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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
788
|
What is the difference between sea salt and regular table salt?
I often sea sea salt sold in grinders to be used at the table, with comments about how it tastes better. What sort of taste differences would I notice using sea salt vs table salt, and what other differences might using one over the other impart?
I've also noticed people say that regular table salt is unhealthy, but that sea salt is somehow healthier for you.
I can say, as a salt snob, that sea salt is a far more flavorful product. I can't even use regular table salt anymore.
Sea salt is salt formed from evaporated sea water, is not iodized, and because it doesn't come from salt mines requires very little processing. Some people will say that because it's "natural", sea salt must be better for you. The mayo clinic seems to disagree: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sea-salt/AN01142
"Natural" means almost nothing. However, it is more flavorful because it has other minerals in it. Some of those may be better for you than others.
I agree. The "natural" in quotes was meant to be indicative that it means almost nothing.
Well if it wasn't for your answer I was going to say "price". I can't tell the difference.
which is natural? The seawater that evaporated on its own, or modern polluted water pumped into holding ponds to evaporate? IAC mined salt or harvested bed salt is still evaporated seawater.
Iodine. Table salt has added iodine, and sea salt doesn't. Sea salt also tends to be a little coarser, but that's just cosmetic.
Sea salt isn't as refined as table salt, either, so it may contain traces of other minerals (magnesium, sulfur). Sea salt is also considered to be kosher.
This is slightly misleading, as Sea Salt and Kosher Salt are not the same thing. But still +1 for answering the question correctly.
@mike sherov: It's my understanding that nearly all salt is kosher by default, and that kosher salt is called so because it's used in extracting the blood from meat (which is a process by which meat is made kosher).
@Satanicpuppy, yes, this is true. Which is why it's almost not worth mentioning that sea salt is a kosher salt. If you go to the store and buy "kosher salt", you'll be buying a different product than "sea salt".
It's worth mentioning why the iodine is added: it's not some added preservative, but is added because you need it. Iodine deficiency causes all sorts of nasty problems; and unless you take multi-vitamins, you likely won't get nearly as much iodine as you need if not for the iodine added to table salt.
agreed, @BlueRaja -- unless you're eating plenty of seafood (and most American's aren't), you need to get iodine. I still get disturbing flashbacks from 15+ years ago, when I worked doing web development for a university, and one the faculty members wanted us to scan in a bunch of pictures from his trip for Doctors Without Borders -- I had to pass off the project as hours of looking at the doc posing with people with goiters larger than their head really got to me.
That said, the massive amount of salt in American prepared food probably covers you - if you eat out occasionally, you're probably fine cooking with sea salt all the time.
@NeilG: Nope. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18890/what-is-the-relationship-between-salt-and-iodine or http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es0719071
As mentioned by Satanicpuppy, sea salt is largely regular, uniodized salt but with small amounts of different minerals from ocean water, and without the anticaking agent added to salt. So, at least chemically, they are very similar as sea salt is still ~85% regular salt. The presence of different minerals affects the taste and texture (maybe someone who uses it a lot can tell you how). You can also find iodized sea salt sold in case you want to substitute it completely for normal iodized salt.
It depends on what country you come from.
In many countries "table salt" is just their local sea salt, crushed, filtered, and sometimes iodized.
Not every country has "salt mines", but most countries with a coast line can collect or "farm" evaporated salt. See this PDF
In Italy we basically only use sea salt, in Romania they use mostly rock salt. Once the salt has been mixed into the food, I can't tell the difference. I don't taste salt by itself because... you would have to pay me for it.
Of course, if you did an A/B double blind test, perhaps you would get some effect. But do you care?
Healthwise, food safety agencies the world over seem to have no problem at all with rock salt and sea salt. Somebody befor ementioned iodine - that is something to keep in mind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.193616
| 2010-07-12T21:23:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/788",
"authors": [
"Abby",
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Carlton Jenke",
"Cascabel",
"GalacticCowboy",
"JDługosz",
"Joe",
"Joshua",
"Karen Schele",
"Lex",
"Mike",
"Mike Sherov",
"Peter Stone",
"Rang",
"Satanicpuppy",
"ceejayoz",
"henry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"tool"
],
"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
}
|
10651
|
Looking for meal-planning / grocery list software
I'm looking for software (either PC-based, or web-based) that can be used for meal planning and generating shopping lists. What I'd like is for it to store recipes that I have, including their ingredients. At the beginning of the week, I would like to select recipes and side dishes for dinners and have it generate a shopping list of things necessary for those recipes. A nice feature would be for it to calculate calories, fat content, etc., for the week.
Is there such a thing out there?
Thanks.
If you happen to be vegetarian/vegan, vegweb.com includes a similar feature; you can save recipes found on the site and then generate a grocery list. (but not quite what you want because AFAIK you can't directly add your own recipes (without going through the normal recipe submission/mod review process, which takes a while))
Disclaimer: I am the owner of the company behind this service as well as the programmer of it.
Except for calculating nutritional data, http://bechamel.net does exactly this, if you are a registered user (which is free). Please note that there's not a whole lot of activity on the rest of the site though, and because of that, there's not a lot of development going on (that doesn't mean there are any plans to shut it down, there's not).
To use Béchamel for this, go to a recipe, click "I want to eat this soon", drag the recipe to the applicable day, go to the shopping list, and add the recipe. You can adjust servings either per recipe in the list, or globally in your profile. It will even coalesce equivalent ingredients in the shopping list (2 eggs in one recipe and 3 eggs in another will become 5 eggs in the shopping list).
Feel free to use it if it fits your needs.
Just to be clear, when you say "drag the recipe" are you referring to a recipe that is already on your site or any recipe on the web (aka, dragging the link to the page with the recipe)? Thanks for your help.
A recipe already on the site. If it's not there yet, you'll need to add it. If you don't want anyone else to see the recipe, you can add it as a draft.
Unfortunately, this link is dead.
Pepperplate http://pepperplate.com has a web site, which is great for collecting recipes and they also have both iPhone and iPad apps. iPhone app is convenient when shopping, iPad app when actually cooking.
I was about to implement something like Pepperplate myself, but then found them and been happy so far. There is some annoying bugs in apps, but I hope they get them sorted out.
There is an iPhone app in Australia that may be as close as you want.
http://www.coles.com.au/Stores-Services/Coles-shopmate.aspx
It's not 100% what you are after, but have a look at it as reference.
By chance I had the same question today and installed Gourmet Recipe Manager. Available for Windows and Linux.
"Gourmet Recipe Manager is an application to store, organize and search recipes. Gourmet also makes it easy to create shopping lists from recipes. Gourmet imports recipes from a number of sources, including MealMaster and MasterCook archives and several popular websites. Gourmet can export recipes as text, MealMaster files, HTML web pages, and a custom XML format for exchange with other Gourmet users. Gourmet supports linking images with recipes. Gourmet can also calculate nutritional information for recipes based on the ingredients."
http://grecipe-manager.sourceforge.net
I recommend Paprikia: http://www.paprikaapp.com/
I like http://shopglider.com/
It is web-based, pretty simple: you keep shopping lists and recipes there, can share account between multiple people. Then you decide what to buy next time and plan trip to shops.
They also have Windows Phone app that synchronizes with the web site - so one account user can add more stuff while another it shopping :), but no iPhone or Android app (at least yet).
I built a site that does exactly what you're asking for:
http://mealfire.com
There's no nutritional data, but everything else you've mentioned is there. Actually, you're paragraph is a pretty good description of the core features of the site!
I'm in the process of developing a new web app that'll do just this. I'd love to talk to you about features you'd like. If you're still looking for something feel free to contact me at @adammckerlie on twitter.
Give a try to HipRecipes.com:
It is a web app, completely free
You can search for recipes and add them to your basket
And the app assemble a grocery list for you, organised by categories!
Maybe CookDiary is to your taste. ;) It does everything you want with the exception of calories calculation (at the moment).
The program is written by me so ask away if you have any problems.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.194138
| 2011-01-01T03:18:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10651",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Jason",
"Liz",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Patricia Pichler",
"Steve Kalemkiewicz",
"Tara",
"Verdi_Michael",
"Xener",
"codeOrDie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"mfinni",
"schmudu",
"user13370",
"user21834",
"user21848",
"user8552"
],
"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
}
|
10500
|
Do I need to season a stainless steel saute pan?
Okay, I received a nice stainless steel saute pan for Christmas and in looking around online there are people that say I need to season it. Most of the techniques I've seen involve oil and salt and cooking that for a bit and then wiping it out. Is this necessary? Do I need to do it every time I use the pan? Are there other techniques that you folks use? I had never heard of this for stainless steel, but I want to make sure I'm taking care of the pan correctly.
Thanks.
I've never heard of doing anything other than giving it a good cleaning, as you would with any new item before first use.
I've only heard of seasoning used for cast iron and carbon steel, not for stainless steel. Looking online, I did find instructions for seasoning stainless steel, but I'd be inclined to look at the paperwork that came with the pan -- if the manufacturer recommends doing something, follow their instructions. If they don't, just give it a good wash.
Yeah, that's all I've done so far. And the paperwork that came with the pan just says the same thing: wash with soap and warm water before the first use.
Same here. No need to do anything special with stainless steel. Happy Sauté!
Seasoning the pan will make it less likely to stick, but will also give it a brownish tinge, so it won't be "shiny and new" looking. And if you ever scrub it with steel wool, you'll have to do it all over again.
Seasoning the pan basically creates a surface of oil that has been baked on so that your food is on that rather than directly touching the metal, so less sticking. It is brownish on stainless (I have a whole bunch of pans that look like that, which annoys the wife, but since I do the cooking, she lets it go) and is unnoticeable (other than the deeper black) on cast iron. Because of the porous nature of cast iron, seasoning is absolutely essential if you don't want sticking...or rusting. Stainless has no rust issue and the metal, although it has surface texture, is not as open as cast iron, so the seasoning is optional.
If you use enough oil when you cook and get the oil hot first, you will not experience sticking problems with an unseasoned stainless pan, but if you are trying to do low fat cooking on a barely oiled pan, proteins, in particular, will tend to stick.
NO!
You never season stainless steel. Seasoning is the result of carbon "binding" with a cast iron surface creating a natural non stick layer. The chrome in the stainless steel keeps that process from happening properly and/or evenly, which is likely to leave you with a badly stained and sticky pan.
You keep stainless clean and shiny.
No, don't season stainless steel unless the manufacturer recommends it. Read the accepted answer here: Why does my food turn out poorly using an All-Clad Stainless-Steel Fry Pan?. That's how to best to use and treat a "nice stainless steel pan". Also from that same thread, s_hewitt shares a great video on temperature testing. Getting your pan to the proper temperature before you add oil or food is the key to food not sticking to stainless steel.
One more important point about caring for your pan: Please, never run it under water or put it in water while it is still hot. That is how even very good pans get warped. You can and should deglaze your pan while it is still hot by adding liquid and scraping up the tasty bits, that's the start of a great pan sauce and the bonus of a cleaner pan, but absolutely don't rinse or wash your pan until it's cool enough to touch.
There are some uses for seasoning a stainless steel pan to give it an inherit non-stick property. However just to note, most people just use teflon.
EG: If you want to cook scrambled eggs with stainless steel, you will need to season the pan. Else all the stirring will cause the proteins to bypass the oil (it was resting on this) and to touch the bare metal.
I did just pour in maybe a tbsp of olive oil (I don't use salt, I'm not sure what that does for SS?), then heat it, just before/as it smokes I remove it from the heat and wipe it with a clean thick dishcloth. This has been the one thing that makes cooking on it a flawless breeze. Prior to that I would say 80-90% no sticking issue just using the water- leidenfrost effect. I made scrambled eggs just minutes ago on it (having not been washed for 2 days, just wiped out after), heated it at medium heat for roughly 2 min, then checked with water, then added my eggs. They just slide around better than any other pan I've used. Omelette in 2 min and no stick, just wiped out, shiny metal and perfect as new.
seasoning a stainless steel skillet is not as necessary as a cast iron unless you'll be making something like a crepe or a pancake and even then you might not need to! there's a trick to using your pan in such a way that nothing sicks even without seasoning one of them is adding oil the other is preheating the pan tough this method work on some foods more than others. as for cooking meat if its something lean you just need to add a bit of oil and heat it up before adding your protein, if its something fatty you can like a steak then you can heat the pan and once its hot enough just render the fat from the meat by sticking the fatty side directly on to the pan till most of the fat has rendered on to the pan then just cook it normally in both cases just wait for the meat to cook on one side before flipping it will release on its own once it's ready
Anyone who suggests you should not season a stainless pan clearly has no experience in the professional cooking realm. Seasoning stainless is quite common among professional chefs. Some people think stainless means it should always be clean and shiny. Well, if you want that then there will be some foods you should never prepare in stainless unless you enjoy cleaning and scrubbing. There are some who think that cooking in seasoned stainless or cast iron is a terrible thing because you don't sterilize the pan each time and you will somehow fall sick as a result of eating on this 'contaminated' cooling surface. Little do these people know that most of the time they go and eat at almost any restaurant that they are eating food prepared in a seasoned pan or baking dish. Seasoning stainless is perfectly acceptable and even desired by anyone who takes cooking seriously.
I've never heard the claim that seasoning is somehow "contaminated". In any case, it's obvious nonsense since the pan is heated well above the boiling point of water when it's used, so it is sterilized.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.194552
| 2010-12-26T14:41:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10500",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"BaffledCook",
"Barbara",
"DDiVita",
"Dante617",
"David Richerby",
"Ocala Window Replacement",
"dmSherazi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"kalynbaur"
],
"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
}
|
12620
|
How to prepare shirataki noodles to more closely resemble classic pasta?
I've tried shirataki in spaghetti with meat sauce but the noodles' texture and flavor didn't fit with the sauce very well. Perhaps there's a way to make it work that I'm not aware of?
I'd like to figure out how to prep and use shirataki noodles so that they take on a texture of classic pasta which would open many culinary possibilities. Any hints and ideas?
I'm sorry but right now this question is basically a recipe request, which is off topic here. However, if you wanted to ask about pairings for these noodles or why the spaghetti sauce didn't work, we could probably help you out there. If you are looking for the basic techniques how to properly prepare them, I'm sure that somebody has an answer there too.
@sarge: Sure, i'll redo the question.
Thank you ma'am. Hopefully, someone will be along shortly to answer this for you :)
Why not use regular pasta? If the flavor and texture don't work, and shirataki have almost no food value anyway (apart from fiber), it hardly seems worth the effort.
After a bunch of Googling and reading I found that there are several ways to improve the noodles:
Rinse and drain them very, very well
Boil them for an extended amount of time to reduce the crunch
Dry them out in a pan (they'll shrivel a bit) before adding them to recipes where they either remain crunchy (in dryer dishes) or absorb sauce and flavor (saucier dishes)
Here are some my sources:
Shrimp Scampi
List with many recipes
Various suggestions
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.195088
| 2011-02-27T04:26:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12620",
"authors": [
"Dear Home Cook",
"El Cheicon",
"Eriol",
"Voo",
"Zack Gao",
"admkatfish",
"bikeboy389",
"gapple",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"indyone",
"nbrew",
"sarge_smith",
"ulty4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5897
|
How long does unopened, room temperature pop last?
How long does a can of coca-cola last? Like a case of them, sitting in a room-temperature room. There is a date on the bottom (MAR1411), but what does that mean?
I have a can with the World Cup on it, and I just became really curious.
It lasts indefinitely. The date you are seeing should be viewed as a "best before" date. Over time the soda can become flat and the flavor will degrade, but it will still be drinkable as long as the can was not compromised.
Based on looking at some Coke I recently purchased, it appears that the date is likely 1 year in the future from when it was canned. The cans in my fridge have a date of JUN1711; I bought these in late July.
Plastic bottles. on the other hand, have a much shorter "best before" window. This is because the plastic bottle leaks the carbonation much quicker than an aluminum can does. I don't have any bottles on hand, but if I recall correctly they typically have a date only 3 months out.
Once after a food booth at a craft show, my family had several cases of 7-Up (in cans) left over, and we decided we'd save them in the basement. Some time later (as I recall, about a year after the expiration date), we remembered them, and tried to drink it. It tasted horrible, and we ended up throwing it all away.
My personal experience confirms Flimzy's comment.
Also, plastic bottles leak chemicals (usually phthalates, which act as endocrine disruptors and may be linked to cancer) into the pop over time, and the rate of release accelerates over time as the plastic breaks down, which is another reason to want to drink pop in plastic bottles quickly or not at all.
@hobodave, wait, what? It lasts indefinitely,......except: the soda becomes flat and flavor degrades?? Eh, what ?
Diet drinks such as Diet Coke have a much shorter shelf life since the artificial sweetener degrades rapidly. I believe the expiration date is on the order of three months for cans. Not too much longer after that they taste pretty bad.
