maker, but maybe it would be easier to use the blender and stove instead.
This is what I do as well.
https://youtu.be/JxiAMhfJRks
This looks like a great device for what you are asking about. They sell on ebay and amazon. It's called the Titan Soy milk filter. watch the youtube video...it's old school way of making fresh homemade soy milk, but without burning ur hands.
This is similar to how I do it, but I didn't realize there was already a device specifically for this problem available somewhere online for purchase. I strain the milk through a jelly straining bag, and then press it dry in a tofu press. This looks to be even better. EDIT: the only downside I see to it is that it costs as much as a soy milk machine does!
oh i know. The costs is kinda high, but looks like they used high grade 304 steel... than the cheap steel kind, so it'd prob lasts longer than a soy milk machine. I've ordered a soy milk machine, but it's one without the filter, i still have to strain it.... so i'm still considering getting the Titan. If you get another glass of soy milk out of it each time. It might be worth it. doing it old school way seems messy and time consuming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.188380
| 2010-11-01T14:27:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8725",
"authors": [
"Miles Erickson",
"Nicholas",
"Sarfraz Ahmed",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Tierney",
"babyduckmom",
"franko",
"goodsoybean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54076",
"le-doude"
],
"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
}
|
15777
|
how to get a ciabatta with a more uniform shape
My ciabattas tend to have be domed along both axis. So towards the ends they are too thin, and near the middle I end up making them are thicker than I want. I think this is because the dough has so much water in it. When I am resting it on the tray before putting it in the oven, and even when I first put it in the oven it spreads out at the sides and each end. And ideas how to get a more even round shape along the whole loaf?
The actual bread itself is quite good otherwise, but at the edges there is too much crust and too little content.
Here's why I think this is happening:
In the oven, the internal temperature of the bread is going to transition from room temperature to cooked. The only way heat it introduced into the bread is at the surface. The sides have significantly more surface area than the center. The problem you are having is the sides are making this transition way before the center is. So the sides have very little time to rise and get cooked while the middle is in the prime rising temperature. So the yeast in the center has substantially longer to work before it is too hot for it.
You can try forming the bread thinner toward the center and thicker toward the edges. If you get the thickness right, it should be uniform.
I have also had good experience cooking on a stone. It will almost certainly speed up cooking time, but should help keep the temperature transition uniform across the whole loaf. So you don't end up with a thick part and a thin part; if you start out with a uniform thickness, you end up with a uniform thickness
I know this is an old question, but since I have been recently looking up the 'how to's' of ciabatta (which is how I came upon this question) I thought I'd pass on what I've picked up through recent reading and practice.
Stretching the loaf out long-ways is an important stage of shaping a ciabatta, it seems. I imagine that everyone finds that the middle tends to be fatter when yo finish basic shaping, that's just the nature of trying to gather any flowing material into a stable form.
So, carry out the shaping to the stage you have it - but possibly leaving the whole thing a little wider and shorter to start with, but then quite firmly but gently, lift the dough in the middle and ease it out first to one end then the other, until the middle has thinned down and you have a slightly more strap-like shape.
Remember that the bread was invented as an Italian response to the domination of French baguettes in the sandwich market, so it does belong to be a distinctly long and narrow loaf, even if slightly less so than a baguette.
My neighborhood Italian baker sometimes over conpensates and the ends are thicker than the middle, but I think she makes sure the ends have a little more meat than the middle before the proofing. The second proofing isn't that long only about half and hour to an hour, its a fairly flat bread like focaccia. Also, did you flip them right before putting them in the oven? It helps even out the second proofing.
Have never tried making ciabatta, only french and sourdough french loaves; believe the problem you are running into is the same as when I first started though. Also believe that ciabatta, like French bread, is a bread which is not kneaded or uses very little kneading, due to it's wonderful texture. I give credit to "Joy of Cooking" for the solution, paraphrased as I don't have the cookbook with me:
After the first rising, when ready to form loaves, turn out the dough for one loaf on a floured flat surface and pat it gently (this is very important, if the dough is over worked, the gluten will form the long strands which give the fine texture, which you probably don't want) into a rectangle of the length of the finished loaf. When it is to the length and breadth desired, and of a fairly uniform thickness, begin rolling the dough toward the center along the long edges, pinching or pressing as you roll to remove air pockets. When both sides have been rolled an meet in the middle, turn the loaf over onto the baking pan for the final rising and tuck and pinch the ends or turn them under or both and form the loaf.
A couple of additional things:
Make sure dough in the center of your rectangle is thick, as some of my loaves have split there when baking.
I make my dough as thick as reasonably possible, which help it keep it's shape.
I preheat the oven to hot, 230 C / 450 F before putting in the loaves, and turn it down to the suggested temperature immediately after closing the oven door, which really causes a good spring in the oven rising, and sets the skin fairly quickly, helping to hold shape. This technique is as close as I know of to using a stone to cook on.
Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.188716
| 2011-06-26T12:04:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15777",
"authors": [
"AdrianDole",
"Dr Raymond Edwards",
"Honolulu F Taliulu",
"John Kugelman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37007",
"meisyal"
],
"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
}
|
9366
|
Pumpkin Roll Technique
How do you roll a pumpkin roll cake without it breaking mid-fold?
I haven't done this, so I won't post this as an answer, but I seem to recall reading that the keys are (1) underbake slightly, and (2) do it while warm.
I've seen 2 tricks to help. One is to pre-roll the roll while it is still hot, just out of the oven. You will sometimes get cracks when unrolling the roll, but they are less visable as the cracks originate on the inside of the roll. Once you roll it back up, they tend to disappear.
The other is to just bake it on a piece of parchemnt paper and use that to lift, roll and support the pumpkin cake. As you lift the parchment paper, you roll the cake down into itself and it almost rolls itself as you lift the paper. Just have to keep it moist, but not too moist.
Good Luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.189216
| 2010-11-22T19:02:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9366",
"authors": [
"Angela",
"Joey Eremondi",
"Marti",
"Quinn Comendant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"o e"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9417
|
Any secondary uses for taffy?
My sister got married recently and had a candy buffet at the wedding. Their colors were yellow and gray, and we now have a lot of leftover banana taffy. We're never going to eat it all at the rate that we're going, and Halloween is still a long way off. Are there any secondary uses for taffy? I've searched for recipes containing taffy (as an ingredient) but haven't been able to find any. Are there any candies that have a taffy-like stage on the way to something else?
Another wedding? :)
In the past, I have softened taffy in the microwave thus making it pliable, then wrapped the soft taffy around an apple. This may sound unorthodox, but I find this to be an effective way to deal with any surplus taffy.
This is going to sound odd, but taffy is actually a great ingredient in sweeter coffee drinks like mochas. It melts into the drink adding sugar and flavor. I'm a fan of banana for this purpose.
In a similar vein, you could also use the taffy as a chip in cookies. Chop it up and use it wherever you think banana flavor would taste good. I could imagine the banana taffy going well in with macadamia nuts. You might want to consider the taffy as a substitute for butterscotch or white chocolate chips in recipes requiring them.
Coffee + banana?? Doesn't sound terribly appetizing.
@Marti - it's the + chocolate part that makes it good in my opinion, but banana candy in my experience tends to be one of those polarizing flavors
Ever tried a "banoffee" pie or cheesecake?
They can benefit from some smashed up toffee (I'm English, we call it toffee) in the mix and certainly on the top.
Another alternative is just to let it go stale, it just becomes fudge like usually after a considerable time and is perfectly pleasant.
(suggested by anon user): Taffy and toffee are very different. Taffy is soft, stretchy & chewy, as long as it's fresh. It doesn't get hard & crushable like toffee, although it can get hard and more difficult to chew as it gets older. It will definitely not become fudge-like as it ages, just harder.
@rumtscho: Granted, whilst taffy does exist in places in the UK, we never really use the concept. However, toffee does come in many variations and much toffee that is sold is more similar to taffy in physical properties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.189332
| 2010-11-24T19:07:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9417",
"authors": [
"Cher",
"Chris",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"justkt",
"rumtscho",
"user9447"
],
"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
}
|
6243
|
How can I pan fry zucchini without making it soggy?
I really enjoy pan frying zucchini in a small amount of olive oil with some salt and pepper.
It always turns out tasting great, but it is often times really soggy.
Is there any way to pan fry the zucchini without making it soggy?
Wow, it is weird being a new member in a community. No creating new tags, and way stricter captchas! I'm gonna have to get my rep up!
Chances are, if you needed to create a new tag for this, you're doing something wrong.
@hobo, yeah, My guess is pan-frying = frying. Seems to be fine.
Depending on how little oil you're using, and how much you're moving the food around, it might be more a sauté than pan-frying.
The key to this is really high heat and pan-fry in a single layer, very quickly. The goal is to get that nice brown caramelized surface and barely cook the interior and then get it out of the pan before it starts to seep water. Also, wait to season with salt until it comes out of the pan so it doesn't draw out the water prematurely.
Sweet, thanks for the quick response. I will try it next time I cook some zucchini.
Tossing it in grated parmezan first can give you a little more leeway on the cooking temperature and can give a great crispness when it caramelises, it also brings a little extra flavor into the game...
Zucchini (courgettes) and other summer squash don't hold well; it'll start to get soggy over time, but you're still better off trying to cook in two batches than crowding your pan ... I try to make sure they're the last thing done, and do 'em in my largest saute pan so there's a little space between 'em.
I've always salted in advance and left it on a baking rack to drain, dried with paper towels, then breaded. It gets nice and crunchy and the zucchini itself maintains a nice texture. I even get pretty good results with this method using "baseball bat" (larger than ideal) zucchini.
I find using a griddle works better than a frying pan, for Zucchini and Egg plant.
And for any people that likes the taste of the south. Try cutting them in 1/4" slices.
Soak them in milk for half an hour, then in another bowl have yellow corn meal. Dip the zucchini in cornmeal mixture and place in a cast iron skillet with just enough olive oil to coat the pan. Make sure pan is hot, test it by putting a drop of water in pan, if you hear a sizzle sound, it's ready. As the gentleman said in latter post, place them in single layer and salt when ready it comes out of the pan. This works great for yellow squash too.....bon apetit!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.189555
| 2010-08-28T17:12:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6243",
"authors": [
"Elias Noyes",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Tom Boardman",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"jjnguy"
],
"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
}
|
25996
|
How do I prevent burning the bottom of the bread when cooking over a campfire?
Over the weekend I took my dutch oven and tried to bake bread over the campfire. I had two problems, one was getting enough heat. That is really my problem and I just lowered the grate over the fire to get the right heat.
The second problem, and thus my question is that the bottom of the bread was burnt. I used parchment paper in the bottom to make it easier to put the bread in and so it doesn't stick. However the bread was burnt on the bottom. I realize this is because of the amount heat on the bottom of the pan. What could I do to help reduce the burning on the bottom of the bread? Would using a cast iron pizza pan under the dutch oven help?
I put the dutch oven on a fire grate above the fire.
did you put coals on the lid of the dutch oven? That is the usual approach to make it hot throughout rather than just from the bottom
No. Clarified where the dutch oven was sitting. Should I put the dutch over IN the fire?
I am getting a lot of useful information. I never cooked with a dutch oven before, so it was all a big experiment.
Many camping cookbooks recommend picking up some coals from the fire and putting them on the lid of the dutch oven while it is on a grate above the fire. This gives a more "all around" heat rather than just trying to cook the whole loaf of bread from the bottom. This image search gives lots of examples.
Personally, I don't try to bake a whole loaf of bread - I make English muffins. Quicker time to edible food, easier cleanup, you don't need to carry a heavy pot since the frypan is coming anyway, and if one burns the rest might still be ok, so less risk. (Important when you're feeding your children in the wilderness.) I wrote it up with pictures long ago - see if that helps you.