The corn-syrup based soft drinks I usually see are undated or carry a coded date depending on the brand.
How and whether soft drinks are dated varies by brand and possibly by bottler within a brand.
If you're keeping the can as a collectible, be aware that the can will probably eventually develop a pinhole and the contents will be lost. Bottle collectors never empty the bottles since that adversely affects the value.
Diet cola stores very poorly. The sweetener can react with the acids to form formaldehyde (among other things) if the temp is above something like 100F. I avoid all diet soda, just to be safe (and it tastes bad).
I have bought cans of diet soda from a vending machine a couple of times that tasted like they had very little or no sweetener in them but otherwise were OK. It never occurred to me to check the expiration date. I thought that maybe they were just part of a bad batch of sodas from the bottling plant.
Bought a Dr Pepper (in a can) from the vending machine in the back. The date was Aug11/08 Still tastes great and it's Oct22, 2012 :D
I was visiting a facility in Arizona a couple of years back, and hit up their vending machine for a Mountain Dew ... it was noticably off, and then I noticed the date on it was a couple of years in the past. I want to say it was past the date by 2 to 5 years, but can't remember exactly ... it might be that the temperature extremes affected it more (it was in a basement, but I assume it wasn't a refigerated delivery truck).
I have seen my Grandfather drink old bottles of Pepsi & Coke that were over 25 years old. He buys & sell second hand items (mostly antiques). He's told me numerous times that the old pop tastes better.
btw: Heat changes nutrisweet - so there is a change in flavor that is unpleasant. I see stores putting the boxes of diet coke outside in the sun - When I see this I wonder how often the soda is stored in a very hot warehouse or truck! For years I have bought 12 packs of canned diet coke when they are on sale at holidays. All of a sudden - I quit drinking them after being addicted to them for years. I have 3 12 packs that are approaching one year old - I guess I will have to open one to see if it is worth giving to a relative.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.195259
| 2010-08-24T20:47:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5897",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Flimzy",
"Joe",
"LadanC",
"Les",
"Lorel C.",
"Margaret Talbot Dunbar",
"Mintas Lanxor",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057"
],
"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
}
|
6983
|
How can I improve the 2:1:1 margarita recipe?
I bought my wife that Margaritaville Frozen Concoction Maker, and it is awesome. We make a lot of margaritas, but always with pre-made mixes. I tried one recipe to make one from scratch, and it was HORRIBLE.
I tried using the 2:1:1 ratio described below - 2 parts tequila, 1 part triple sec, 1 part lime juice. It tasted just like a shot of tequila with a little lime.
What are some alternatives I can try to make it taste better?
Hi @Martin! Per the FAQ (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq), a recipe request isn't on-topic for this site. If you provide us with the recipe you used and ask for suggestions on how to improve, however, that would be well-received and hopefully we can help you better your existing recipe. Once you've edited your question, leave a comment and we can vote to re-open.
Hi @Martin, as @justkt said, recipe requests are considered off topic for this site (an explanation of why is here.). I have closed your question (what this means is here) until it can be whipped into shape. If you let us know the recipe you didn't like we will more than likely be able to help.
Discussion on meta: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/746/are-recipe-requests-ok-if-they-are-fundamental-enough
I think it would be helpful to know more specifically what you didn't like about it. What flavor seemed to be missing? Or was it just not sweet enough?
You probably are used to having a lot of sugar in your mixes. Use lime-ade instead of lime juice, or add some simple syrup. Adding orange juice also helps. Of course, this isn't "traditional", but you'll probably like it better.
If you're looking for a ratio, I would try something like 2 parts tequila, 1 part triple sec, 2 parts lime-ade, 2 parts orange juice. Adjust the lime-ade and orange juice until it tastes good to you.
The traditional ratio also works better with the smaller limes that are usually called "Mexican limes" or "Key limes", as they tend to be a bit sweeter than the big Persian limes most people in the US are used to. Far more work to squeeze, however. I'd also never use this ratio for a frozen margarita, just for a rocks margarita; those frozen ones almost always have tons of sugar or corn syrup.
My favorite ratio is the simple 2:1:1
(2 parts tequila,
1 part triple sec,
1 part lime)
The "official" ratio is 7:4:3, but that's more geared toward a crowd.
What I'd recommend is doing 2:1 and then adding lime until it tastes right. You can buy a sweetened lime syrup in the store, if you like the extra sugar.
See ... I tried the 2:1:1, but I guess it wasn't sweet enough for me. I will try the extra sugar. Thanks.
@martin: I tend to use Roses's lime juice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose%27s_lime_juice)
There has been a lot of debate over this topic. It usually boils down to preference. A neat ratio I have tried more than once is as follows:
2 parts tequila, 1 part fresh lime juice (yes, from a lime), 1 part lime juice (from concentrate, perhaps a lime-aid of sorts or a lime juice mix you like) and 1/2 part Cointreau or Grand Marnier (no Triple Sec unless you have no money and you are using Quervo ;--), and 1/4 part simple syrup.
Lately, I have been getting into making my own simple syrups for Margaritas. They fit in nicely in place of added sugar or orange flavored liquors or, in my example above, in conjunction with. Just dissolve 1:1 warm water and sugar, let cool, and bottle for later (be careful, though, long storage will lead to spoiling).
I like Bob's advice above, and adding OJ to margaritas is very good. One final trick I learned is to add a bit of pomegranate juice for color and tangy-ness.
"triple sec" is really used as a generic term for "orange-flavored liqueur". Cointreau is what I actually buy, though :)
As well as using quality ingredients, proper mixing technique is also important. A Margarita can be intimidatingly strong and/or sharp for those with a sweet tooth, if it hasn't been sufficiently diluted. Ice is one of the most important cocktail ingredients and getting it wrong can ruin a cocktail.
Shaking with ice will introduce some dilution and will help to smooth out the edges a little. It's therefore critical to add lots of ice to your shaker and shake the cocktail for at least ten seconds. If the shaker isn't covered in condensation and hasn't become uncomfortably cold to the touch, you haven't shaken the drink long enough.
Before you totally give up on the classic 'rita, you should really try it with good ingredients, and definitely feel free to adjust the proportions to your taste. My favorite simple margarita is 2oz Sauza Hornitos Reposado, 1oz Cointreau, and 1oz fresh squeezed lime juice, shaken with ice and served in a salt-rimmed rocks glass. My wife does like a little less sour, so I usually go 1½oz tequila, 1oz Cointreau, and ¾oz lime juice for her. You'll be amazed at how good tequila can taste!
The most important thing is starting with a reasonably good tequila. Cuervo Gold is just for shooting at the bar after you're already too drunk to taste anything. ;-)
Me and my wife had the same reaction to trying it the "official" way.
What found really did it for us was 1 can of concentrated frozen limeade mix and then half a can of tequila and 1/4 can of triple sec and just pour it all in a blender and it's delicious as well as super easy.
Was also delicious throwing in some fresh strawberries for a strawberry margarita.
2 oz Silver Tequila,
1 oz Orange Liquer,
1 oz Lime Juice,
.5 - 1 tblsp agave nectar
Can you please explain why this is an improvement? We're not a recipe sharing site, so just posting an answer that's a recipe isn't really an answer to the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.195642
| 2010-09-08T14:03:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6983",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Bri",
"Catija",
"Debabrata",
"Donna",
"JasonTrue",
"Jeremy",
"Lisa Madison",
"Manu P Nair",
"Margaret",
"Martin",
"Mary Isabella Davin",
"Michael Natkin",
"Muhammad Sholihin",
"Renato Lochetti",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Steve V",
"Thanos",
"esther h",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53283",
"justkt",
"user14238",
"user21997",
"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
}
|
8030
|
How to keep 'fresh' chorizo?
A relative of mine is in food retail, and recently she gave me some chorizo. With the basic advice 'hang it in the fridge'
I am not sure if it is edible as yet, and how long it will be edible for, are there any guidelines for this? Should it be eaten raw or cooked?
Also my fridge is not really suitable for hanging the food is there any advice for this?
edit
Thanks for the answers, I believe that it is cured chorizo, but it is still being cured, is there a guideline on how long it will be before it is safe to eat?
Are you asking is it safe to eat without frying or otherwise cooking it?
Partly, I suppose I am asking if it is safe to eat and how to store it so it remains so.
Without knowing the constituent ingredients of the sausage it is difficult to give exact advice. There are generally two types of chorizo fresh (or cooking chorizo) and cured chorizo.
Fresh or cooking chorizo is made with pork, red wine, smoked paprika and salt (along with some other spices depending on the particular recipe). The alcohol and salt combine as a mild preservative and therefore the sausage will last a little longer than a normal fresh sausage but only a few weeks realistically. As the name and the lack of a long curing process suggests it needs cooking before it can be eaten.
Cured chorizo is made using similar ingredients but uses more salt and sometimes some sodium nitrate and nitrite. The additional chemicals create a much stronger preservative drawing out the moisture and curing the meat so that it can be safely eaten raw when finished.
Cured chorizo develops a darker colour and loses around 30% of it's weight as it hangs whereas the fresh chorizo is likely to go bad if left to hang but this is only general advice and not definitive.
As for hanging locations, sausages normally hang best in cool environments, 15 degrees C max, with a humidity of 60-70%.
Hope this helps.
From what your friend tells you, it will be a cured Chorizo.
When a cured Chorizo is soft, it could be hung to dry, or it could be used for cooking (or it could be eaten as it is), depending on your preferences.
Cured Chorizo can be kept hanging in a cool dark place for a long time. As the moist evaporates it will dry out. Once it starts to get tough, it will be a good time to start eating it.
The skin will develop a white fungus that's not harmful and the bacteria in the cured Chorizo are lactobacillus that are 'sold' as healthy in yogurt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.196196
| 2010-10-11T14:55:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8030",
"authors": [
"Jeremy French",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88845
|
Traditional Easter Turkey
I was talking to my butcher today who told me that lamb is a fairly recent favourite at Easter and that turkey used to be traditional (in England)
I spoke to my mum and she confirmed that her parents always used to have turkey then too, though she didn't realise it was a tradition.
I can't find much info on this online. I'd like to know. What are traditional accompaniments to an English Easter turkey.
I'd assume that they are sufficiently different to Thanksgiving and Christmas as there is more spring produce available.
My grandparents were from Hampshire and London and my Butcher is from Kent, so this was at least a south of England tradition, but I have not been able to find much about easter turkey from any region online.
Any links and references would be greatly appreciated as my Google-fu has failed me with this. I can find repurposed Christmas recipes but nothing specifically for Easter. For what it is worth, ham and goose used to be more popular with my grandparents than turkey at Christmas.
I think this question is too broad, also opinion based. You're assuming that your own country/area's traditions are everyone's. Accompaniments vary widely, I don't see this being answered authoritatively.
@GdD if I made the question more specific to England would that remove the breadth problem
To me it would, it might help to narrow it down to region as well. There's different food traditions in the north as opposed to the south-west, south east, etc.
the History StackExchange might be able to take this if it's closed here.
@GdH I've changed it to make it more England specific, but really I can't find much about it at all. Googling easter and turkey brings up this question on the second page of the results so it is not a common thing
I've been living in London for 15 years and I've never heard of turkey being traditional at easter, the mere mention of serving something other than lamb is met with hostility. Realistically, there's not much more produce available at easter than at Christmas, the growing season hasn't started yet. Spring greens come to mind, as do cabbages.
@JeremyFrench You have one person's word that it is "a tradition", and no further evidence, and say yourself that it is "not a common thing". I would define a tradition as something which is commonly done and has come to be the expectation of how things should be (as GdD describes it, the mention of breaking a tradition is met with hostility). Are you sure that there is a question to be asked at all?
"Traditional" in what sense and for how long? Lamb has been associated with Easter since the dawn of Christianity (consider phrases such as "the Lamb of God"), whereas turkeys have only existed in Europe for a few hundred years.
@rumtscho I have two sources who are unrelated, but I can find little online about it. Which is why I asked here, I thought there may be others who knew of it with more detail.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.196414
| 2018-04-02T23:04:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88845",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Jeremy French",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8564
|
How long can i keep home made caesar dressing?
The dressing contains raw eggs, olive oil, lemon juice, garlic, Worcestershire, mustard, salt and pepper. How long can I keep it in the fridge in a airtight container?
No garlic? Are you sure this is a Caesar dressing?
of course there is garlic! but i don't think this has an effect on how long i can keep it.
It's anaerobic, but it's also got a relatively low ph, which botulism doesn't like. I don't think the garlic matters very much in terms of storage.
@daniel: I see. I have updated my question with the full ingredients list. There is also lemon juice in the dressing and that certainly affects shelf-life...
@Satanicpuppy: I think it does matter, you need a much lower pH than this to really stop botulism growth. Practically speaking, I think that the eggs would start to go rotten here before botulism became an issue, but I'm not confident enough in that statement to make it an answer.
Synchronicity! I made this for the first time last weekend as well and had the same question. +1 on the question.
Up to 7 days (homemade mayo as well). Egg whites/yolks out of the egg (but not combined with the acid) can last 3-4 days refrigerated, and eggs in-shell are good for 2-4 weeks depending on processing.
You can age raw eggs by keeping them in the fridge for 3 days, so I would definitely say more than 3 days, but less than a week. I think the dressing would develop a bad consistency or start to taste too strong before it actually spoiled.
I don't get this one either. To temper an egg means to add a relatively small amount of hot liquid so as to warm it up without setting it, and allow it to subsequently be exposed to higher temperatures without instant setting. I have never heard of "tempering" an exposed egg by leaving it in the refrigerator for 3 days and would like to see some reference for this.
maybe i used the wrong term? When I make macarons the recipe calls for me to keep the egg whites in the fridge for 3 days, to achieve the appropriate consistency. Yes, that was wrong term, sorry for the confusion.
Hmmm. It's the eggs that have the potential to cause problems. I'd say less than a week, or until the acid kills the egg, and causes the whole thing to de-emulsify.
Raw eggs last 2 to 4 days in the fridge but only 2 hours at room temp, so I would only make what will be used within 24 hours, just to be safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.196683
| 2010-10-27T02:39:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8564",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Candace",
"James Firemage",
"Manako",
"PeterJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sly",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"sumek",
"user17571",
"user70117"
],
"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
}
|
9101
|
What are some different ways of preparing flax seeds?
I recently got to know the nutritious value of flax seeds.What characteristics of these seeds should I know about and how can I incorporate them into my cooking?
Hi codaddict, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I believe that flax seeds are probably an unusual enough ingredient to fit the culinary uses guidelines, however, please keep in mind that questions on this site should relate to cooking or preparing food and not consuming it. I've edited the question accordingly and hope that the edited question still retains the spirit of what you're asking about.
The tricky thing with flax seeds is to grind them fine enough. I've found that my coffee grinder, for example, won't do the job because the seeds have a very hard coat. You can buy vacuum packed pre-ground meal and that may be a good option.
Once you have ground flax seeds, they can be added in small amounts to baked goods very easily. Adding say 1/4 to 1/2 cup to a muffin, quickbread, or yeast bread will work nicely and add a nutty flavor.
They can also be sprinkled on salads or grain dishes. You could add a little sea salt and use them somewhat like gomashio.
You can soak them in water overnight and incorporate them into bread, allowing for the added water, of course.
Flax has various culinary uses:
as a substitute for fats in recipes
as a stand alone beverage; soaked in liquid overnight
as a 'digestive'; again soak seeds overnight in liquid
as a substitute for any other seed in recipes
enjoy!
I add two tablespoons of ground flax seeds to my morning yoghurt. Be sure to mix well!
Hi @no'am - could you provide some actual uses for ground flax seeds rather than just a recipe?
I think in this case the recipe was the use...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.196912
| 2010-11-14T03:22:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9101",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chase Smith",
"Helen",
"KaidaJekri",
"Melinda Benford",
"PhoneixS",
"Rumi P.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shiva Prasad",
"Veneto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72252",
"jkeene",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
48939
|
How can I start down the path of eating less meat?
Recently I've been giving more thought to the idea of moving toward a more vegetarian diet. The trouble I've encountered, though, is that it seems hard to find recipes and eating suggestions that are not full-on vegan/vegetarian.
For example, I don't enjoy whole wheat bread or other whole wheat things, but those kinds of things are often worked into vegetarian recipes. Regular pizza with white flour is fine by me, at this stage. My theory is that if I try to change too much at once, none of it will stick. I want to eat more veggies, but I don't want the dogma that comes along with vegetarianism.
I'm not looking for strict vegetarian or vegan. I'm not planning on giving up steak or chicken at this point in the journey. I do want to eat a few vegetable-based meals per week to get more veggies in my diet.
What are some resources (books, blogs, etc.) to get started eating more veggie-based meals?
EDIT, in response to comments:
In regards to the why behind this question, I'm simply looking to eat healthier. It's not for the sake of the animals (sorry animals, but you taste nice).