When not using coal, but a camp fire, you could use this method by lighting up a second fire with wood on top of the dutch oven lid.
when I said coals, @awe, I didn't mean they started as lumps of coals. A fire made with large pieces of wood will break up into embers or coals after long enough, and these glowing used-to-be-wood chunks are what to put on top of the pot. Flames really suck for cooking with.
Coals on the lid will help. I put a flat stone in the bottom to bake on like a slate in a pizza oven. You could use a rack if you are cooking in a pan. Either way keep it off the bottom. Parchment paper is too thin, you have to dissipate the direct heat.
Your fire was probably too hot at the bottom, and too cold at the top of the dutch oven. Was it flames or coals and ashes? Only the latter will do correctly.
You can heat the dutch oven (including the lid) before you put the bread inside, to make the temperature more regular. Turning it 1/4 of a circle every 1/4 of the time also helps having a more homogeneous temperature and less black spots.
As a workaround if you only have flames or are in a hurry you can better insulate the bread from the oven's walls by adding a layer of cardboard where it would burn without additional insulation. That will avoid the bottom burning and allow it to cook nevertheless (because of the inside temperature of the dutch oven).
For Dutch oven cooking you need a ground based fire, no grates or other structures
When the wood or charcoal is burning pure (no smoke), scrape away a mound of coals from the main fire. The amount depends on the type of wood and the time required for cooking. For a typical hardwood charcoal around 4 l per half hour (1 US gal) for typical recipe in typical Dutch oven
If your Dutch oven does not have a rim to hold the hot coals, just invert the lid. Place slightly more than half the coals on the lid. Then place Dutch oven over other half of hot coals still on ground. They should have be scraped into a tidy flat shape the size of the oven
Take temperature readings every 20 minutes or so and adjust coal level for your recipe. Use a long metal stem digital thermometer and just poke it under the lid without lifting the lid fully off
This answer pertains to your second question--how to reduce burning on the bottom of the bread.
Cracked wheat or some other course grain, sprinkled on the bottom of the dutch oven before putting the bread in, will slow down how much heat absorbs from that direction. You'll notice this sometimes with store bought sourdoughs. This gives more time for the sides and top to cook before the bottom burns.
Cornmeal works well for this. I use it for muffins and pizza in a frying pan in the wild, and for bread on a pizza stone in the oven at home. Works better than oil and much easier to clean up too.
Notes from Elizabethan England suggests wrapping the loaf in a cabbage leaf! Will try it along with heat on the lid. Don't know if it will flavour it?
Please do come back and let us know how it goes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.189796
| 2012-09-05T13:41:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25996",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mike Wills",
"awe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11694
|
Achieving perfection via manual drip-brew coffee method
Every time I make coffee it seems to taste different, and I've found there is a lot more room for error with the manual drip-brew method than using a Moka coffee maker or an automatic drip-brewer.
There are too many variables to list, but I'll try:
Type/color/brand of filter
Amount of coffee
Wetting the filter
Wetting the grounds
Amount of time between wetting the grounds and pouring the rest of the water
Plastic / ceramic / glass cone
Coarseness of the grounds
Rate of water flow
Temperature of water
Height from which to pour water
Trickling water or constant pour
Clockwise / counterclockwise / or straight-on pouring
Whether to fill it up to the brim and let it seep down or be patient and pour a little at a time
And many more.
But what are the most important factors (either from this list or anything I might have missed) that I need to do every time to ensure that the cup is a most excellent brew? How do those factors actually affect the brew and why?
Please include only factors specific to, or of particular import to this method of coffee brewing.
This sounds like "manual drip", so I've edited your question a bit.
It's actually more commonly called a drip brew, although technically a funnel could refer to a percolation method as well.
I also wouldn't ask people to pick 3, because that just encourages people to focus on ranking as opposed to explaining. I'm kind of interested in the answers myself, so I took away the "top 3" reference in addition to tidying up some of the terminology.
@aaronut, isn't that just going to encourage people to answer in the form of a list?
@Peter: I wouldn't think so, since you've already pretty much given the list. Asking explicitly for an explanation certainly couldn't hurt though, assuming that's what you want. (It is your question after all, not mine, but based on your comments to Bob, I'm assuming you want more than a point-form answer).
Single most important item missing from the list is freshness of the coffee; and freshness of the grind. If you use prepackaged already-ground coffee for example, your day-over-day taste change may be as much related to staleness as to the other factors.
I'm starting a bounty on this question. I will award it to the first person who actually includes reasonably-detailed explanations. I'm very unhappy with the answers so far, which basically either say "it depends" or "this is what I do". Fine, but how does it depend, and why do you do those things?
@aaronut, thanks a lot. I'm not particularly satisfied with non-drip brew oriented answers as well. I've heard this can be quite an art form.
Why would you use a filter rather than a cafeteria/french press.
Assuming you are only making one or two cups rather than a pot - it seems easier and I always thought better to have the water and the coffee mixed together rather than it briefly running through.
@mgb, 2 reasons, 1. It's really cheap (got a melitta travler for 8 bucks) 2. Very little cleanup - so I can make it quietly every morning. Also, I remember Alton Brown on Good Eats saying and demonstrating this to be the best possible way to make a cup of coffee.
@mgb they are also very portable. Compared to any other device, if you're doing some extended backpacking one of the little plastic ones is quite an asset (although those pyrex french presses are nice b/c they double as crush-resistant storage for the coffee supplies)
@mfg - I misundertood what the OP meant. I was thinking of the jug coffee machine. I have a Bodum Solo Drip that does exactly this. It has a permanent filter so no mess and the inner filter part controls how long the water spends in the coffee
Background
The manual drip technique (AKA "filtercone brewing") and an automatic drip-brewer are very similar; both involve pouring water through a conical filter into a vessel. The difference is that an automatic drip-brewer maintains consistent and hopefully ideal conditions, so when you drip-brew manually, you are essentially trying to recreate the environment inside an automatic drip-brewer.
Much of the following is derived from sweetmarias.com - my constant source for coffee information.
Customizing your coffee
The most important variables in terms of how much they affect the end result also happen to be easily isolated variables that you can control simply with tools. They are:
Temperature of the water
The best temperature is when the water is just coming to a boil, around 200° F or 93.3° C. An automatic drip-brewer will generally maintain a temperature of between 195° F and 205° F.
Water that is too cold won't extract enough of the oils and will give you flat, flavorless coffee. Water that is too hot will extract a lot of the proteins and give you very bitter coffee.
This is simple to control for; just use a thermometer, or learn how to recognize when the water is just about to boil.
Coarseness of the coffee
The grind (obviously, a fresh grind especially) is important here, as it is with any distillation method. What you need to remember is that you are matching the temperature and pressure of extraction.
For high pressure extraction (espresso), uniformly fine grind is preferred to ensure that the water does not shoot past the puck too quickly. For lower pressure methods (i.e. manual drip), you want a medium grind to ensure that the water passes easily but not too quickly.
Again, this is simple to control for; just use a good, reliable coffee grinder.
Ratio of water to coffee grounds
This is mainly a matter of personal preference. Figure out what you like, but ensure that this is the final variable you are isolating. Use a measuring spoon, start at 8 grams (about 1 rounded tablespoon) per 5 oz water, and start experimenting from there.
Improving your consistency
Once you've dealt with the obvious factors above, proper technique becomes essential to improving on the consistency of your brewing process. You'll want to watch out for:
Steady heat during the pour
Depending on the material your filter cone is made of, it may take a while to heat up, which means that initially the water will lose heat to the cone and become too cold before it passes through the coffee.
You can compensate for this by pre-heating the cone. Use hot water for this; don't use the microwave, especially if it's a plastic cone.
Ceramic cones are more heat-stable than plastic, but will take longer to heat up, so it's more important to pre-heat them. You probably don't need this stability because the water shouldn't be in the cone for too long - unless you're brewing a full pot. Most pour-overs should really only be for about 20 ounces of coffee.
Pour Time
The best automatic coffee makers have a sprinkle head and pour out over a deliberately extended period of time, as opposed to shoving the coffee through in a rush. This is because you are trying to extract flavor as thoroughly as possible, and quick is not thorough.
Maintain a slow, steady pour. Trickling is less effective since it will cause an uneven leaching from the grinds, so be wary of this. Submerging is even less effective because you will lose heat from your water as it sits there. This is probably the most important part of a good brewing technique.
It should take 4-5 minutes, pouring evenly over all the grinds, to extract a full 10 cup pot. Hopefully your arm is strong or you're only doing 1 cup.
More practically, you will want to refer to this chart on specific infusion times: For example, for a #4 filter, and 20 ounces of coffee, you will want to spend 2 minutes and 30 seconds on the infusion (they recommend 32g or ~4 rounded Tbsp of coffee).
Wetting the filter
This applies when your filter falls down (as wetting it keeps it up) - not a big problem with conical filters. That said, in some cases rinsing off your filter is preferred in the event that your filter gives an off-flavor. I personally have never encountered this with unbleached filters.
Wetting the grounds
There are two schools of thought on this. Some say to do it, others say not to do it because it locks up the oils or stales the coffee when done too far in advance.
In the case of a straight pour over filter, non-vacuum, sweetmarias.com recommends "blooming the coffee 15-30 seconds" by sprinkling with a pre-pour. (I assume that's what 'wetting the grounds' meant. In my experience, premature moisture is less of a problem for beans with more sugar, i.e. lighter roasts.)
As for time between wetting filter/grounds, you should minimize wetness of coffee in the interest of freshness by thermal conservation, or refrain from either step.
Height of pour
This matters mainly because you don't want to splash water or grinds everywhere, but more importantly you don't want the water to lose heat on its way down by pouring too far.
Rotation of pour
Pick one, do it evenly across all grinds. The important thing here is consistency.
Miscellaneous tips and tricks
According to sweetmarias on the quantity of coffee:
Simply using more coffee grinds cannot fix other brew problems: If you use 20 grams coffee and 350 ML of water and 4 minutes steep time to achieve 20% extraction (it should), using 40 grams coffee with a contact time of 1 minute to compensate will not result in a better cup.
Consider removing the drip before the final drops go through. According to Voilley et al., Eval., 287:
Perceived coffee bitterness is lower when coffee is brewed hot than when cooler water is used. This is hypothesized to be due to the heightened aromatics released in hot coffee, which counteract the bitterness.
So watch out for those last few drops, because they will tend to have lost some heat and will thus leach more solids with fewer aromatics, resulting in more bitterness.
Now go enjoy some hand cranked coffee consistently.
I've heard to wait 30 seconds after wetting the grounds. I think the one thing that it does do is ensure that your initial few seconds of pouring doesn't go right through the grounds. I've tried both ways, and you just get clear liquid if you don't wet them.
@Peter The thirty seconds pause I have heard yea/nay on. Some people claim not wetting and pouring hot water directly on causes "shock", perhaps wetting allows for an even introduction to leeching. Myself, I avoid wetting the (surface of the) grounds prior to pouring as a stiffer surface breaks up the evenness of your pour.
@Peter I looked further into the 15-30 sec pre-pour and updated with some info, it sounds mixed. Since I do not pre-pour using a pour over, I included my take on the pre-pour based on what happens when coffee gets wet.
This is much closer to the level of detail I was hoping for. I'd like to clean it up (style/formatting), do you mind a fairly large edit (assuming no actual content changes) or would you rather it be left alone?