I'm looking for a few "staple" recipes that I can make on a regular basis that'll be mostly made of veggies. I like (and make) lentil soup, for instance (with chicken broth in it), and I had a curried cauliflower soup recently that was very good.
Maybe what I'm looking for is a book of vegetarian-ish recipes that focus on ingredients from the local grocery store rather than specialty items from a health food store.
Can you describe more about the why you are interested in moving toward a plant-based diet? Context I think will help suggest resources more specifically. There are plenty of good reasons for eating more plants / less animals, but they vary widely (for the environment, personal health, animal welfare, ...) and resources might be biased toward one of those. Personal health might be the context in which you find whole grains in the recipes, for example.
If you think of all of your meat-centric meals to be 60% meat, 40% (vegetables, carb filler) then just adjust the proportions. If you have 300g steak and 200g vegetables on the side, then start by changing to a 200g steak and 300g vegetables, and keep adjusting as necessary. Do the recipes really have to change? Pasta with meat and vegetables, just put a bit less meat in and a bit more vegetables in. You can keep doing what you've been doing, just adjusting the ratio.
That's an answer I'd upvote @setek.
Buy a good (fuzzy logic) rice cooker. Learn to use it for brown rice quinoa, oat groats, soups, stews, beans, lentils (maybe cakes) etc. etc. Meat works well as a flavorant, rather than the main dish, in rice cooker recipes.
This seems like it's veering broader and broader. As it is, it sounds like you want cookbooks, blogs, people's favorite go-to recipes, menu planning advice, and so on. No one's voted to close it yet, but based on the question and the kinds of answers it's attracting, I think it might warrant putting on hold to let you figure out a more specific, focused question to ask. (Or even to split it into a few.)
@Jefromi, you might be right... maybe I don't really know enough about what I'm looking for to ask a focused question yet. I like setek's answer though, and I think it does answer the title of the question, as stated. I'll mark it as accepted, and ask another when I can narrow it down more.
Further to my comment:
If you think of all of your meat-centric meals to be something like 60% meat, 40% (vegetables, carb filler) then just adjust the proportions.
If you have 300g steak and 200g vegetables on the side, then start by changing to a 200g steak and 300g vegetables, and keep adjusting as necessary.
Pasta with meat and vegetables, just put a bit less meat in and a bit more vegetables in. I used to do 500g dry pasta, 1kg meat, 1kg vegetables, but now I simply do unchanged 500g of pasta, with 600-800g meat, 1.2-1.4kg vegetables.
Your recipes don't actually have to change, as long as you don't go completely off the reservation. Once you cut out meat completely, or have very little of it, you may find your food lacking in flavour, and it's then that you will have to do something else to add more flavour back in. As long as you still want to have some meat in your food, you can keep doing what you've been doing, just adjusting the ratio of meat to vegetables.
Good luck!
For the 'lacking in flavor' ... it may be worth looking into the concept of 'umami', which is basically our taste receptor for glutimates. Aged cheeses, mushrooms (especially when dried), seaweed, soy sauce and lots of other ingredients have it, not just meat. Growing up, my mom would add beef bullion to vegetable dishes instead of salt. And there's always straight MSG.
@Joe mushrooms are great because they have a meatiness to them, mmm I love mushrooms, especially with duck :P
Good quality bullion powder (I prefer chicken myself) is a great ingredient. Mushrooms though - not a fan of the fungus unless it's morels and chanterelles. So expensive mushrooms!
What of truffles, @GdD? :)
Oh definitely truffles too. Although are truffles mushrooms?
Well, they're "the fruiting body of a fungus" and so supposedly are mushrooms :)
There's a book (and it seems website, too) called the 'Gradual Vegetarian' that's exactly what you're asking about. The website's recipes seem to be vegetarian, but the book has a lot of recipes where meat is present, but not the main ingredient.
You could also try something like Mark Bittman's 'VB6' plan (and he has a book, but I haven't read that one) where he ate vegan meals through the day except for dinner.
Also consider that 'vegitarian' and 'whole grains' don't necessarily have to go together. They're both diets (in the sense of 'what we eat'). For instance, many traditional Italian dishes use meat as a flavoring (not the main ingredient) but then have lots of pasta. So much so that my grandfather actually refused to eat pasta (except for lasagne) after growing up in the depression.
... and speaking of that, you can also look for depression-era recipes. There are some great videos (and a cookbook that I don't have) on Great Depression Cooking with Clara that can give you some good ideas on meals that don't use much meat and are inexpensive.
Good advice, although the phrase "Great Depression Cooking" conjures images of a darkened kitchen. A man cooks boxed macaroni and cheese in his bathrobe. His tears are the only seasoning he needs.
He drops the spoon back into the pot dejectedly and abandons the endeavor before ordering two pizzas.
I'm interpreting your question as "how do I make tasty low meat food" as asking how to eat less meat is simply answered - eat less meat in proportion to vegetables and grains. Have half the steak and more vegetable sides in a meal, job done. Substitute beans and pulses for meat protein.
Many people feel that less meat means less flavor in your food, which is so not true if you look to other cuisines from around the world where meat is less of a feature due to scarcity and/or religion. Meat features high in western cooking, often vegetables are on the side and prepared as an afterthought, yet there's plenty of opportunities out there, especially with Italian. Asia is where I look for good vegetarian dishes, for example Indian curries and stir fries with Chinese/Thai/Indonesian flavors like ginger, soy, fish sauce, etc.
If he's eating a typical American diet, then even 1/2 the meat may be more protein than he needs. (ie, no need to add in beans & pulses ... although I am a fan of lentil curries ... beans & rice, etc)
It's true @Joe, the amount of animal protein you really need per day is very small, a couple pieces of cheese will do for most people.
Or in more concrete figures, about a pound a week of meat is sufficient animal protein even when not consuming any dairy whatsoever. Side benefit: if your meat consumption is that low, it doesn't have to be all lean meat anymore.
I found I had most success doing like-for-like recipe swaps on my existing roster, one at a time. It's easy to keep up the habit of making these because they require little change to your current routine.
For example, if you make chilli con carne, make bean chilli. If you like ham pizza, try mushroom. If you make stirfry with meat, swap in 1-2 additional types of veg, etc. Switch chicken curry for a cauliflower one, or a dal. For recipes which really require meat, just fiddle with ratios as suggested above.
NB Don't get discouraged if the first attempt with a new recipe doesn't taste as good - tweak until you'd be just as happy to make the veg version (it took me about 4 goes to get enough umami in my bean chilli).
Albeit this question is around for a while, maybe my answer is still helpful.
I am a weekday vegetarian, inspired by a TED Talk by Graham Hill.
Do not get me wrong: I celebrate eating meat and I like it. It is just something rather extraordinary in my diet. Fish on Saturday, meat on Sunday, so that I have the time and can prepare it with the due respect. And I only eat "organic" meat – no meat from factory farming, only from farms which obey species-appropriate husbandry. Just following this rule will sooner or later reduce the amount of meat you eat – meat from those sources is 4 to 6 times as expensive as meat from factory farming. And it is not that you can get it in your average supermarket. I usually have to walk quite an extra mile to get what I want (Try to get a calf cheek for a four person dinner out of species-appropriate farming and you know what I mean).
What you will encounter is a time frame in which you will crave for proteins, as was noted before. Honestly, I never really understood what craving appetite meant until that. To counter this craving, you need to adapt the vegetarian part of your diet accordingly. Depending on what else is acceptable for you, eggs and cheese (cream and cottage cheese helped me a lot) and beans or legumes in general will reduce the craving. I have not found a way during those times which eliminated this craving. And I have to admit I sinned against my own intentions, as various butchers and Fast Food chains still hold in dear memory to this day. ;) It might happen to you, too if you follow that path – simply go on. As you correctly observed, it is a process.
This craving period lasted about 3 months, which might have something to do that I was what could easily be called an anti-vegetarian. During these three months, I gained 10 pounds, because I unconsciously substituted my craving for proteins with all the healthy stuff the munchies shelf in the supermarket offers. From what I know now, I would have created a trail mix out of various nuts and dates.
After I survived this craving period, I now take the rules of the imho excellent "Eat to win" by Dr. Robert Haas as a guideline. It may take a while to get hold of a copy, though.
With a lot of oversimplification, Dr. Haas postulates a diet providing your calories by 80% out of carbohydrates, 15% proteins and 5% fat. I know the disciples of low-carb/paleo/Atkins will now cry out in rage, but I can only say - works for me.
Vegan for 8 years here, vegetarian before this. The big craving pot holes are FAT, SALT, PROTEIN and MILK. Everything else is pretty much the same. You are going to want to stock up on sauces (veganaise, fancy BBQ sauces, stuff with flavor. Miso is good). Best vegan friendly fat is HEMP oil. soy/tofu grains for protein (buy some tvp). Almond milk is the best milk substitute IMO.
This sounds more along the lines of what I don't want to do -- replacing my entire kitchen with vegan things and stuff from health food stores. I want to keep eating regular food that I can buy at regular stores, just more veggies and less meat.
Miso and Tofu would be more asian grocery than health food store staples... and learning about asian foods and knowing your way around an asian grocery goes well with any non-meat-centric diet/lifestyle...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.197123
| 2014-10-15T00:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48939",
"authors": [
"Amanda Bradshaw",
"Cascabel",
"Clarice Myers",
"DEAN Steffen",
"Dave Ceddia",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Joe Davenport",
"John Respini",
"Karina Villacorta",
"MSalters",
"Manja Weaver",
"Ming",
"Preston",
"Radhamani Arun",
"Shmeblee",
"TC BUSBY",
"Theresa Bruns",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"steve jacks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47668
|
flaw in stainless steel
I just purchased a chafing pan from Sam's Club by Bakers & Chefs. The second pan in the stack appears to have several black scratches or gouges in the material. I'm wondering, since it is not marked with a metal grade such as 18/10 but instead claims "restaurant quality", if this is junk?
The scratches appear as black marks, not simply scratches in the stainless steel, and do not rub out with scrubber or baking soda. Is there only a very thin metal coating over something inferior that I do not want my food to touch?
The surface is also a dull grey, not a bright shiny color as I am accustomed to in my other stainless steel cookware. I've had all my other stainless steel pans for 30+ years and never seen anything like this. I smell a rat!
Please comment on whether you'd return this set and look for a higher quality set. My purpose is to slow roast tomatoes and I want to avoid contact with reactive metals and also make most efficient use of my oven, as this takes 10-12 hours.
I'm big on reading reviews of products before I decide. Sam's Club has several chafing dishes available on-line, with varied reviews. The Bakers & Chefs dish only has two reviews with one review echoing your complaints.
I assume this is yours?
Considering the better reviews, the appearance, the product descriptions, and the apparent flaws in yours, I'd definitely consider upgrading to one of the other Sam's Club chafers.
Images from Sam's Club.
If it states that it is stainless steel, it should be stainless steel - I wouldn't worry about that - but that doesn't mean that your chafing pan isn't flawed.
As far as "Restaurant Quality" is concerned, if it isn't marked NSF, I'd stay away from it. In case you are unfamiliar with NSF:
"NSF is the premier name in food equipment certification, providing assurance to restaurant owners and operators that equipment is made from safe materials, is designed and constructed for easy cleanability and performs as intended."
http://www.nsf.org/services/by-industry/food-safety-quality/restaurant-and-foodservice/specifying-certified-food-equipment/
Also, since you are planning to cook using the food pans, make sure they are rated for the temperature you plan to be using to cook.
Most importantly, whether your marks are scratches or gouges or something else, it sounds like they are flaws in the manufacture - that happens from time to time. Since you got these from Sam's and they usually have a display model of every item for viewing, you might check the one on display - but if your marks don't look right, take the unit back. If it doesn't look right, don't second-guess it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.198326
| 2014-10-05T02:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47668",
"authors": [
"Casey Kathrine",
"Chef Marcus Artis",
"Ed Miller",
"Lief",
"Marc T.",
"Thanya Sree",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115117"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6876
|
What can be done to thin chocolate for dipping?
I have been dipping chocolates for many years. I recently tried a new brand of chocolate that has a fantasic flavor, but it is thicker than I'd like when melted. I know adding cocoa butter will help, but I don't have any on hand. Is there anything else I can use that will leave me with a hard (as opposed to ganache-like) chocolate coating?
Most fats work (this is why cocoa butter works) most people recommend Crisco but a small amount of low flavoured oil (or flavoured for that matter) is fine.
I like ganache so personally extra thick double cream does it for me.
Either way it's easier to add more later than take out! Start with a little bit.
My roommate used to use vegetable oil for this.
My Mom has made candies since I was a small child. For melting chocolate she always used Gulf (paraffin) Wax ... it thins the chocolate perfectly and makes it easier to work, doesn't effect the taste or how it drys and gives the candy a nice pretty shine. Perfect for Buckeyes like my Mom made. It also acts as a preservative giving your candy a little longer shelf life. Just be careful on how much you add. Use your own judgement on how thick or thin you want your melted chocolate to be. Start out with just a little paraffin and keep adding a little at a time until you reach the desired consistency. Warning ... adding to much will make your chocolate thin like water. I've made this mistake when I first started making candy. Albeit it didn't hurt the chocolate flavor, it just made my chocolate extremely thin which resulted in having to double dip everything. Nonetheless my candy still turned out fine. It just was twice the work. Anyhoot I hope this helps. Happy Baking :)
Agree. Gulf paraffin wax was used when I was a child in the 1960’s and 70’s. It worked and if only a little was used, no flavor difference. I don’t have the ratios, my mom made it.
Butter will work.
Did you create a proper emulsion? I have used butter for a ganache many times, you just have to work it the right way: http://www.finecooking.com/item/37034/how-to-make-and-fix-emulsion-sauces
Butter definitely SHOULD work.
Butter will work, but it must be used in sufficient quantities that there is enough water (butter is about 20% water) to overcome the seizing that chocolate does when a small amount of water is present.
You can add a little Cream or Milk.
I do this for my cake pops and choc sweets.
It is not the milk that causes the clumping, but the water within the milk. You need enough to get past the seizing stage, and become smooth again.
Butter, oil, half and half (or heavy cream), reduced, all will work. It depends on what flavor you are going for... My best answer for this is to experiment with all these answers and see what works for you.
We make ice cream sandwiches — 2 cookies hugging a scoop of ice cream — and dip them in melted chocolate thinned with a small amount of coconut oil. We use the refined variety of coconut oil so that the taste remains neutral.
in coating truffles, i find the best "thinner" is plain crisco (not the "butter" type). found this information on several websites a year or two ago...it melts together perfectly evenly and they cite the fact that the fat content in cricso is closest to that of your melting chocolate, hence no lumps to stir through, no change in its ability to cling to the item being dipped, no change in drying time.
I worked for Hershey Chocolate for 15 years, DO NOT use milk like Melissa has said. She is correct, it is the water in it that will rune your chocolate. The It will only take a few drops of water and your chocolate will become very brittle. Your best bet is to use a little Oil or Shortening. Some say to use the Wax but I'm not a fan of eating wax sorry. But do not over do it, as it will affect the candy in a warm room. Hope this helps someone..........
We used milk....lesson learned....do not use MILK! Now as I type we are adding a little Crisco to see if we can reverse the milk issues.......
Now the chocolate is really grainy.
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3012/solutions-for-when-heating-chocolate-and-butter-doesnt-mix-well/34985#34985
Your experience to not use milk is a good addition to the answers already here. But please don't ask for new aspects of the problem within the old question. "How to save chocolate which turned grainy" is a different question. In this case it is a duplicate of an existing one, if it hadn't been, you should have asked it separately.
Do not use milk, that is to thicken, do not use water (beginners mistake). Using an oil is safest, guaranteed results!
I have used oil and it works well. Getting the right amount is a little tricky for me. I have also used paraffin wax. It works perfectly, dries quickly, it looks great and is less tacky when dried. However, I too am not a fan of eating paraffin wax. It just doesn't seem right to eat stuff you burn in candles. but the chocolate mixed with oil is always pretty sticky.
2 teaspoons of shortening to an 11.5 oz bag of semi-sweet morsels worked great to thin the chocolate for dipping to coat and hardened. My guess is less is more here or chocolate will melt at room temperature.
I tried vegetable oil and it worked for me. So you can use vegetable oil and see if it works for you too.
I have used olive oil and it has worked very well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.198605
| 2010-09-07T01:36:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6876",
"authors": [
"Abigail",
"Brenetta Solomon",
"Geoff Webster",
"Laura L Soohen",
"Mousey Tongue",
"NaniBly",
"Rand Mate",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"T. Leal",
"Tracy Fu",
"avid",
"betsy yopp",
"dylan",
"gene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99682",
"justkt",
"kokoto",
"lu jb",
"robb Andersen",
"rumtscho",
"rxmnnxfpvg"
],
"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
}
|
12649
|
How long to boil crab for?
I bought some Frozen Crab. How long should I boil it for before eating it?