@Aar No that's okay, I have been trying to figure out how to re-word due to the edits on pre-soaking and how to give a measured consideration on that. If you re-boot this it will help me to do touch up (if necessary)
I accepted this answer because it's objectively awesome. But I've got one last question you might be able to edit into the answer. Can the last 10-20 seconds of drainage spoil the cup, should I remove the filter after I'm done pouring water - or let everything go into the cup?
@Peter I added a note for you. The link is fantastic in terms of how a cup becomes bitter over the brewing process. The metric they use is based on the taste threshhold of various compounds in the coffee. In a big automatic pot you probably wouldn't notice those last bits; but in 8-20 ounces of coffee it could carry over that threshhold more noticeably.
Alright, this is a pretty major overhaul but I haven't changed any of the content, just restructured a lot of it and added some more detailed explanations here and there. I think this is much more readable, but you're welcome to roll it back if you like.
Definitely more readable, I wish there were upvotes for edits. Thanks @aar
Actually from experience and if your in no hurry, if you pour very hot water (pre-boiling) over your grounds to wet them prior to turning on the coffee maker it will allow them cook a little bit. I usually let it sit for about 1 minute and I have found that this substantially improves overall flavor of the coffee, this is particularly important for small brews of a cup or two.
If I had to pick a top 3, it would be:
Ratio of grounds to water
Coarseness of the grind
Temperature of the water
These three factors are usually very dependent on the technique used, so you need to get them right for "manual drip". The quality of the beans and the water are also quite important, but not dependent on the technique used.
That's probably right, if you don't mind, I'd like to rephrase my question to say, "except for Bob's answer, what's the 3 most important things to worry about when making coffee via this technique"
Maybe I'll just wait to see if someone else answers (thanks for the edit too)
Don't forget the speed. More than 30' will extract flavors you'd like to avoid.
The original question just asked for a top 3. I don't think the downvote is particularly fair, but I'll edit this later to better answer the current question.
One of the single biggest influences on the flavor of coffee is the flavor of the water used. Since there isn't any reason to have electrolytes, salts and other minerals compete with the flavor of coffee and its aromatic oils, I highly suggest using only distilled water. Independent of the hand drip brew, automatic drip machines should not have water that might be hard or have other minerals to deposit running through its innards.
Along the same lines... I get the water from the tap the night before and let it sit in the pot before brewing. This allows dissolved gasses like chlorine some time to evaporate out. Sounds strange, but there is a noticeable difference.
I am a coffee geek, and I drink great coffee EVERY day. The most important part of the equation is to use freshly roasted coffee. I roast my own coffee beans once per week.
If you can't roast your own beans, buy them from a roaster that roasts and ships on the same same day. It is important that they put the roast date on the bag. I have had about ten different varieties from Counter Culture Coffee, and they have all been great. I store the coffee beans in the freezer, in sealed mason jars.
My wife is not so much a geek. Here are the very detailed instructions I wrote up for her to follow (when her coffee valet is not available) to make a single cup of coffee:
Take down a standard 10 ounce coffee cup and the Hario one-cup drip device
Put 2.5 cups of water in electric kettle. Plug it in and turn it on
Place a Hario filter in the drip device. Leave this on the countertop by the sink
Open top of gram scale, turn it on, wait for it to reset zero grams
Place small pyrex bowl on top of scale. Press the "Tare" button, wait for it to reset
Pour coffee beans into pyrex bowl to a weight of 13 grams
Remove the glass bowl with coffee beans. Turn off gram scale and close the top
Pour coffee beans into coffee grinder. Press Start button once to wake it up.
Press Start button again to grind the beans.
When you hear it go into "high speed", there are no more beans to grind.
When water has come to a boil, pour it into the silver Hario tea kettle
Remove the hopper with ground coffee, empty it into Hario filter in the one-cup device
Place the one-cup device on top of the coffee cup
Pour a small amount of water into the coffee grounds. Set a timer for 30 seconds
When the timer goes off, you can start pouring water very slowly into the grounds.
Don't fill the entire cone - halfway is high enough.
As you start pouring the water, you can hear it "tinkling" into the bottom of the coffee cup
When the cup becomes about 2/3 full, the sound will stop. This is due to the shorter distance that the water falls before it meets what is already in the cup.
Now you should check the height of the coffee in the cup to see when to stop. The Hario drip device has a handle, so you can easily lift it to peek at the coffee.
I fill the coffee cup almost to the top. I remove the Hario drip device when I have about 1/4 inch left at the top of the cup. This gives me 9 ounces of coffee.
Most people drink their coffee too hot. The flavor develops and becomes more complex when it sits for at least one minute, and it cools a few degrees.
This is a lot of detail (great) but I don't see any explanations. Why is freshly-roasted coffee important - what is its effect? Why Hario? Why 2.5 cups to 13 grams? Why the 30-second soak? Everybody has their own methods to follow to make a perfect cup according to their own preferences, but what we're getting at, or at least what I'd like people to be getting at, is how can people move beyond trial-and-error or blindly following instructions and determine how to get coffee exactly how they want it? What's the theory behind it?
I don't understand step 11, why do you need 2 tea kettles? Personally, I have a problem with my kettle I use on the stove, I can't pour it very evenly, so I usually just drip it down the side - but I've heard this is no good because it cools the water down too much.
@Aar Sorry, I misinterpreted the original question. When you try to explain the theory, things are not so clear cut. A lot of what I have read on CoffeeGeek.com, Home-Barista.com and GreenCoffeeBuyingClub.com simply says "Try this approach, see if it gives you better results". And that is what I posted - where I ended up after trying other people's suggestions.
@Peter the Hario kettle is specially designed to allow you to pour the water VERY slowly. Heating the water up in the electric kettle gets it to the boiling point ASAP. At that moment, the water is too hot for brewing coffee. SO I pour it into the Hario to dissipate some heat, and pre-wet the grounds for 30 seconds. When I actually start pouring the water into the filter cone, it is in the desirable range of 195 to 205 degrees.
@Aar I clarified the end of the pour. I don't use all 2.5 cups of water to make a single cup of coffee! There is no magic recipe for quantity of water to ground coffee. I started with the guidelines at Sweet Maria's and modified them to something that my wife and I could agree on as the "best" flavor.
Being slightly aggressive in your pour (with a gooseneck kettle) can help provide a fuller extraction - after the gentle pre-brew is completed.
In my experience, most of the items on your list have very little effect on the resulting brew. The only ones I'd worry about are:
Amount of coffee
Coarseness of the grounds
Temperature of water
Even water temp isn't very important, as long as the water is boiling hot.
Amount of coffee and coarse/fine grind is partly a matter of taste. Manual drip is a fairly fast brewing method, so you normally use a fine grind. One thing I like about brewing this way is that I can use a cheap whirling blade grinder (they don't work very well at coarse grinds).
I like strong coffee, so I use about 2-3 tablespoons of beans for a cup. This is the easiest thing to play around with.
You didn't mention grinding your own coffee from beans, that's the first thing to do to get good coffee - don't buy ground coffee, buy beans, store them somewhere cool (not in the fridge or freezer or they'll get spoiled by water condensing on them), and grind them as you need them.
Near boiling hot: 96ºC - 98ºC should do.
Near-boiling is generally recommended over boiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.190208
| 2011-01-31T18:07:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11694",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bob",
"BrandonV",
"CookieSwitch",
"Hamy",
"Innocentia",
"Leo",
"Martin Beckett",
"Moon Cat",
"Patty lee",
"Peter Turner",
"Radiodef",
"Ray",
"Rick G",
"Ross Aiken",
"Ryan F",
"Ryan Shdo",
"Southwest",
"Tampa",
"emalamisura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"keithjgrant",
"mfg",
"nathan",
"pandoh",
"sdg",
"user24015",
"user24016",
"user2605401",
"user26302"
],
"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
}
|
25623
|
Why did my grandfather-in-law salt his beer?
My grandfather-in-law was born in England in the 1920s and fought in World War II. Somewhere along the line he acquired the habit of salting his beer before drinking it, which persisted for the rest of his life. I'm as curious about the cultural genesis of the practice as the food science of it – was there perhaps something about wartime beer that made it unpalatable without salt? I know there were other wartime food customs like bread and scrape so it doesn't seem implausible, but the "why" of this one isn't so obvious.
Poor-quality hops made the beer too bitter?
Also flat beer can sometimes be "woken up" by adding salt.
Did he work in a steel mill, or some other high heat environment, by chance?
Note quite beer, but a couple of weeks ago I was at a place that had a basil & coriander hard cider. I was crazy enough to try it, and it was just ... strange. After a few others had tried it, I added salt to it, and everyone agreed it improved the flavor.
Sounds like a great way to break the ice at a party.
A current-day parallel is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelada
I can think of several reasons why you might salt beer:
Salt is a natural flavor enhancer, so you'd be able to taste the hops and malt more
Salt reduces perceived bitterness, so overly hopped beer would taste less bitter
The salt crystals may nucleate bubble formation, giving the beer more head (briefly)
I've heard of it being done before, but never with good beer, only low quality swill. But then, since there were more quality problems with cheap brews at the time, this was probably a lot more common.
I didn't know that salt reduced the perception of bitterness; that may well explain it. I wonder now whether wartime beer was deliberately over-hopped as a preservative, like IPAs.
There are circumstances where working in a hot place will make people sweat so much that they need to take salt to avoid a deficiency. I first heard mention of this from a man who had been doing field work in the Blue Mountains of Queensland, then found out more when working in a metal foundry, after which I worked in a factory where salt tablets were made.
Most people take their salt in tablet form, sometimes the tablets dissolve in water to give an effervescent drink. A salt deficiency can commonly cause very unpleasant muscular cramps, among other things that can happen is a state that resembles drunkenness (but without euphoria).
I have seen foundry workers put a dash of salt in their coffee, if you go back in history you find that salting coffee happened in the 18th century coffeehouses.
My guess is that the man in question had at some time in his life worked in a hot place, where it was necessary to take more salt because of sweating. That might have been, say, North Africa during WWII, or a metal foundry in a temperate place. Then he got the taste for salting his beer and carried on doing it, after he stopped working in that hot place.
Could be. He was once a flamethrower soldier; nasty, hot work.
Salt reduced perceived bitterness -- that's why my dad added salt straight into the coffee grounds when brewing.
No. This is not the answer. I remember my older relatives--when I was young--putting salt in their beer and it was not for the reason stated in this answer.
As other answers have noted, salt enhances flavor and reduces perceived bitterness. It also increases the perceived body/mouthfeel of the beer.
My grandfather always salted his cantaloupe and honeydew melons. I tried it, and was pleasantly surprised by how it intensified the melon flavor.
Also of note is Gose, a style of beer brewed in Leipzig, Germany. It includes coriander and salt.
This reminds me of a story my grandfather told me: in the Netherlands, right after the war, there was a great deficiency of many kinds of grains, which made the beer taste bad. The bartenders of the more upscale cafes would put a slice of lemon in the beer to mask the bad taste. This habit stuck, and we still do it today.
No idea how much truth there is to the story (my granddad being quite the storyteller), but perhaps it can shed some light on this question.
For me, a few sprinkles of salt in my glass of beer seems to reduce the bubble effect. I burp less...plus I like the added flavor...I'm 83 and it hasn't killed me yet!
In my younger days I would perspire at the mention of the word heat. I never thought about adding salt to replenish what my body had lost, I just did it because it seemed to make the beer less bitter and enhanced the taste. Besides, none of my buddies did it, so I felt unique. It was something I picked up from my grandfather and father (I never could force myself to do the raw egg in your beer, though).