(I have some snow crab and King crab legs)
tl:dr About ten minutes, at a hard boil for defrosted crab
If you are trying to achieve a crab boil, which is sort of similar to a crawfish boil, except with whole crabs, then you should defrost the crabs (they should optimally be live when they go in but we can't have that this time, of course) using Daniel's fridge method. It is very important to cook them as close to the defrost point as possible as you don't want any more breakdown than you already have. As a matter of fact, since it's a boil you can cut it close and throw them in when still a litle frozen, say five or six hours after moving them to the fridge but no later than 24 hours after.
Once you get to the point about an hour from the time you want to eat the crabs, you want to get a pot of water on large enough to hold some new potatoes, some corn (the little ones that come presectioned are great if you don't have access to fresh corn) and most importantly, your crab. While the water is coming to a boil, you want to get your spices ready to go. I'm not going to tell you how to spice that water since that prefrence is extremely regional and normally backed up by knives and/or guns, but the two ways I normally do it are Old Bay (Baltimore style) or Tony Chachere's (Fake cajun style) along with a lot of salt and pepper. You want enough seasoning that when you dump the crab, it is thickly coated. Once your water gets to a boil, add the potatoes. Your corn should go in shortly after and once your potatoes and corn are about ten minutes from done, drop that crab in there.
Give it one good stir about half way from the end and make sure you have a place to get rid of all that boiling water. If you pot is small enough, you can just put a colinder in the sink, but if you are doing for a bunch of people the yard works great... as long as you keep people off the part where you do it until it cools down and you don't mind a bad patch of grass. Once the water is off the crabs, dump out on some newspaper if outdoors or move to a platter for the table, and serve some french bread and dig in.
@daniel I have to admit, I normally use your method, but every self respectng sourthern male has to be able to boil seafood properly, and when you live on the gulf coast, it becomes even more of a "thing." If you ever find yourself down this way, let me know, I promise I will serve you one that will erase the word bland from your mind ;)
on the dl, I'm not much for the grits myself, unless they have a cream sauce and a couple of of shrimp on them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.199174
| 2011-02-28T00:14:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12649",
"authors": [
"flares",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"jmac",
"miller",
"sarge_smith",
"user58697"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1804
|
Why not put knives in the dishwasher?
What is it about the dishwasher that harms knives?
The only reasons I've found are:
You could get cut... I personally have a greater change of getting cut by trying to wash them by hand.
The blades can damage the plastic-coated metal shelves... so I put them in the silverware-holder instead of on the rack (it's 100% plastic, no metal).
The blade could get nicked by being knocked into other silverware... so put the blade by itself in a section of the silverware-holder in the DW.
I definitely think nothing wooden should go in the dishwasher, b/c the wood will eventually crack. But what about knives with no wood?
I've never heard of anyone not putting knives in the dishwasher. I've always put them in and they're fine.
I agree with the heavily downvoted answer's claim that "Most of the answers here seem to be 'I think so'" with very little hard evidence. There are different types of steel that are used for knife making and they have different properties. If you want a really excellent resource on sharp knife blades look at http://scienceofsharp.wordpress.com which uses electron microscope images of knife blade edges. It isn't for the faint of heart. But if you want to have sharp knives it does a great deal to cast off knife superstitions.
Expensive knives can survive a trip through the dishwasher, but like others have mentioned, they can bump into things, end up with coatings of detergents and such, suffer damage to wood, etc. Why would you do that to an investment?
Cheaper knives will just straight out rust/corrode, even if you remove them and dry them right after the cycle. Yeah, you can scrub it off, but you're also losing metal from the blade, possibly starting rust in areas you can't dry, and generally degrading the knives.
Our kitchen knives have always been cheap knives, but I have never had any sort of corrosion or rust. I would expect cheap kitchen knives are made of something like 420JS steel, which is actually better at withstanding corrosion than steel that is used for more expensive knives (the tradeoff is that more expensive knives can hold an edge longer, 420JS is softer).
Old post, but other responses don't make it clear enough - If your knives don't have delicate handles (not limited to wood!), and you're careful, putting them into separate compartments should be ok enough. But most people just throw them in with their other silverware (either in the dishwasher or afterwards in a drawer) without regard for their edge. Sure there's a chance they may chip if you're not careful, but they will dull that way, especially if they're low-to-mid-tier knives. Source: I make and sharpen (and re-sharpen :/ ) pointy things. PSA: Most household knives are dull.
Personally I find the whole "nice knife" thing to be just a fetish. Knives are knives. They're tools. Use them. Don't abuse them. Your local butcher is not likely to have a ridiculously expensive space-age steel knife. Your local cook isn't either. Get utilitarian and find a knife that can go in the dishwasher and be done with it. A fancy wood handle isn't going to make your cooking better, but it will make it non dishwasher safe. Plastic handles last longer than wooden ones. At home our everyday silverware has plastic handles, and the fancy silverware is all metal. Everything dishwasher safe.
Well even for knives with no wood, a dishwasher is a very hostile environment. The reason is primarily for the blades. If you have quality knives that you care for, and plan to keep for many years, then it's just not worth it. It's just too easy for a knife to be jostled around and bang into other knives or silverware and get nicked.
You mention that you have a greater chance of getting cut when washing by hand. Well, there's a trick to that.
The easiest and safest way to wash a knife by hand is to press it flat against the side of the sink, then use your sponge/scrubber on the exposed side of the knife. Repeat for the other side. This keeps your blade safe, because the edge never touches anything. It also keeps your sponges and hands from being slashed to pieces by the blade.
Dry it immediately with a dish towel, using a pinching swipe from bolster to tip from the back of the knife.
Main focus on cleaning any knife without getting cut is really as you write...from the back of the knife. I've never cut myself while cleaning my knives, the only people I know that have done that are very clumsy of just the "kind" of people that throw all the knives into the sink and grabs randomly into the deep with allot of bubbles on top of their water :)
I've heard that certain components of dishwasher detergents may actually be so agressive you run the risk of making your knives dull. I'm not an expert on metal <> cleaning agent interaction, though, so kindly don't take that as an absolute truth.
What I have observed is that just putting the knives in the dishwasher loosely (as you oftentimes have to do due to the length of the knives) tends to have them rolling about a bit during the cleaning process, which makes them bump into other (metallic) objects such as pots and pans. That will make them dull, and that is why I always wash my proper knives by hand.
I can't believe I'm answering to a really old question, but anyway... what you're describing is a non-issue. The incredibly remote chances of "chemicals" attacking your edge, and your knife "bumping" into metal things in the dishwasher are completely offst by the fact that you NEED TO HONE your knife EVERY TIME you're going to use it.
The biggest reason I've heard is that the wood handles can't survive in there and still look good. It can still work, but you have to be vigilant to remove the knives immediately on completion of the wash cycle. And yes, it's true. My wood-handled knives are noticeably grayer than their newer brethren.
Our non-wood handled knives (those Wüsthof blades) go in the dishwasher with nary a worry.
The easiest way to damage any metal edge is to expose it to water and chemicals for longer than necessary. When the water just sits on the blade, the corrosion causes the metal to flake off (at a microscopic level). Immediately wash and dry your knife after use, and it will last you the rest of your life with minimal damage. I have also heard of some folks brushing rubbing alcohol along the blade to help dissipate the water.
This goes for shaving razors as well.
There was a very interesting article on Lifehacker a while back about people who dried their disposable razors by running them backwards on jeans/a towel/their forearm - and their crappy disposable razors would last 6 months to a year in some instances.
Anecdotally, since I got a few very good knives and have started drying them immediately after every use, they've retained their sharpness for an incredibly long time compared to before.
@stephenmcdonald: Interesting article! Here's the link. I won't be leaving my knives in the drainboard any more.
@stephennmcdonald, sounds like they've re-discovered stropping.
any "microscopic metal flake off" or corrosion WILL BE REMOVED the second you HONE your knife. Because you're honing your knifes before every use, right???
Adding this answer to provide some (admittedly anecdotal) evidence:
I currently own a knife that was given to me by someone else. The previous owner regularly put this knife in the dishwasher. It is not a cheap knife, but from a well-regarded consumer brand (Zwilling-Henckels) I would guess it is of medium to good quality.
Two things have happened to this knife:
On the handle, water got in between the tang and the resin scales. In time, there was a buildup of corrosion, which split the resin scales.
The blade itself has developed some pitting (difficult to see in the picture, it is mainly on the spine, more clear near the tip.)
There was also some damage on the knife edge, but as the previous owner also used a cheap draw-through sharpener, it is more likely that that caused the edge damage (it required complete reprofiling)
Based on this, I feel sure that always cleaning my knives by hand is the best way to treat them well. (That, and not using cheap sharpeners)
The stainless steel used for edges is not the same kind of stainless steel that is used for pots and bowls; it can be hardened far better but is by far not as corrosion resistant. Look up 300 vs 400 series of stainless steels. No one would usually make a sharp knife out of 300 series unless they are making a dive knife.
Also, especially expensive knives are not always made out of stainless steel at all, there are plenty of examples made out of non-stainless carbon steels or so called semi-stainless alloys (for example D2 aka SKD11).
Some of the cheapest blades are the most corrosion proof.
Dishwasher chemistry is harmful to all of these.
Also, thermal cycling, especially if uneven, can cause things to warp; with some blade designs warping is very bad news since they will be difficult to straighten and difficult to sharpen cleanly while bent.
Of course, handles made with wood, lacquer, bone, horn... are not dishwasher proof anyway.
the heat and water absolutely destroy wood handles. i can't think of a faster way of ruining a good knife with a wood handle.
dishwashing agents also corrode metal - including stainless steel. i've had good knives get pitted from bits of dishwashing powder stuck to it. the problem is especially bad for carbon steel knives.
don't do it - wash by hand.
My knives have wooden handles which are not dishwasher friendly (the varnish has a habit of melting). I'm also suspicious of the effect of the rinse aid which seems to add a thin coating onto everything, which might not be good for the blades.
A thin coating? I would stop worrying about the blades, and worry about what on earth it is you're digesting!
I don't see any mention of the fact that the heat/cooling causes small amounts of expansion and contraction. Over time, this weakens the seals between the handle scales (plastic, wood, pakkawood, all of it) and will result in handle scales separating from the knife. Not the only reason, but worth including.
Dishwashers will heat the blade to a temperature that changes the structure of the steel itself so it will not keep a sharp edge. It only takes one time in the dishwasher for this to happen so if yours has taken that trip through--too late. If your knife is brand new--just be hyper-vigilant that one ever puts it in.
Interesting, which structure do you mean? I know of different types of steel structure created by heating and cooling, such as martensitic vs. austenitic steel, but they are created by cooling the metal down white-hot to room temp. Are you saying that the 60 Celsius in the dishwasher are sufficient to change this? Or do you mean something else by "the structure of the steel itself", and what is it?
Changes in the iron structure require higher temperatures, so this isn't a reason for not putting knives in the dishwasher.
I was taught not to put black handled utensils in the dishwasher. The reason? The handles lose their black luster and turn grayish. They lighten. Guess what? It's true.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.199435
| 2010-07-18T19:04:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1804",
"authors": [
"Arafangion",
"Cheryl S Love",
"Chris Roberts",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"HammerN'Songs",
"Ian Nelson",
"John Robertson",
"JustRightMenus",
"MGOwen",
"Mark",
"Zack Bloom",
"Zr40",
"avpaderno",
"cyberzed",
"hjf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82995",
"josemrb",
"rumtscho",
"stephennmcdonald",
"thndrkiss",
"user22393"
],
"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
}
|
2204
|
How do I keep meringue from "weeping"?
Am I asking too much of meringue to be able to keep a key lime pie in the refrigerator for 24 hours? The meringue ends up very wet at the end of that period. I keep it covered in the fridge.
Tell the meringue it looks delicious
The easiest way to prevent meringue from weeping is by adding a teaspoon of cornstarch to the recipe, which will absorb the excess moisture that causes it. If you're a bit adventurous, you can also opt to sprinkle some cookie crumbs over your filling so when it weeps, the crumbs will absorb the moisture.
Essentially a meringue in its most basic form is just egg whites whipped until the proteins coagulate and it traps air (to simplify the process). The meringue will weep in this form if it's over beaten and the liquid egg white splits out, it will also weep over time unless you stabilize it.
Sugar, stabilizes the whites however it can be further stabilized with 2 techniques.
If you make an Italian meringue, which is hot sugar syrup beaten into egg whites, it will last for longer. This is because the hot syrup partially cooks the egg whites and once cooled the sugar syrup hardens.
Using gelatin will make it last the longest. When making the Italian meringue, when you have combined the hot sugar, whip in a couple of teaspoons of powdered gelatin or 2 or 3 sheets of leaf gelatin (both softened in water). This will stabilize the egg whites and they could last a good 3 days. Just remember if you are going to caramalise the meringue, do it carefully as if it get too hot the gelling properties of the gelatin will be disabled.
Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.200307
| 2010-07-20T00:52:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2204",
"authors": [
"Ocaasi",
"Piers Karsenbarg",
"Surreal Dreams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3928"
],
"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
}
|
328
|
What is the difference between various cuts of steak?
I'm sure each has their own differences in texture (and cost) but don't really know exactly what they are or what they are best used for. I like bone in ribeyes so I haven't bothered to try experimenting with other cuts such as:
Boneless Ribeye
T-Bone
New York Strip
Sirloin
Porterhouse
Delmonico
Filet
Filet Mignon
Rib
I'm mostly looking at this from the perspective of grilling.
There are a number of sites that provide diagrams and information on the different cuts, one fairly extensive resource is Beef Glossary - Different Beef Cuts , Diagram, Types Of Meat
Edit: Made a change due to comment.
We're looking to have this place be the definitive and not just a dump of links. Quote the site, link to it.
Sorry, i don't understand?
+1 Good link to an excellent information packed site, Quoting the good stuff from there is neigh on impossible.
@ran that would be a giant wall of content, and it includes diagrams, to boot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.200469
| 2010-07-09T23:47:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/328",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Borgar",
"CodeToGlory",
"Eight Days of Malaise",
"John Weldon",
"Pulse",
"Samy",
"Tore",
"bmargulies",
"faelady",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"wf."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5932
|
How can I improve the presentation of the food I serve?
Cooking great tasting food is an art of it's own, but to create a restaurant quality dish requires the food to be professionally presented.
I have no formal training in cooking and really struggle trying to make my dishes look as stunning as you would see on the food channels or gourmet magazines, so I ask:
What simple techniques or tips exist that a novice chef could use to enhance the presentation of a dish (i.e. make it more visually appealing?)
For example: balancing colours of food, drizzling this or that, stacking items vertically.
Questions calling for a list of answers should be community wiki. I converted this.
Try to get some verticality in your dish. Everything just laid on a plate is boring. Instead stack your meat on top of your potatoes, stand a large asparagus spear upright, put some onion straws on top of your dish. Anything that gets some differing heights to your dish will make it more visually appealing.
Use your colors. Avoid dishes that come out with nasty colors, or do something to correct them. My wife likes to select vegetables that have complimentary colors. It makes the dish look more interesting than if it is mono-tone. You can sprinkle fresh herbs over the top to add some more color and flavor.
Add some flair. You see this all the time with desserts in restaurants but can do it with thick sauces on a main dish too. Put sauce on your dish in a nice pattern and then run a tine of a fork through it at a perpendicular angle to make sharp streaks through it. Dollop a sauce in a spiral pattern in ever smaller amounts so that you get smaller circles around the edge.
Watch Grant Achatz at Alinea preparing a dessert straight on the table. If this won't inspire you, nothing will. He uses all three things I mentioned to make this interesting. Not to mention that he's doing it straight on to a silpat table cloth. And one of America's greatest chefs makes dessert for you table side, there's more than a little "presentation" in that alone. We ate there for our anniversary, and he signed a copy of his book for us, even his signature uses the circles and lines so common in dessert prep.
I usually don't add anything to the plate that doesn't flow with the food. i.e. i hate it when cooks add one piece of parsley on top of a meal. I love parsley, either give me a plate of it, or don't put it at all. I digress, but here are some of the things I live by:
You need to present your plate in the matter, it should be eaten:
Appetizers, let's say you're serving a shrimp, dip and greens, you'll serve the shrimp on one end of your plate, the associated veggie / food item in the middle, and the sauce at the other end.
in desserts, don't squeeze the hell out of a choco sauce bottle all over the plate, rather put the chocolate sauce in the center of the plate and place the dessert over it
Plate should not make it look that you either have too much or too little food
This is important with salads and pastas, as you can make the same amount of food look to little or too much
plate temperatures, hot food goes on hot plates and cold foods goes on cold plates
Veggies, you need to know which ones could be grated, slivered, julienned, and chopped or on the other hand, you can get a radish or tomato peal and make a tulip out of the whole god-darn thing.
you should make the food look edible, regardless of how good/ bad it tastes. Take sushi for example, whether you like it or not, a nice boat of sushi, is usually something very sexy to look at. On the other hand consider creole, a mishmash of brown stuff on top of rice, so you need to a bit of color, hide the rice under the food, put it in a deep bowl, even in a bread made bowl.
if something is layered, show it (Especially for desserts)
If you're gonna paint brush let's say a brown jus with a steak or a piece of lamb, then do it in a fashion where the eater understands that he or she needs to dip the piece of meet into the sauce.