Salt releases the carbonation. More bubbles in the beer. That gives it better flavor for many. Or some salt on the edge of the mug. You do not see that as much today. Often years ago kegs would loose some carbonation. Or the beer would go some what flat. This restored the carbonation. Then you can get use to the little extra salt taste. Salt helps cut the dry out of the mouth if working hard. Like bucking bales for a 1/2 day then a cold beer was part of your lunch. A little salt cuts thirst. In the 50s it was more common to see this in small towns around farmers. A pinch of salt in beer. But not in the big cities. A person of his times.
My step-dad (passed long ago) served in the Philippines back in the Korea/Vietnam era. I asked him one time why he salted his beer. He said the beer he drank in the Philippines was very poor quality and adding a little salt made it palatable. He continued to do it as it became an 'acquired taste'. I tried it... it ruined a perfectly good bottle of beer. Of course, I haven't been able to find Ritterbrau anywhere since, either. But, then, Ritterbrau is an acquired taste, too.
Philippine beer is of high quality. But made with more rice. Tropics hot. You sweat a lot salt cuts thirst. Replaces minerals. He must have drank that stuff on base we cooled with the co2 fire extingisures not Philippine beer. That was the same as we got in Vietnam, Brewed local for freshness under the Bud brand. Not San Magile.
My grandfather salted his beer.
I never asked him why. He was a coal miner in west Virginia.
I salt mine too, only because he did. Kind of like carrying on a tradition.
I notice it does make it bubble a bit. Someone told me that it removes
gas from the beer so you get less gas. Nothing worse than beer farts. Haa.
Ether way, it always makes conversation at whatever table I drink at.
everyone says something about it. and they all enjoy seeing the extra bubbles.
Might not be a Brit habit, but a general thing of the War Time era. I've heard of US bars on the US West Coast (c.1970s) putting out little dishes of salt on the bar.
Customers would put a pinch in their drink to flatten beer that was on the fizzy side, and my dad, a Brit in the US East Coast (Florida. Virginia and New England), 1943 to 1953, said "dead" cans would rattle with peanuts, where folk had dropped some of the salted kind into their beer for the same reason.
I worked in U.K pubs for several years during the 1960s, and never came across the habit in that time, but we did sell a beer called Worthington White Sheild which was notoriously gassy and had a sediment at the bottom, just to make a barperson's life difficult.
The trick was to rinse the glass under the tap, flicking off the excess water and the White Shield could be poured to perfection. And after all that, there was always some old gaffer who would tell you to "Tip the Baby into the Bathwater" i.e. Pour the beer, sediment and all.
As a man whose survival relied most on his physical condition, he couldn't afford to dilute his body's supply of minerals by increasing the volume of salt-less bodily fluid and leaching said minerals from inside his cells to achieve equilibrium before peeing everything out. Lack of salt causes cramps, delusions and fatigue. People can survive like this when there is no threat and social rules are in place for protection, but in wartime? No. Beer has calories and is sometimes safer to drink than water, but extra salt would ensure that the fluid could stick around and be used. It takes 9 grams of sodium per liter of water to make an isotonic solution. 9,000 milligrams are required to be the same concentration of sodium as is typically found throughout bodily fluids. Cheers!
While I agree that salt is vital, the whole answer seems a guess at best. You could as easily just salt your food. No need to put salt in beer.
@Robert : actually, it's a well known thing in industries where you sweat a lot ... like people who work in metal foundries, or field work. You add salt to most of what you drink, or take salt tablets. And as Robert Arsenault just mentioned, there's a name for it (potomania)
I always heard that salting your beer would make you drunk quicker, so you didn't have to drink as much. I guess because they say alcohol thins your blood. Of course whether its true or not I have no clue, but I always thought it made sense.
I thought it might have had something to do with making your stomach right. Baking soda is used in water to put out the fire from time to time and it is a sodium base. Maybe people did it when they had hot pipes.
Salt your beer to make it go down smoothly is the only reason. The older you get the more you need that smooth passing down especially if you like beer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.192102
| 2012-08-13T01:20:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25623",
"authors": [
"ALR",
"Aaron Brick",
"Aisha Elwood",
"Brent HUbbard",
"Bryan Ovens",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Darrell Evans",
"J Bergen",
"Joe",
"Kirk Haverkamp",
"Lynn Curtis",
"Maryam Sikes",
"Optometrist Long Island",
"Raju Mishra",
"Renee Avon",
"Rob",
"Robert",
"Robin Rodricks",
"Rosa J. Lelie",
"Sean Hart",
"SevenSidedDie",
"ThrowingSpoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68243",
"jscs",
"staticsan",
"user1803551"
],
"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
}
|
266
|
What are the advantages and disadvantages of various sugars/substitutes?
Such as:
Splenda
Artificial Sweeteners
Sugar "In the Raw"
Honey
Stevia
Molasses
Can they be used interchangeably in recipes or do they have to be used at different proportions?Aside from nutritional differences, can I expect drastically different flavors?
Sugar in the raw is just sugar. Splenda is an artificial sweetener. I think you need to rephrase your question...
where is honey?
OK, I can add honey.
@Harlan - yes, and so is brown sugar and confectioner's sugar, but they are still somewhat different and I assume not interchangeable without consequence.
Also molasses can be used!
Might be worth adding Stevia, too, although I've never cooked with it (just for sweeting drinks)
Without giving a complete answer, the basic idea is the different perceptions of sweetness when using these different products. Stevia and Splenda type sweeteners are not 1:1 with regular sugar sweetness. One splenda pack is equivalent to something like 2 teaspoons of sugar in sweetness so that will have to be factored into the substitutions.
Splenda, besides giving you the runs, is very hard to bake with. My wife had gestational diabetes so we tried baking with splenda and nothing turned out right. Splenda has no nutritional value.
Raw sugar is great, but it has a slightly different taste than processed sugar, similiar to brown sugar.
Artificial sweetners would probalby have similar issues to splenda, but I've never tried them outside of sweetening tea.
For those who get Cook's Illustrated, they have an article about this but don't ask me where.