Don't put stuff on there that doesn't belong, but only makes the dish look pretty
let the main player stand out. let's say you're serving a shrimp pasta, you could always have the shrimp buried in the dish with the tails standing out.
anyways i digress, I'm sorry
There's one word I keep constantly in my mind when presenting a dish.
Balance
For example:
If all the food is in an ungainly heap on one side of the plate - the plate isn't visually balanced
A big steak with a tiny amount of sauce - the plate isn't balanced from the POV of the "eating" as there won't be enough sauce for the steak.
Too much sauce for the meat - almost worse than the reverse as the likelihood of spillage is higher, and the diner may find it hard to actually cut the meat without sending sauce flying everywhere
It's also important when presenting a dish, to think about how the dish will work from the moment you put it in front of the person eating it, until the moment it's taken away. For example, if you have two fantastic vibrantly coloured sauces that will start on the plate separately, but end up mixing together whilst being eaten and turn an unpleasant colour, steer well clear.
One thing that helps me make better-looking plates is to plate from the center outward. Instead of putting stuff on the plate in no specific order, and ending up with a lot of the plate showing because everything's a different size, start with the main item in the center, and fill the plate around it.
From Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential:
Use those little plastic squeeze bottles to dispense sauces on the plate as well as on the food. Draw some squiggly patters, and use a toothpick to make lines in the sauce. Herbed oils make good colors (mostly greens and reds), demiglace can add brown or black color, chocolate and caramel or a fruit reduction/syrup can add color for deserts.
Use metal rings to stack food. This seems to be a popular resutraunt presentation thing in recent years, stacking a half dozen items in a nice neat pile with sides perpendicular to the plate. I'm not sure where to get them, but you can find various sized metal rings to fill with food to create these vertical stacks.
You can add some interesting character to the meal by varying the plate/serving vessel. Fish can often be cooked on a wooden plank, and served on the same. It adds a bit of a rustic feel to the dish. An Indian restaurant I like serves curries in neat hammered copper pots. A up-scale sushi restaurant I've been to has a platter that is served in a model wooden boat. Be creative.
I just use flavors in the food and colors on the plate, and use a variety of ingredients for more interesting appearance.
I'll be sure that the dishes are neat and clean before serving, that's all.
A little drizzle of balsamic vinegar on an otherwise clean-white plate goes a long way.
There are many ways of improving the presentation of your food, such as layering it to give it more texture, here is an odd picture for you, think of a cheese cake and as you take a bite you can taste and feel the creaminess of the topping with the flavours swirled into one then you taste the crunchiness of the biscuit base, also if it smells good more people would want to eat it, and my final tip is drizzle some sauce around and on the outside of the item that your preparing such as if its a chocolate cake you could drizzle some golden syrup and chocolate sauce around it and maybe some chocolate powder or chocolate curls.
Hope this helps enjoy!!!
One I've heard is that only present items in odd numbers, so 3 carrots or whatever you are presenting - I heard this off the Uk programme masterchef - Michel roux jr. said it so it has some weight behind it.
I also try and keep my plates simple but it depends on the style of food you are going for - I tend towards simple, rustic (but tasty).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.200616
| 2010-08-25T09:13:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5932",
"authors": [
"Abdullah",
"Adrian Ghiuta",
"Domenico De Felice",
"aymazing",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84722"
],
"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
}
|
9446
|
can i bake pine nuts?
I was thinking of adding pine nuts to a caneloni filling, but wasn't too sure if the heat would make the nuts release anything nasty.
You can either bake them in something, and typically be fine (there are lots of cookie recipies out there that use them; search on the internet for 'biscotti ai pinoli'), or you can toast them ahead of time, and then encorporate them. (often, you toast them, then mix in, and bake).
But a word of caution on toasting them -- they burn very easily. I've typically done it in a dry skillet, where I can keep an eye on them, and quickly get them off and to a try to cool. I seem to recall an interview with Alton Brown where he mentioned that toasting pine nuts was the number one ruined dish on Iron Chef America, because of chefs leaving them alone for too long.
Light toasting, as mentioned, adds to the pine nut flavor, but once you add them into your cannelloni filling they won't get hot enough to burn further until you have ruined your cannelloni also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.201360
| 2010-11-25T11:08:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9446",
"authors": [
"Ali Abbasinasab",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Paul Raftery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9499
|
Why do red onions turn blue or green when cooking sometimes?
I cooked a pot of beans with some red onions last night. Today for lunch when I got them out of the fridge, all of the onions had turned a blue/green colour!
They still taste ok, but sure looks unappetizing!
Any ideas what's going on here?
Which kind of beans did you use?
Great northern white beans.
The pigments that give onions the colour behave like a litmus test. They are red in the naturally acidic onion. They turn green/blue in an alkaline environment. It sounds like when you cooked the beans it created that alkaline environment to cause the colour change.
See Here.
Preparing your own indicator solution with red cabbage juice is a safe and fun little experiment.
Cooked red onion does turn dark blue-green colour in the fridge, but when you warm it up it turns a reddish colour again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.201489
| 2010-11-26T17:34:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9499",
"authors": [
"Chris AtLee",
"Dr. belisarius",
"J.R Jocson",
"Nick T",
"Samir Patel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62794",
"jenny",
"user19435",
"user62794"
],
"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
}
|
24496
|
What type of whetstones are you using for sharpening stainless steel knives?
What type of whetstone should I use for sharpening knives made of VG-10, A2, D2, S30V?
More specific, for each step (grinding/sharpening/honing):
what kind of whetstone: natural or artificial? If artificial, what type of material?
what kind of bonding material? or no bonding material at all for specific grit ranges?
P.S. If you know some other place where specific models of whetstones (and their recommended usage) are discussed, please leave a comment. All I have found so far are some vendor sites, and nothing relevant about practical usage.
Buying recommendations are off topic across the whole network, see http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/. Is there something you want to ask here except a brand recommendation? If yes, please edit the question, else it will be closed.
If you want to buy a stone, it is fine to ask what you should look for in a good stone. After you have narrowed down your choice, and like a stone but don't know if it has a feature X you want (and the manufacturer doesn't offer the info), you can also ask "does stone Y have feature X". The rule is not to ask questions like "Which brand/model of stone should I buy" or "Which brand/model is the best", they are unanswerable at best and a seed for a flamewar at worst. The way you edited your question is good; if you want to add more info without changing the main question, it's OK.
There are nice discussions here and here on how to sharpen knifes. Related in a way to your question.
@BaffledCook: thank you, from your links I have arrived at http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/26036-knife-maintenance-and-sharpening/
@rumtscho: thank you very much for your patience and the effort to educate me.
@alexandrul that's what we mods are here for; I am always glad when a badly worded question can be turned into a good one instead of deleted.
@rumtscho Whetstones, among serious knife enthusiasts, are a very special market - synthetic stones will usually be recommended by brand, because most vendors offer insufficient data/product description to allow a choice on numbers/properties alone. Natural stones are usually referred to by origin, with vendor identity taking a back seat. Keeping to "no product recommendations" in letter not spirit can lead to misleading answers - eg a recommendation "use a generic 400 hard bound stone" can lead to unsatisfying results or even damaged tools.
For the honing stage, I have found an article regarding belgian natural stones: How does a Belgian Blue Whetstone compare to a Coticule (without any reference to a specific steel type)
In summary:
the yellow stones (Coticule) are much better than BBW if using slurry
using just water, without slurry, BBW is almost useless and Coticule is very slow
I usually recommend Japanese water stones.
a 3-grit combination is best:
Coarse grit stone (400 grit): to raise the burr. This is the very important first step in a sharpening session.
Medium grit stone (1000 grit): to refine the edge.
Fine grit stone (3000 grit and more): to refine the edge even more.
You would be able to sharpen a knife simply with a coarse stone, let's say a 400 grit japanese whetstone. You can raise the burr on both sides, then lower your pressure to remove the burr.
If you have the additional medium and fine grit stones, then your can continue the process of sharpening, with lower pressure, so to refine the edge.
Do not link to your own sites/products unless it is a direct part of answering the question, and even then, the relevant information must be in your answer, not behind the link. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion.
To sharpen a knife I use a wore out flat file. To sharpen razor sharp. I use a onyx stone with impurities in it. You find these in the river. So a carbon stone very hard. With specks of impurities that add a fine dust as you sharpen a knife. They polish out like glass in use. Volcanic onyx.
Is your suggestion seriously "go find some volcanic onyx in a river"? And.. are you sure you mean onyx, and not just some dark/black slate or other sedimentary rock? Onyx is crystalline, not really the kind of thing I'd expect to make a good whetstone.
Volcanic onyx. Hard black flat stones found in the river. We have a lot of them were I live. Not jewel grade stones. Have speck of imputities in them. When used polish out like glass. These are river rocks wore flat by the river. Yes they make great sharpening stones. That and old wore out flat files Volcanic carbon stones Once polished look like onyx to me. Very shiny like in rings & such. But have specks in them.
Onyx isn't carbon.
Instructions unclear, nearly drowned looking for impure onyx in the Rhine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.201624
| 2012-06-16T09:40:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24496",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chandra Shekhar",
"J Bergen",
"Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica",
"alexandrul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"priya",
"priya sharma",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user55810",
"user55811"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4584
|
Which vegetables to use for stock?
Which vegetables and/or fresh herbs should be used when making vegetable stock?
Are there any vegetables/herbs that should be avoided?
Can parts of vegetables that would otherwise be discarded be included (eg. potato peel, carrot tops, onion skins)?
Potato peels tend to absorb flavors, so adding them to a stock will actually make the stock less aromatic.
Typically veggies are onions, carrots, celery, leeks, garlic, shallots, etc. Throw in some peppercorns, also, and a Bouquet garni. You can add most other veggies, too, and mushrooms, but avoid adding things that give a strong (bad) flavour after cooked for a long time (broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, etc.).
Right... you don't want anything in the crucifer family, too sulfurous.
is crucifer family the same as what a gardener would call brassicas?
Tea Drinker: Yes.
I agree with Kevin.
Also, I highly recommend "Ratio" by Michael Ruhlman. Part 2 of that book is about stocks (broths)...and has an excellent section on vegetable stocks. (There is a technical difference between broths and stocks, but I don't think it matters in this case.)
Stocks are great! Stocks can make the difference between a great meal and a merely good meal.
"Can parts of vegetables that would otherwise be discarded be included (eg. potato peel, carrot tops, onion skins)?"
Yes, as long as they are clean and fresh. Personally I'm not fond of adding potato peels.
So, should it really be vegetable "stock" instead of "broth" (because there are no bones in it)?
From Michael Ruhlman's, "The Elements of Cooking".
"Broths (bouillons) are distinguished from stocks in that a broth is intended to be served as is whereas a stock is the foundation for other preparations." p.74
So, you can have either vegetable stock or vegetable broth. Neither one will have bones.
There is actually another post on the site discussing the differences between stock and broth.
If you want to get into the whole issue of stocks vs broths, there is a lot of info over on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_(food)
I would disagree with the OP in that I wouldnt add potato peel as it can make your stock very cloudy - though I suspect it depends on the type of potato ( I guess floury types would be worse)
"Chinese Meatless Cooking" suggests actually using a boatload of bean sprouts for some kinds of stock ... which is not that illogical given that bean cooking liquids are used in some dishes (eg many chickpea curries use the cooking broth as stock). Own experiments resulted in something rather mild (preferrable to one that brings in out-of-place aromas in some cases!) but with - I think- a subtly thickened consistency...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.202035
| 2010-08-08T18:38:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4584",
"authors": [
"Balroq",
"David Lawson",
"Fernanda Parisi",
"Fugu",
"JSuar",
"Jack",
"Jackie",
"James Howard",
"KnotHeather",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Michael Natkin",
"NBenatar",
"SarahVV",
"Sumit Jain",
"Tea Drinker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8942",
"rackandboneman",
"verbose",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
124099
|
Why has my bread machine become unpredictable?
I've had a Panasonic SD-2501 bread maker for a little over 10 years. I use it 2-3 times a week to bake a simple white loaf, but recently it's become very unpredictable in the rise. Sometimes it produces a well-risen loaf, but sometimes the result is a large, over-proofed loaf with a very aerated crumb.
The machine's manual says that the rise time varies depending on conditions, so I'm assuming that it's compensating in some way for variations in ambient temperature. The weather has been warmer recently, but I'm fairly sure the machine used to work consistently in the past as long as the same ingredients were used. Sometimes I've observed the same overproofing when switching to other yeast brands, but generally switching back a "reliable" one fixes the issue.
What could cause this unpredictability, and can I check that the bread maker is not misbehaving somehow?
Here's the recipe:
1 tsp instant yeast
1¼ tsp salt
500 g flour (specifically 150 g of "1050" flour and 350 g of "550" flour, per German flour grades)
350 ml water
Note: If I notice that the dough is overproofed and tip it out of the pan before the bake starts, it comes out extremely sticky and stringy, to the point that it's totally impossible to knead (and a decent amount of it remains stuck in the pan). I guess this is an indication of too much water, but why has the same recipe worked so well for so many years without intervention?
Do you know how consistent the conditions inside your kitchen are? Indoor temperature, humidity... Is there any correlation between when it works and when you get new flour? Or yeast? Do you use the same measuring spoon every time? Same salt (coarseness affecting how it packs into the spoon)? Same brand of flour from the same shop? If it is overwet I'm wondering about the moisture content of the flour when it goes in.
Where do you buy your flour (1050 isn’t exactly a supermarket staple), in what batch sizes and how do you store it?
Also 10 years is a long time for a modern mechanical appliance; they just don't make em like they used to. Could be that, with age, something's starting to go.
You could have a sensor failing. Or have a solder joint that failed after it heated up too many times, and then got knocked around. If you don’t still have the manual, you might be able to find it online. There might be info about how to re-calibrate the sensors, or at least a basic troubleshooting guide
@joe yep, this really sounds like a technical issue with the machine itself rather than anything to do with the ingredients or environment. Could be as simple as a bad capacitor -- in the low end they can fail after about 1000 hours which is about what 2 or so uses a week over 10 years would give. So long as it was easy to get to the electronics panel I'd definitely give it a quick look to see if there's anything obviously wrong (bulging or blown capacitor or burn marks etc).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.202307
| 2023-05-05T15:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124099",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Stephie",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129721
|
What happened to my croissant dough when I left it in the fridge overnight?
I made some croissants yesterday. I proved and baked some of them immediately after shaping, and put the rest in the fridge overnight to bake in the morning.
The first batch came out pretty well, by my standards at least!
But the overnight batch didn't seem to prove so well. The dough seemed pockmarked on the surface and didn't hold a nice round shape as it rose. The end result was slightly flatter croissants with a less aerated crumb:
What happened to the dough?
Some information that may or may not be relevant:
I misted the lid of the proving container with water before putting it in the fridge, to keep the dough from drying out.
The dough rose a fair bit in the fridge before lamination as I couldn’t cook it down fast enough
The proved overnight croissants look kind of “soggy” in the photos, while the others look drier. Could this be because I made the proving environment too humid?
Did you cover the croissant dough in the fridge with anything? Refrigerators are usually very dry environments, and the outer layer looks like dried out dough to me.
@Plutian Funny you should say that, I actually thought I’d anything it looked too damp. Yes, I proved then in a container with a lid, which I sprayed lightly with water before putting it on the box. I’m now wondering whether this maybe made the environment too humid.
Does your choon gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? :-)
I think this was simply over-proofing. By the time the croissants got cold enough to halt fermentation, the dough had been stretched out by CO2 production and then collapsed a bit as the gas bubbles escaped. So you baked looser, less elastic dough the second time around.
The overnight batch went in the fridge straight after shaping, before they'd had a chance to rise. So there shouldn't have been any significant fermentation until the morning, right?
Either way, they were more-or-less the same size when they came out of the fridge, except that the surface looked rougher than when they'd gone in (which then developed into the pockmarks you can see in the photos).
@WillVousden Sneftel is correct. Your dough was overproofed, and that's exactly what's expected to happen under the circumstances. I would be very surprised if I put properly proofed dough into the fridge for a night and it didn't come out overproofed! And all the symptoms you describe are classic overproofing. The unusual thing is that you did it with already-shaped dough - had you tried to work the dough after coming out of the fridge, you'd have noticed how different it is. Anyway, the solution is very simple: just proof until properly proofed, and not longer.
@rumtscho I'm a bit confused now. Most recipes I've read about call for the shaped croissants to be left in the fridge overnight and proofed/baked in the morning, and indeed that's the only way for me to bake them at a reasonable time in the morning as I'm not prepared to get up at 5am to laminate and shape them! When you talk about putting "properly proofed dough into the fridge", what do you mean? These croissants went into the fridge within 5-10 minutes of the final roll/shaping and had not proofed by this point.
That said, the fridge was set to 7°C in this case – could that have been warm enough to allow them to proof slightly overnight, and mess up the final proofing on the counter?
@WillVousden recipes which expect you to proof the croissants for a full night in the fridge will use a different amount of yeast than recipes which are meant to be baked after proofing for an hour of two at room temperature. If you used a recipe which was meant for an overnight proof, then your temperature or duration was more than the recipe writer intended (and small deviations can have large differences, because proofing is based on exponential growth). As for the confusion, I might have misunderstood you - I thought that you proofed your dough at room temperature, then baked (cont.)
(cont.) one batch, and put the other batch in the fridge. I didn't realize that you had put one batch in the fridge before proofing and baking the other. Anyway, whatever the order of doing it, your croissants from the second batch do show signs of overproofing, and a night in the fridge is a common way for that to happen.
Assuming that you hit a comparable proofing stage (as per your description of the volume, although I would agree with Sneftel, that they may have been a bit over the point), there are two elements that can be different when comparing a direct bake vs. overnight proofing:
A longer rest time will give the gluten time to relax. This reduces the overall tension. Yes, the rise counteracts this to a degree, but at least some of the tautness will be lost after a few hours.
The cold dough is prone to condensation when taken out of the fridge and left out on the counter. This condensation can show as spots or pockmarks on the surface. It’s not related to quality, it’s purely a cosmetic issue. Misting in the oven can have the same effect, if the dough goes into the oven cold.
Thanks, that’s interesting. Regarding the gluten relaxing, what effect does this actually have in practice?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.202568
| 2024-12-06T12:24:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129721",
"authors": [
"Carl Witthoft",
"Plutian",
"Will Vousden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94917",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35207
|
Salt stick dough and shaping
Having been given a copy of "Inside the Jewish Bakery", by Ginsberg and Berg, I set out to reproduce a treat of my childhood: salt sticks.
Basic outline: make a slightly enriched dough ('medium vienna + one egg'). Ferment, make logs, cut triangles, rest.
Now comes the fun part: the dough is fairly soft and sticky. Instructions are: stretch out triangles to six inches wide, then roll down with heel of one hand while stretching out tip of triangle with the other. If this seems a bit less that perfectly clear, well, that's part of my problem.
I find that the dough is far too sticky to cooperate with being rolled up with the heel of my hand on a 'lightly floured board'.
Any ideas? I am carefully weighing the ingredients, so I don't think it's a measuring problem.
The rolling up is your basic croissant method: make a triangle of dough and roll it up, starting at a flat side and going toward the opposite point. I think the instructions are just their way of trying to get you to really roll it tightly, stretching the dough as you go. (Why you would want it rolled tightly, I couldn't tell you, but then I've never had salt sticks.)
Water absorption by flour varies by variety, brand, and even batch within brand. For example, I have an American bread book where I quite often have to use far more water than the recipe suggests to achieve the consistency stated. This is down to my British flour apparently absorbing more water.
Therefore, it's a good idea to simply use enough flour to get the desired consistency rather than worry too much about being precise. Having said that, when it comes to bread, wetter is better, so only add enough so that you can just work it comfortably.
Isn't that a bit inappropriate from a copyright standpoint? I'll try a bit more flour and see what I get next time.
It's fairly commonplace here to share a recipe in order to analyse potential problems, so I don't think there's a major issue. But it's up to you of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.203001
| 2013-07-09T22:17:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35207",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marti",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"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
}
|
22462
|
Can I use Yellow Croaker for fish and chips?
I bought some fish called Yellow Croaker. Can this be fried with batter to make fish and chips or will this type of fish not have the right type of texture for fried fish?
What type of fish is traditionally used to make fish and chips, and generally what type of characteristics in fish would make it a good candidate to be used as a fried fish?
Generally any non-oily fish is fine for deep frying. A relatively meaty fish (though not too meaty like monkfish) with a good thick fillet is best, because this allows the batter to cook without overcooking the fish. As Yellow Croaker is not an oily fish, you should be fine to batter and deep fry it provided you have a nice thick fillet.
Traditional fish and chips usually uses cod or haddock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.203195
| 2012-03-21T08:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22462",
"authors": [
"Alin",
"Chef Hollobaugh",
"Jeffrey Yasskin",
"JustAFoodie",
"carol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50706",
"riff"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3807
|
Storing fresh peaches for a long time
We just picked a bunch of peaches off our peach tree this morning. There is additional fruit left on the tree and we already have more than we can eat in the next few days. Is there a process I can use to store these peaches for a long time (freezing or otherwise)?
Freezing
1) Wash and peel the ripened peaches. Peel them the same way you do tomatoes - boil water, drop the peaches in for 1 minute, then drop them into ice water. The skin should just slide right off. Slice in half and remove pits. You can leave them in halves, quarter them, or slice them. I prefer slices.
2) Mix w/ sugar & ascorbic acid. Dissolve 1/4 tsp ascorbic acid (available in canning section at grocery store) in 3 TB cold water; mix this along with 2/3 cup sugar into each quart of peaches.
3) Pack into freezer containers or baggies, leaving headspace (room for expansion during freezing).
Canning
1) Same as step one above.
2) Fill hot, sterilized canning jars with fruit and hot water (or juice or syrup - syrup), leaving 1/2 inch headspace. You can make canning syrup for peaches by combining 6 1/2 cups water with 3/4 cup sugar.
3) Put on lids and process. You must use a pressure canner for peaches.
4) You'll want to check out this link for processing times, as the time and pressure depends on your altitude and the type of canning pot you use.
What's the reason for adding ascorbic acid (when freezing)?
It helps keep them from browning. You don't have to use it, though.
@joyjit, @JustRightMenus: lemon juice will work as well (and the taste goes well with the peaches)
Quarter or eighth, lay out on a baking sheet, freeze overnight, and bag. They will keep frozen for a year.
My mom used to make a pie crust and put a bag in the crust, fill with peaches, seal the peach bag, bag the whole thing and stuff it in the chest freezer. Then, in the depths of winter, you could whip out a peach pie in about as long as it takes to bake.
Canning is also good. They can be canned plain, or with a bit of sugar and water.
Do they need to be peeled before freezing?
Nope. If you want them peeled for the final use, the skin will probably be easier to separate after thawing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.203403
| 2010-07-30T18:29:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3807",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"JMM",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michał Šrajer",
"ahsteele",
"cope360",
"dvcolgan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"joyjit",
"megan",
"nico",
"pdubs",
"wyc"
],
"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
}
|
2340
|
Can I learn to cook from a book?
I want to improve my cooking skills and have considered following a number of books that call themselves cookery courses (e.g. Delia's complete cookery course, Ballymaloe cookery course).
Can I really learn to cook from a book or should I consider taking a cookery course?
Learning through repertoire is a good way to build standard skills in nearly every discipline. If what you want is to be able to create a variety of good meals then cooking out of books will serve you well. That isn't to say that the book you choose doesn't matter, of course it does! A book full of accurate facts and procedures does not a good teacher make. Choose a cookbook that is so engrossing that you don't mind reading it like a novel. That's how I felt reading Bourdain's Les Halles cookbook and I'm sure you can find a similarly inspiring work.
Understand that this makes you one who can produce recipes, nothing more. I mean this earnestly and non-disparagingly, as being one who can replicate a good recipe time and again is one who has a high level of skill. Still, most who delve into cooking and the culinary arts are rarely satisfied by this state of affairs. One desires to substitute ingredients, build on a base, even invent their own cuisine! For that, experimentation is the best teacher. You're going to have to start cooking boldly and failing often to achieve that. There really is no better teacher than making something completely inedible out of $50 worth of pork, then adding insult to injury with a fast food dinner. =/
I know this is an old post, but I just wanted to say; your last sentence just remotivated me after feeling quite inadequate in the kitchen!
I have lots of books, and learn a lot from them, but I think cooking shows are important as well. If you don't know what a julliene looks like, or what pan is too hot to sweat onions, or what stiff peaks vs soft peaks in a merengue look like, then all the reading in the world won't help. Just watching the techniques they use can help a lot, and be applied to many of the recipes you'll read about. At some point, you will probably need classes to take it to the next level, but videos and books can make you a pretty decent cook.
'If you can read you can cook' - Anon
You really don't need a course, the most important thing is to practise and keep cooking.
Wouldnt it be easier to learn from your teachers experience than discovering everything on your own through experimentation ?
For me I tend to learn this sort of thing better from a book than a teacher. The learning seems to be something where there is a bit of personal preference, but as a skill what cooking does need is practise. Even simple things like working with a knife need a lot of repitition and just going on a course or reading a book doesn't give you that repitition. You have to practise.
I learned how to cook from a book, and I could barely make toast when I started. While cooking classes can be very useful, I'd suggest nothing more than supplementing your own journey with them. If you cook out of a good book 7 nights a week, you'll learn quickly. My recomendation would be The Best Recipe.
The advantage of this book is that there is a substantial discussion of why certain techniques are used and how they came out better than other techniques or ingredient combinations. Reading this before making each dish will help you learn WHY you cook a certain way rather than just HOW to follow a recipe. After a while, you'll find that you can cook without the book because you understand why the different steps are important. But if you pick up a lousy book, you'll have a much harder time getting there.
In addition to most that has been said.
Be the sous to your buddies.
With the possible exception of knife technique, I don't think a teacher is necessary.
What you need is curiousity and willingness to play around in the kitchen.
Aside from that, the occasional book, internet search or chat with someone more experienced is a great way to learn.
At heart, cooking is something you learn by doing, not by reading or by watching someone else. Go, cook, taste, talk to people. Then repeat.
The problem with learning from media (be it a book, cooking shows, a website, YouTube videos, etc), is that it's pretty much one-way communication.
You can't get immediate responses if you have a question. (wait, let me set this aside, ask on the website, then go back to cooking 3 hrs later once I have an answer), and there's no one there to give you hints that maybe you're doing something in a less-than ideal way.
Yes, you can learn a lot by trial and error, but that means you don't have the collective intelligence of even one single person's years of experience. You can watch for differences in how someone dispatches a bell pepper (I think Rachel Ray has finally switched over to the faster method of taking the sides off, rather than trying to scoop out the inside) or other techniques.
Some books are more informative than others. (eg, Cookwise explains a lot of why the recipe is the way it is ... but then again, it was written by a chemist) and many of the "old classics" cover techniques and such, rather than just be a list of recipes and maybe some cute stories about the author's childhood and pictures of what the dish could look like.
So, in summary : you can learn from a book, but it's less than ideal; your skills will improve faster by cooking with someone else with experience, or even watching videos for techniques.
Cooking is one of the few arts that utilizes all of the senses - for me, a recipe has to be touched, smelt, heard, seen and tasted to get a full understanding of the way ingredients combine to produce something new. Personally, I learned here - http://www.braxtedparkcookery.co.uk/. It was my local, so I didn't have to travel far and they have kind of beginners courses that give you an overview of cookery in general.
However, I'd probably recommend your getting your mum to teach you - no one makes food like your momma.
Cookbooks are great for inspiration but most are weak on technique and the "why's". I found that books that focus on technique and give you good illustrations can be immensely helpful for the self-taught cook. This is my go to when I have questions on technique: Jacques Pepin's Complete Techniques (http://amzn.com/B005OL7YH2). It is very thorough, clear, and gives many step by step illustrations.
Bottom line though is you need to practice these skills and learn from your mistakes.
You can learn techniques from a book - but the most important thing is to actually cook. You'll learn most by doing.
Be sure to ask yourself 'why'; be inquisitive and think about the reasons behind the methodology you're following.
The problem with books is that you're still on an island by yourself, and the ability to critique your own food with your own palette is a critical skill. I find it only comes once you trust your own taste in food. When you can go to a restaurant and find things you love and things you hate at the same place, only then do you understand enough to start turning that reflection in the knife back at yourself.
Everyone is saying the key is to cook, and that's true. But the real important part is a breadth of experience. That's tough to achieve when you're on your own, no matter what the book says.
The problem with cooking classes, is that you'll be in a mix of students with a wide range of experience. As a teacher, the focus is always to get across the concepts and worry about a particular student's aptitude only in the case of abject failure, so long as people are understanding the core pieces of the lesson. In that case, the books include all of the core pieces.
My recommendation is to find a good local restaurant and offer to be a dishwasher one or two nights a week. Treat it like a class that you would take at a University, except all you'll be doing is watching (while having other fun duties). Only then is when you see a place where speed is a big concern, where recipes aren't taught with paper but with "come over here and watch me make this," and where professionals work.
Get a copy of Joy of Cooking. In each chapter heading it explains some of the tricks to preparing that type of food well. In addition there is a 'know your ingredients' section which includes extensive information about all kinds of things. When I was starting out would fall asleep at night reading this book. The recipes are complete with all the details needed to make good wholesome food, once you get a recipe down, you can add your own variations to please yourself. A very good book for beginners and experts alike.
I'm going to disagree with Frankey.
Joy of Cooking has many good recipes, but almost no nerd-friendly 'whys' or 'wherefores', exactly what's needed to improve your cooking.
Instead, I would recommend Ruhlman's "Ratio" as a first cookbook, and buying an Alton Brown book or two that strikes your fancy. These are good amateur-level technical guides, ones that will repay you amply in your quest for technical mastery.
Add on a cookbook or two devoted to a cuisine you like, and you'll be on your way.
Any America's Test Kitchen or Cook's Illustrated book will have plenty of whys and wherefores, as will the TV show. Ratio is good, but I don't think it's a first cookbook.
I'll just leave you with this quote:
We took a look. We saw a Nook.
On his head he had a hook.
On his hook he had a book. On his book
was "How to Cook."
We saw him sit and try to cook. He
took a look at the book on the hook.
But a Nook can't read, so a Nook can't
cook.
SO . . .
what good to a Nook is a hook cook
book?
~ Dr. Seuss ~
I think what you want is a combination of a book and a good friend to call with a question about a technique that may not make sense. In my case I lean on relatives when I get confused. However you really can learn quite a lot from a clear, concise book. I can't say enough about The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook (although I'm wishing I'd known the Healthy version was coming around the corner).
What I learned from the creator of Cooks Illustrated/ATK is that one ought to start by learning 25 recipes until you know them (at least nearly) by heart. A book such as ATK or perhaps another standard for learning would get you there. Find an appetizer or two, a few sides, a few mains, some desserts, some baked goods, and make sure you stretch yourself. As you are working through your recipes, call that friend if you have any technique questions - or perhaps post them here! We're just not as fast as a phone call away.
After that you'll want to start branching out into working on your own. Here books like Ratio (which teaches you the basic ratios in many preparations) and The Flavor Bible can be your guides as you begin to experiment and do your own thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.203655
| 2010-07-20T13:42:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2340",
"authors": [
"AntouanK",
"Ian Turner",
"JSM",
"Marc Dalal",
"Max",
"Michael",
"Mollie",
"Nick Bastin",
"Pat",
"Peter V",
"Piper",
"Sally",
"Surya",
"T.S.",
"Tullo_x86",
"a paid nerd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"jim",
"justkt",
"linda"
],
"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
}
|
2488
|
How to make edges on pancakes be crispy and the inside soft
I want to make pancakes which have a slightly crispy outside ring but on the inside are soft like a pancake. How can I do this? Thanks.
There are two things at play here, and unfortunately it'll take you some trial and error to get this right.
The first is heat control. You might want to try cooking at a higher temperature for a shorter period of time. This will cook the outsides very fast and the insides slightly more slowly. However, you don't want to raise the heat too much or you'll just burn the outside and be nearly raw on the inside. Yuck.
The second is going to be your batter consistency. A thicker batter that rises a little more will take longer to cook into the middle. If you're having trouble having the middle stay soft, add a little more flour and/or a little more baking powder.
As I said, this will take some trial and error. You may want to invest in a good IR temperature reader, to get an accurate reading of how hot your pan is to assist with the experimentation.
Good luck!
Regarding thicker, softer batter: I've found yogurt does wonders for this.
Genius! I'm going to try that this weekend!
The infrared thermometer is a great investment.
You don't need a thermometer to get the correct heat for cooking pancakes -- get some water on your finger, and flick a drop onto the dry pan -- if the drop sizzles away instantly, it's too hot. If it just sits there, it's too cold. If it starts levitating like it's a hovercraft and runs around the pan, it's the right temp. (and I scrolled down, I saw @JustRightMenus posted the same thing as a reply to @nocorelius' answer). ...but the third, and most important part for crispiness is @MikeSherov's answer -- fat.