I can tell you a few things about artificial sweeteners!
Alot of artificial sweeteners look nothing like sugar (in terms of their chemical makeup) and have very different properties. Most are also sweeter than sugar (sometimes by a factor of hundreds) so in the packets, you will find that they come along with alot of other, inert ingredients.
I found this link for you that lists various artificial sweeteners and their properties. Since most of them are nothing like sugar, you can't do certain things to them: such as heating to high temperatures or for example caramelizing.
The link I gave you mentions which artificial sweeteners are safe for eg. baking and includes some natural subsitutes as well.
I'm not really familiar with their health aspects, but I found this link that discusses health issues with artificial sweeteners.
Hope this is useful to you!
For baking I try to use honey instead of sugar where ever I can. However, honey is expensive so I use for recipes that needs lots of sugar rather brown or raw sugar.
For cooking honey works very well too. It often even enhances the overall flavour when a good honey is used.
I personally do not use artificial sweetener. I don't like the taste, and I am not sure if it is shown that they do not have unintended side-effects. Especially, aspartame is very controversial in this sense.
Honey is sweeter than sugar, so you need to use about 75 to 80% of the sugar amount. You also need to count it towards the moisture added, as honey is about 20% water.
@Joe - Yes. this is true.
The various artificial sweeteners and stevia can in general not be used to feed yeast or produce caramel. Most are much sweeter than sugar. They are controversial in regards to health effects, but then so is sugar.
The various "raw" sugars can have very different flavor profiles, as an example dark muscovado sugar often imparts a licorice note.
Agave syrup is somewhat "in" because of relatively low GI and should be added to the list.
There's a lot of variety, mainly depending on whether you want something else that's sweet or something that's sweet and has no calories.
Honey, molasses, maple syrup, brown sugar, raw sugar, cane sugar, and (per above) date syrup are all sweet and caloric. Honey, molasses, maple syrup and date syrup are more viscous (goopy). Brown sugar is just regular sugar mixed with molasses. Raw sugar is like granulated sugar but not bleached.
As for non-caloric sweeteners, you have splenda, xylitol, reb-a (Truvia), erythritol, stevia, and aspartame. Splenda is made from sugar and the most similar functionally, although it's not identical. Xylitol is natural but has a cooling aftertaste that doesn't work well in many dishes. Rebiana is chemically similar to stevia's active compound and sounds good but doesn't work as well as it says; it's also mixed with fillers and erythritol. Erythritol is a form of fermented glucose. Stevia is a plant extract that has great sweetness but a lingering aftertaste; some preparations add bulk, but the liquid itself is much sweeter by volume than sugar. Aspartame (nutrasweet) is chemical death, and I recommend you cut it out of your diet.
Xylitol and Erythritol belong to the group of "sugar alcohols" which are similar (but slightly different) to "regular" sugars such as glucose. They certainly have a calorific content! Xylitol is often found in chewing gum - aside from the cooling effect mentioned above, it also helps heal dental caries.
Artificial sweeteners - particularly those that are "zero-calorie" - are mostly fillers such as dextrose anyway. Depending which particular filler they use, it may cause unexpected results in your recipe.
Under the Splenda brand they offer a bulk product that (they claim) can be used interchangeably for sugar in cooking and baking. We typically use it half-and-half with real sugar.
Use glucose sugar for confectionary making as it does not cause crystalisation as you will find occurs if you use normal cane sugar
Do you have any more detail or explanation? Also, can you buy plain old glucose for cooking/baking?
Don't make a drink that is supposed to have sugar without sugar. Unless you're diabetic.
Hmm, yes, I do remember making some Kool-Aid as a kid and being very surprised it needed more than just Kool-Aid and water.
The 'zero-calory' sweetners have more than zero calories. There is a loophole in the product labeling regulations that allows manufacturers to claim zero calories if the package contains less than 1 gram of product. The sweeteners I have checked are all 0.8 grams.
The 'inert' fillers are used to bulk up the volume. Because the sweetners are so much sweeter than sugar, they couldn't sell a packet that contained for example 1/600 of a teaspoon. All of the sweetners I checked list dextrose as the main ingredient. Dextrose is also known as glucose and is a simple sugar. The largest ingredient in sugar substitutes is sugar.
Most refined white sugar available in Canada and I suspect in the U.S. is made from sugar beets and not cane sugar. Cane sugar is sweeter. Most of what is sold as brown sugar is refined white sugar with molasses added back in.
We use coconut sugar for cooking because it is very low on the glycemic index.
Note that most non-chemical substitutes are not as white as refined sugar, so they add colour to baking or cooking. What started as pure white cream cheese and white chocolate icing has become pale brown. It's a different aesthetic, but I think worthwhile.
AT least in the US, the labelling regulations actually say if it is less than 1 calorie per serving, it an be labelled as zero to the best of my knowledge. Beet sugar and cane sugar are both sucrose, and exactly identical in sweetness. Can you back up the assertion that coconut sugar is lower on the glycemic index? It is still mostly sucrose. What is a non-chemical substitute--all sugar is chemicals. Table sugar, for example, is sucrose, C12H22O11. Dextrose is C6H12O6.
Actual US FDA standard, regarding using the phrase "calorie free" or "0 calories": ' "Less than 5 cal per RACC and per labeled serving (b)(1)" See: http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm064911.htm
@SAJ14SAJ The link you gave to the FDA seems to be a dead link. Dunno if there's a suitable replacement link or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.192977
| 2010-07-09T22:01:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/266",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Daniel Moura",
"Elisa Abolafia",
"Grace Note",
"Harlan",
"Joe",
"Jon Onstott",
"Judd Antin",
"Katie Bullock",
"Lipis",
"Mario",
"Nikolay Piryankov",
"No'am Newman",
"Pat",
"Rob",
"Ryan Elkins",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott Newson",
"balpha",
"cowfish",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7195",
"lemontwist",
"lhahne",
"txwikinger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"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.