"Need" is a funny word. Dropping water on a pan is fine for throwing something together for breakfast or for a recipe that you already know, but if you want to develop a specific recipe with specific traits, the more accurate you are, the better. You can always simplify later.
This is all about getting the pancake to fry: use a vegetable oil, and make sure your griddle is hot (but not too hot as to cause the oil to burn) before you start making the pancakes. This allows the edges to start to crisp before the cooking process dries out the pancake.
Vegetable oil? Sacrilege! Pancakes should be fried in rendered pork fat, preferably from the bacon sizzling nearby... ;-)
@knives, Fair enough :)
Agreed with Knives on the fat selection, but the critical part to getting the edges crispy is that you have enough fat in the pan so the edges fry.
Butter, people! It's all about the butter!
I like them that way, this is what I do:
Make my batter from scratch, I do it by eye now so don't remember the measurements.
Something like this:
1 - 2 eggs mixed into milk to make a cup
2 + cups of flour
tablespoon of sugar
1/2 teaspoon of salt
2 teaspoons of baking powder
4 tablespoons of melted butter, not margarine (coolish)
add the dry ingredients together in a bowl and wisk well or sift together or stir really good with a fork or something.
make a well in the center of the dry stuff and pour in the milk/egg(s)
pour the melted butter onto the milk egg mix and immediately mix it up...some lumps are normal and expected. You should have a fairly thin batter, if you think it's too thin, add flour, to thick? Add more milk. Thinner pancakes crisp up better at the edges.
Note: if your pancakes have a kind of mottled appearance with some browning and some white spots, I told you to put in too much baking powder, reduce it next time.
pre heat a heavy pan (I use a cast iron griddle) to where butter will just start smoking
put about a teaspoon of butter (the real stuff) in the middle of the pan and let it melt a bit, then pour the batter over it, surrounding it with batter.
Note: increasing the butter increases the crispyness of the edges.
when the bubbles at the edge of the pancake are set(they stay open), turn it.
as soon as you pull the first pancake out, repeat the butter and pour bit, keep doing this until all the pancakes you want are cooked.
I usually eat one while I am cooking more then call people in as they come off the griddle, these are best when freshest.
Note: I have added everything I could ever think of to this recipe, except chocolate chips...sliced banana, oranges, flavored yoghurt, peanut butter, all kinds of nuts, crumbled bacon, garlic (once), onion both fresh and carmalized, cheese, blueberries, rasins, currents etc. Used to let one of the kids pick something out to add. Loads of fun!
Oh yeah, real maple syrup is matchless. It's expensive but you use a LOT less of it, and anyone that puts their plate in the sink with a big pool of this stuff on it gets dirty looks. Takes a bit of training, but is worth it.
Enjoy!
The best way to do exactly what you have asked is to use a cast iron pan. Start it out hot, but before the cure starts to smoke. Add some veggie oil (or butter or lard, but don't burn it) and make sure it will cover the pan and almost change consistency because it's quite hot. You can tell because it will get less viscous.
Pour a tester cake on there (about the size of a silver dollar) to test the heat. If this works, start your cake and enjoy.
I used to be a big fan of Bisquick, but my wife has me converted to super dank from-scratch batter. Either way, this hot cast iron method should give you those crispy edges you desire. A cast iron griddle will do the same, but I have found these warp in a convex way, making them less desirable for pancakes.
UPDATE
I've been using coconut oil a lot lately for cooking. It has it's benefits, but with regards to this post, I've found it fries batter quite nicely.
As an aside, I like to fry corn tortillas in about 3/8 inch coconut oil for homemade taco shells ;-)
Another way to tell if the cast iron is hot enough is that a bit of water will "skitter," or "dance," around on the pan. If it instantly evaporates, the pan's too hot. If it just sits there, the pan's too cool.
Yah, great point... Forgot to mention that. Actually, although probably not the most sanitary way to do it: I actually wash my hands often in the kitchen, and when they are clean, I "flick" some of the water from my hand onto the hot cast iron, oiled pan to get your "skittered" effect.
Fat + Heat + Richer Batter
More fat will help the pancakes fry and crisp.
More heat will help the fat fry and crisp the pancakes.
A richer batter will help the pancake fry in the pan.
I actually prefer very thin, crispy pancakes and I find that using a "Swedish" pancake mix aids in producing thinner and crispier pancakes.
Cook the pancake as usual on a hot griddle, but drizzle olive oil around its edges prior to flipping. Let sizzle and flip as normal. Then you get a soft middle and crunchy edges!
The best way I've found to cook pancakes is four minutes in a quesadilla maker. Our model has been discontinued, but similar ones should work as well.
My grandmother is a pro at this...she uses a small amount of shortening in a cast iron skillet, and mixes her batter to a slightly thicker consistency...you should hear the batter sizzle when it hits the pan..
Almost everyone here is wrong. I also love crispy edge pancakes, its the only ones I will eat! Ever notice that your first pancake usually has the crispy edges and then the rest do not?
Here is how to do it:
Make batter slightly thinner than normal. Have pan slightly cooler than usual. Add a good amount of butter to the pan (enough so it pools very slightly in spots) (not soaked though). Add batter to pan. Spread batter thinner than normal, not super thin though). There should be melted butter around the edges. Now turn the heat up a little bit.
Tips:
1.You want the pan cooler when you put batter in, cool enough so that you must turn up heat to cook.
2.You want melted butter all around the edges.
3. You want the pancake to cook slowly.
4. You want the butter around the edges to fry/crisp the edges.
5. In order to make more than one, I recommend cleaning your pan between each pancake. (If not, the 2nd will never come out as good as the first.
6. Practice, using the correct temps, amount of butter, and cooking time is crucial!
Pancakes are extra soft if you add baking soda to the batter. For crisp, high heat, and mix 2 parts butter with a one part of olive (or any) oil so the butter doesnt get burned. Add the batter and cook until bubles start to form on the pancake, then flip and cook for only 10-15 more seconds.
I grease the pan with olive oil and it gives a nice crispy outer and a nice soft inside. We use olive oil instead of vegetable oil because it is a healthier fat.
Try adding some rice flour to the batter - this is an established technique to get just the desired effect in pakora and tempura batters, it should be adaptable to pancakes just as well.
I help the butter with vegetable oil first, heat until smoking,.. add the clarified butter then pour in the batter... the edges crisp like a funnel cake. I then turn down the heat and cook till the bubbles appear and then flip. I use a sauté pan per pancake (one at a time for these monster sized pancakes) it helps crisp the edges like it is deep fried, and flipping is a whole lot easier since the cake is larger than usual . Center is fluffy and soft, the edges like a funnel cake. I finish off with a pat or two of butter, thin coat of maple sugar, a sprinkling of large grain raw sugar, and a thin artististic stripping of sweetened condensed milk.
You "help the butter"? What does this mean?
@Catija - maybe heat? Heat the butter with oil sounds reasonable, though it sorta sounds like the plan is to heat the pan with vegetable oil first, since he is adding only clarified butter after that, just before the batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.204804
| 2010-07-20T22:54:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2488",
"authors": [
"Brian Smith",
"Catija",
"Dave778",
"GollyJer",
"In the Booley House",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Megha",
"Mike Sherov",
"MikeJ-UK",
"Napas",
"Schizzella jackson-rose",
"Shog9",
"Tim Sullivan",
"Ward",
"WorkableFixative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"kaliatech",
"mabena",
"nicorellius",
"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
}
|
6863
|
Is there any way to revive popcorn that is making too many duds?
I've got some popcorn that I've had for a while, and when I try to pop it, a lot of the kernels remain unpopped. Is there anything I can do to revive it, or does it go in the compost?
I store my popcorn in the freezer in an old mayo jar with the lid tightly screwed on. As Michael says, dud popcorn has lost moisture. Add a tablespoon or so of water to the jar and put in the fridge (not the freezer for this part) a few days and see if that helps.
Storing uncovered in the fridge or freezer will remove moisture if you have a frost-free refrigerator.
Hmm... my refrigerator is (of course) frost free, and I just had a very clear experience where taking a bag that was 50% duds and storing it in there (with the bag open) for a few days, has made it only 5% duds. (Which is what led me to post this question/answer). That said, I see your point as I thought refrigerators are relatively low humidity outside the veg drawer. Anyone have more data or an explanation?
The reason it has stopped popping is that the kernels have lost some of the moisture inside that provides the explosion which pops the shell. If you store them uncovered in the refrigerator for a few days, they will absorb moisture and start working much better again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.205614
| 2010-09-07T00:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6863",
"authors": [
"Celeritas",
"Harold Hensley",
"Kelly",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"speshak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6471
|
What is the most efficient way to squeeze water out of cooked spinach?
I'm cooking a bunch of spinach for making a spinach and ricotta filling. I need to get as much water as possible out of the spinach, and I'd prefer not to make a big mess in the process. In the past, I've wrapped a few handfuls at a time in a towel and squeezed out the liquid. This leaves me with a messy, green stained towel and requires a lot of twisting that doesn't seem maximally effective.
Use a potato ricer. Just fill it up with a big handful of spinach, and give it a good squeeze in the sink, or over a bowl if you like to drink spinach water. It extracts a ton of liquid quickly, and is a breeze to clean up when you are done.
The important part is to work in small batches. I just use my hands -- grab a handful, squeeze, set it aside, grab another handful, etc.
Most things that you'd be tempted to use just have too large of holes, and let lots of spinach bits through, (and I admit, I miss some spinach as I start getting towards the end and it's mostly water), or they've got too small of holes that it's serious effort to use, and you have to work in small batches anyway.
So, if nothing else, my way leaves you with only your hands to wash, and no extra gear to buy.
I have used this method as well, and it does work. The main downside for me is that you can't do it while the spinach is still hot. As far as the holes go, I thought the potato ricer was going to clog too much, but it turned out to be a non-issue. You can use so much pressure it gets a great extraction, and if it does clog a little, you just knock it once on the sink and you are back in business.
@Michael: you process the spinich hot? I just microwave it 'til it's thawed, then squeeze it. (I never cook fresh spinich ... frozen blocks of cooked spinich store easily, and is cheap, so I never see the point of buying spinich just to cook it down)
I'm speaking of frozen spinach too, but I don't think you get maximum juice extraction unless you get it all the way hot first, to break down the cells. I like the spinach in my fillings to be as dry as humanly possible.
The French method uses a conical strainer ('passoir conique').
It is solid stainless steel, with about a 6" mouth at the top, and holes to let the water through. You simply push the spinach down as far as you feel is appropriate.
I learned this from Rachael Ray - use a clean (no fabric softener) cloth. Put spinach in small batches & squeeze. Works great. I use a never before used diaper. use it to squeeze moisture out of shredded zucchini too. After done, I soak the cloth in bleach water to remove the green stain then rinse the bleach out.
I use this technique all the time. I have a potato ricer and have occasionally used it for the same purpose, but the dishcloth is easier and you don't need to break it up into small batches like you do with the ricer.
Thank you for specifying "never used" for the cloth diaper. :D
I use a sieve that can hang over the sink.
Put the spinach in the sieve. On top of the spinach put a solid bowl, and in the bowl goes some weight. I generally use whatever dry stuff I have lying around, which is normally lentils.
You can use blind baking thingies if you have them.
Wait for about 15 minutes.
This method works well for pre-chopped frozen spinach which I find contains excessive amounts of water once defrosted. I use a ladle to force the water out. Most other methods mentioned on this page work best when you blanch your own spinach and before chopping.
I use two identical plates. On one plate you can put the spinach and with the bottom of the other plate you can squeeze out the liquid.
I use cheesecloth to squeeze my spinach. I put all the cooled spinach in the cheesecloth and
then I keep wringing it until all the water is gone. Then I discard the cheesecloth.
Just use a dishcloth and wash it afterwards!
I make spinach pie all the time and had the same problem! Here's my solution and it works better than anything I've ever tried!
I have a Waring Juice Extractor. I take the blade disc that usually grinds the vegetables and flip it upside down. Turn the juicer on and feed the cooked spinach into the juicer and it extracts darn near all the liquid from the spinach! Works incredible.
+1 for a creative solution. Still, I wonder - doesn't it get too dry? Or does the flipping suffice so that you don't get out too much of the juice from inside the leaves?
I need to clarify.. when I day I feed the spinach in through the top... I mean I take the top off, put the spinach in.. close up and turn on. Otherwise not enough room for spinach to enter the straining basket through the chute... Just be ready.. cuz if it's really out of balance... you'll know it!
Alternative Cooking Method: Flash Sauté
While frozen spinach can be more convenient, nothing beats fresh spinach (IMO). Fresh spinach flash sautéd in EVO with minced fresh garlic, salt-to-taste and finished with a squeeze of fresh lemon. This method alleviates the water left in the spinach because it cooks off in the high cooking heat. Very flavorful to stuff pasta or as a side dish.
I've most recently used a lemon juice squeezer and it worked perfectly! One of these
http://www.cajuncookingtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/lemon-squeezer.jpg
Works a treat!
Salad spinner (centrifuge) for a non-destructive method?
can also be done while spinach is still hot (beware if spinner is plastic, though)
I've never tried this, but in my imaginary world I wouldn't think this would remove very much of the water. Salad spinners are good at removing surface water but not squeezing it out of the leaves.
True, no squeezing involved, so it won't get as dry as you might want. Result will be somewhere between sitting in a sieve and pressing, I imagine.
I use my vegetable steamer, open the steamer, put the defrosted spinach in and close the steamer. Press until drained.
For frozen chopped spinach, don't open the bag. Make tiny snips with scissors on one side of bag. Place in bottom of sink and press all over, fold it, whatever works. Less mess; no stained towels, no special equipment, and for those who may have arthritic hands, this works better than any other method I've tried. I just "invented" this method today and will continue using it.
I Think run it through a pasta machine, wrap in cheese cloth. Just came to me . haven't tried yet, on my way to the store to buy one.
That seems like overkill. I'd wrap it in cheesecloth and squeeze it with my hands, or at most, a rolling pin.
It seems like a good idea on the surface, but most pasta machines aren't made to be disassembled to dry out -- I'd be afraid of either rust forming if it's not stainless, or washing away the lubrication applied where the rollers meet the frame.
I always used cheese cloth or a coffee filter.
My husband came into his idea but haven't tried yet the "mop squeezer." His thinking of sewing pillow cushion from new towel and fill up with thawed spinach and squeeze it onto the mop squeezer. And sanitized the equipment every after used.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.205786
| 2010-09-01T06:05:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6471",
"authors": [
"Brad McDonald",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Christa Oneal",
"David Mackenzie",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rey",
"SomeRandomName",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Wad Cheber",
"delbert123hotmailcouk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"kajaco",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
577
|
How do I make semisweet chocolate more liquid?
My wife and I were making some dipped cookies in semisweet chocolate. But the chocolate was too thick. We tried cream and butter to improve the coating of the cookies, the results did not turned out.
What could I add to semisweet chocolate to allow it to smoothly coat cookies?
Thanks!
You may want to elaborate what you mean by "results did not turn out." Butter and cream are common ways to thin out chocolate. If something went wrong, we need to know what it was so another alternative can be suggested.
Did you use chocolate chips or baker's chocolate?
@Robert, thanks for the comments and question. The chocolate sauce turned lumpy and seized.
@Aarount, we were using a good grade of chocolate chips
Ganache is made from chocolate and heavy whipping cream. You could add hot cream to the chocolate until you get the consistency you are looking for.
I think from what you said, our problem was that we added cream straight from the refrigerator.
Usually for this sort of thing you bring the cream to a simmer or boil before adding to the chocolate.
The recipe I use for chocolate coating on some cookies calls for paraffin wax to be added to the chocolate.
In a double boiler, I melt 12 ounces of semisweet chocolate chips with 1/2 a paraffin wax bar.
It's the only way I've ever known - family recipe, etc. How else can you keep the chocolate from melting easily or being sticky? I'll look into how to temper chocolate.
@roux: It's extremely common. In fact, much of the chocolate, including chocolate chips, that you buy commercially has already done this. If you google paraffin chocolate there are 1.8+ million results. 3.1+ million for wax chocolate
Make sure you keep the temperature up, and the water out of the chocolate. If you have a small crock-pot you could use that for the dipping. Heat the chocolate in a double boiler to avoid scorching, then use the crock-pot to maintain heat away from the water of the boiler. I wouldn't try this with a large pot, but if you have one that's designed for chocolate fondue it should work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.206515
| 2010-07-11T01:09:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/577",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bogatyr",
"Cody Caughlan",
"Dinah",
"John Burley",
"JustRightMenus",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sky Sanders",
"Zach",
"bitbonk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4450
|
Pan-frying Salmon before baking it
I'm trying to prepare a fillet red salmon which comes frozen.
Many times after I bake the salmon, it becomes really dry.
I once heard that you need to pan-fry a meat before cooking it so that the liquids it contains won't "leak" during cooking time.
Will that trick work for salmon?
I once ate a salmon in a restaurant, and it was very juicy. How can I achieve that at home?
Unfortunately, searing doesn't actually lock in juices; in fact it's been shown to take out slightly more juice than just baking, most likely because the meat is exposed to a higher heat during the sear which causes more evaporation. You can read slightly more about it on the wiki for Searing and a lot more about it in this previous thread. In fact, when you hear the constant sizzle in the pan as you pan fry, that's juices coming out and onto the pan. You can verify this by searing one side, searing the other, then flipping it again - you'll see juices seeping out through the seared side.
However, you do still want to sear meats whenever possible. Through the Maillard reaction you'll get a much more complex flavor that can't be matched through baking alone.
Most likely, my guess is that you're baking the salmon too long which is causing it to dry out. Are you wrapping it in a pouch with some liquids when you cook it? That can help a lot if you're baking but isn't absolutely necessary by any means. With or without a pouch, make sure that you're serving it pretty much right after pulling it from the oven - it will continue to cook after you remove it, whether you use a pouch or not.
You can also try reducing the time and increasing the heat a little bit and see if that helps at all. You want to be sure to keep the skin on if possible - this contains a lot of fat, which will help keep from drying out. I generally bake with the skin-side up so the fat can render down through the fish as it bakes.
You can find a great Good Eats episode about pouch cooking on YouTube, the first part of the episode can be found here. I generally don't follow recipes for pouch cooking - once you get a feel for it you can eyeball it with what you have around - but a good start might be this recipe.
Poaching the fish after searing is another good technique, and very easy, but be careful - although it's not common sense, you can still dry things out by poaching. Some people think poaching is error-proof and will just throw food in water and leave it until they're ready to eat it - this will result in dry meat.
The best way to cook salmon is to grill it over a high heat. even better if you can get a cedar plank to put it on. Oil the fish (or the grill, your choice) lightly and cook it for a few minutes (4-6) on each side, depending on how thick the fish is. You can tell when it's done because it will be fully opaque and flake easily with a fork. Keep a watchful eye - once salmon is close to being done, it will become overdone fast, so you want to pull it from the heat as early as you can without undercooking it.
I've baked salmon dozens of times and the most common mistake people make with it (even in restaurants!) is baking it for far too long.
It dries out because it continues to cook after you remove it from the oven. Of course, people bake it until they think it's thoroughly cooked - so by the time it's cool enough to eat, it's completely dried out. This happens with meat too, but it's a lot more noticeable with salmon and other fish because the baking time is so much shorter.
For a typical fillet (about 1"), you'll want to thaw it completely first, then bake it at 450° F for no more than 10 minutes. If it's thinner, dial it down to 8 minutes or so. You can also wrap it in foil and bake it for about 13-15 minutes; I don't do this because I find it unnecessary, but it can help to mitigate some of the drying-out if you're still having problems.
Oh, and don't leave it in the baking dish after you take it out of the oven! Transfer it immediately to a serving platter (preferably warmed, but not hot).
As long as you don't over-bake salmon, it will not dry out.
Thanks. I eaten a few dry salmons in restaurants, that's really explains it. BTW, does it make a different if the fillet comes frozen, or if it's fresh? If it does, is there a way to compensate the fact it's frozen?
@Elazar: As long as you thaw it properly (in the fridge), you shouldn't have a problem with frozen salmon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.206733
| 2010-08-06T13:23:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4450",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andresch Serj",
"Andrew Kozak",
"Elazar Leibovich",
"James Beninger",
"Jerzyna",
"Tina",
"haimg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8400",
"ted.strauss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4588
|
How do I make candy shells?
How do I make candy shells like M&Ms or Reese's Pieces have?
With an industrial factory?
You can give your candies hard shells by dipping them into a melted mixture of one part water, two parts sugar, and 1/2 part corn syrup. Melt those ingredients together over medium to medium-high heat until the sugar has totally dissolved and the mixture is at the hard crack stage (295-310° F./146-154° C.). Remove your pot of glaze from the heat and place it into a waiting metal bowl of ice water. Once the glaze has stopped bubbling, begin dipping your candies immediately. Once dipped, set them on an appropriate, lightly greased surface to cool (use a flavorless oil or kitchen spray for greasing).
You'll want to skewer your candies to dip them; never attempt to dip candies into hot glaze by hand. You'll also want to set everything up for dipping before you make your glaze: have your bowl of ice water ready; have a greased tray or marble slab/counter ready to receive your dipped candies; have your kitchen to yourself (distractions aren't good when working with hot glaze).
Your glaze will cool very quickly, so work carefully but efficiently.
A couple of notes on this. First, the corn syrup is extremely important in order to keep the glaze from seizing as you cook it. Second, while this will glaze your candies, it won't be exactly like an M&M or Reeses. For coated candies like this they typically use a large tumbler where they tumble the pieces and then pour in powdered flavorant/colorant. Once the pieces are evenly coated, they then pour or spray in a food-grade wax to seal and shine the pieces.
What's the reason/chemistry for putting the hot sugar in a bowl of ice water? It seems like that would only serve to limit the workable time.
GalacticCowboy may have meant paraffin wax. See this thread for some details on using it both for candy and cookie coatings; amounts to use and technique for in the home kitchen. Definitely be safe. :) http://apps.exploratorium.edu/cooking-forum/YaBBb70f.html?num=1228938423
@antony.trupe As you heat the hot sugar the water is evaporating, and the water is actually keeping the sugar's boiling point lower than it would be otherwise. If you then put the molten sugar in water it behaves certain ways. This is used as a "cold water test" for help know when your sugar is at the right state for a given recipe. See this for more details and examples of the stages including the final burnt state https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/candy/sugar-stages.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.207114
| 2010-08-08T20:59:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4588",
"authors": [
"Boonnoon",
"Cob",
"Crivens",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jasmine Hegman",
"John McGinnis",
"Philter",
"antony.trupe",
"bmargulies",
"hotchef1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8905",
"jennifer",
"methodofaction",
"viclou"
],
"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
}
|
9795
|
How can I get fried prawns to be juicy?
Okay I give up, I've tried and failed about 8 times now frying prawns but they never are succulent. The recipe that I want to get done is pretty simple:
De-vein. Salt the prawn for some time and allow it to marinate.
Wash them. Fry them in some oil till they turn pink.
Add onion, chillies, ginger, garlic. Some turmeric. Some tomatoes.
The cuisine is Goan if it's of any help.
This is exactly what mum does and somehow it turn out great. The only things different that I'm doing are:
The original recipe uses coconut oil, I'm using sunflower
I'm using frozen prawns because i cant get hold of fresh prawns.
I don't think any of this should affect the dish. Anyway, what always happens is that the prawns are either too chewy or too dry (opposite of juicy).
What am I doing wrong here? How do I know if the prawns are just cooked right? Should I be using low or high heat?
Any other tips for getting really juicy fried prawns?
I've had similar problems with frying prawns. Try roasting them instead, in the "Kerala prawn roast" style. The important part of the recipe is to use "kodampuli" and an earthen pot, since the kodampuli reacts with the pot to produce a unique flavour. http://www.kothiyavunu.com/2009/07/spicy-prawns-fry.html
I agree with hobodave that you're overcooking the prawns. But, I would cook the veggies first and then let the prawns cook with them for the last 2 minutes of the veggie cooking time.
One other thing I would suggest is to cut out the salting/marinade stage. The salt could be "cooking" the prawns and is most likely sucking some moisture out.
You could also try reducing the amount of oil you're using, 1 tbs in a pan should be sufficient.
yes it depends on the veggies, in this case the onions dont require a lot of frying else they turn nasty brown. I wash the prawns before using it so that there is only a hint of saltiness for that seafood flavour, maybe youre right it did help. moisture is crucial. I switched to butter, this dish needs more oil 1tbs isnt enough D:. I'll accept your answer.
I suggested cooking the shrimp first so that the shrimp flavor is infused in the oil. The oil then imparts this flavor to the veggies more-so than simply adding them in the pan for the last two minutes.
You are overcooking them. When the shrimp turn pink at the end of your second step, they are done. When you add your remaining ingredients and continue to cook them, you are overcooking the shrimp.
I'd suggest cooking the shrimp until they are pink, then setting them aside. Cook your remaining ingredients in the pan until done, and then toss with the shrimp and serve.
Regarding the oil, it shouldn't make a difference that you are using sunflower oil. Regarding the frozen prawns, unless your mom was purchasing them direct from an oceanside market, she was likely buying once-frozen prawns too. Most prawns found in supermarkets are flash frozen at the source, and are only thawed and put on ice at the supermarket.
Yes this is exactly what ive been told, and i havent tried it out yet i'll let you know, im just trying to get the sweet spot, what i want is a creamy texture and a juicy prawn, till now the results are satisfactory, thanks man , and yes mum stays by the sea and the local fish market does not freeze, they just throw in a couple of blocks of ice to keep it cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.207372
| 2010-12-05T07:19:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9795",
"authors": [
"Andrey",
"Gabe",
"Nav",
"eddie.sholl",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"user20039"
],
"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
}
|
12103
|
What is Light Cream
I have a recipe for chocolate pudding that calls for Light Cream. I haven't ever seen light cream in the store. What is it? Also what can be used as a substitute?
This is somewhat regionally-dependent. You'll want to take into account where your recipe is from.
In the U.S., light cream is 18% fat (although, officially it can be anywhere from 18-30%). It is equivalent to table cream in Canada and single cream or just cream in the UK. I believe it is also sometimes referred to as table cream or coffee cream in the U.S.
The term is in contrast to heavy cream (also known as double cream or whipping cream in some regions) which is 36% fat.
In Canada, light cream actually refers to 5-6% "low-fat" cream, and seems to be used most often as a coffee creamer. This particular type of cream doesn't seem to be popular anywhere else.
See the Wikipedia page on cream for more detailed comparisons and terminology from other regions.
+1. “Coffee cream” is a particularly dangerous term — it sometimes refers to a vile blend of cream and cheap fillers/sweeteners (vegetable fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc.).
@PLL: I think that the honest ones call it "creamer" - in some areas, calling it "cream" might actually be in violation of federal or state/provincial regulations.
Canada has "half and half" which is 10% (imagine it's half 18% and half 2% which is our "normal" milk) and that is normally what you would put in your coffee. That's why 5% is "light" in that context.
@Kate: That is true, and I think half-and-half (or just half-cream) exists everywhere. The exact percentage varies slightly but it's always somewhere around 10%.
Light cream is usually full cream with some (up to most) of the fat removed (and usually gum and other stuff added to simulate the texture and other properties of full cream). You should be able to substitute with the same amount of full cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.207671
| 2011-02-13T18:08:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12103",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Kate Gregory",
"PLL",
"Roger Curinga",
"WetlabStudent",
"Will Boyce",
"alexei-grigoriev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"majackson",
"user24947"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13140
|
Do Raisins Become Stale
Do Raisins become stale? What happens to them? How should I store them?
Slightly off-topic, but you may be able to recover stale raisins by warming gently in a pan of water or a spirit such as rum.
They absolutely do. They're "dried" but they're not really dry. They will continue to dry out until they become grainy and weird. Most dried fruit is this way, with the exception of freeze dried fruit, which has the opposite problem: once you open it, it absorbs moisture from the air, and gets gummy and gross.
We bulk purchase a variety of bulk dried fruits. Depending on their moisture level when you buy them they will keep for a long time (up to a year)
If they are moist and squishy (typical of apricots), they will need to be frozen to last past a few months
For reasons I don't know dried fruit does not improve with age. They don't taste 'more dried', they just lose flavour and texture. I have not had any go off, they are just not as nice
The exception being Arab figs, which seem to become more intense with storage?
Like most dry goods, store them in a cool dark place in an airtight container
I remember raisins being sold in packets with a little amount of (edible) petroleum jelly on them to keep them moist - 0.5% by weight, if I remember correctly.
My first degree was in Food Science (I graduated 33 years ago so I'm a bit out of date), and as part of my studies I worked for six months in what was called a 'Public Analysts' laboratory, in which we would check the chemical contents of food. Once I was asked how I would check the oil content of a packet of raisins - I would add the raisins to alcohol or ether then separate the solvent and evaporate it. What would be left would be the oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.207864
| 2011-03-14T23:41:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13140",
"authors": [
"GWP",
"Gary",
"Jeremy Thompson",
"Tippy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27253",
"sat",
"user27253",
"willm1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10211
|
Where can I find dried Great Northern Beans?
In a recipe I am trying to make this weekend, I saw the following:
"2 cups dried Great Northern Beans, soaked,
cooked and drained"
Where can I find these? I could not find them at my local grocery store. Are there any substitutions that would work well?
Not sure where your located but I find mine at Wegman's and the canned version I've seen many times at Safeway and Harris Teeter.
They are a small, white, mildly flavored bean. You can use cannellini or navy beans instead.
Cannellini beans are also known as white kidney beans.
Thanks a lot. I did see kidney beans at the store. I'll pick some up.
Just to be clear: NOT the red kidney beans. Depending on what you are doing with them, it could be fine, but will be quite a bit different than Great Northern. But as @hobodave says, white kidney is indeed the same as GNB.
Like the other respondants said, other white beans of a similar size/shape would make fine substitutions. The GNBs have a very mild flavor. I would even say other off-color beans would be fine, like canellini or kidney beans if your don't mind the color mix.
I thought Great Northern beans and Navy beans were the same. Look in ethnic markets, they have a great range of dry beans and different types of rices, also a good place to look for large quantities of spices if you make your own spice mixtures.
Additionally a lot of farmers markets will carry dried beans/lentils/rice. The one I frequent has a large variety for a low cost. Worth a shot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.208039
| 2010-12-16T16:46:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10211",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Buddhika Ariyaratne",
"Echo Anders",
"Mangat Rai Modi",
"Mel",
"Michael Natkin",
"Naomi Campbell",
"PenAndSoftware",
"Semere Taézaz Sium",
"Thomas T",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71892"
],
"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
}
|
9981
|
How can I clean my oven window?
My oven has a convenient window on it. It is very old and covered in soot. I tried what many recommendations say and used water and baking soda together, but it did not cut through the grime. Does anyone know how to get rid of this mess?
Oven cleaner will take that right off. If you're sensitive to nasty harmful fumes you can get the fume free kind.
Make sure you follow the manufacturer's instructions to the letter, and make sure no kids or pets are around.
I will report back on this. I think I tried it a few years ago.
EASY OFF! It's what I used to use on the window of the pizza oven and it worked great.
I used some easy off over the weekend. I would like to say two things. First, I spilled some and it burned a hole in my wood floor. I spent the rest of the weekend on the phone to see how much it will cost me to repair the floor. Second, I can now see through the window, but it is now tinted a yellowish-greenish color. It is almost impossible to see through as it is now. I know that when I purchased the oven, the glass was perfectly clear, not tinted.
@Naomi: One of those instructions that you were supposed to follow to the letter is to put newspaper down on your floor around your stove. Sorry about your floor :(
I'm going to mark this as the best answer, but I would still like to know if anyone has a solution to the yellow tint on the glass. It bothers me just enough to feel as if I should replace it, but I'd rather not.
@Naomi: Try contacting the manufacturer to see if they have suggestions.
Oven windows generally have three or four layers of glass. If you want to clean stuff in between the inside and outside, you must have an appliance repair service come out and tear the door apart.
If you just want to simply clean the inside glass, you can use a thick paste made up of baking soda and water, a non-scratching rag or scouring pad, and some elbow grease This post explains it all very well:
How To Clean Your Oven Window
Also, just about every oven glass has a tinting on it. Thisis the main reason you shouldn't use a scouring pad to clean it. Scouring pads will scratch the tint. I don't think oven cleaner is responsible for discoloring the glass. One way to know for sure, is to find and oven like yours, and look at it.
Does your oven have a cleaning cycle? I've had both good and bad experiences with cleaning cycles, but on some ovens they work quite well. Even if they don't remove all the grime, they make it much easier to remove with water and gentle cleaners.
Then again, I've used ovens where the self-cleaning cycle didn't do anything. It depends.
just remember to take any oven thermometers out before running the cleaning cycle ... they don't always survive. (but, if you've got some cast iron that need to be re-seasoned, they can stay in to help stripping 'em down.)
I've tried the cleaning cycle. I saw no visual change in the window. I was still unable to wipe off the mess.
@Naomi - sounds like your oven is one with an ineffective cleaning cycle. Sorry to hear that - I've dealt with that pain in an old cheap oven in a rental. In that case I used standard spray oven cleaner to partially address that problem.
Depending on how dirty or modern your oven is, you'll have to balance the trade-offs of whether or not it's worth it to try cleaning it when you can buy a relatively inexpensive new oven instead. Figure out how much your time is worth, and if it's more than the cost of a new oven you probably shouldn't bother.
Now, this sounds extreme, but if you're having a lot of trouble cleaning it, this option is worth keeping in mind. New ovens are also generally more performant by providing even heating and superior self-cleaning cycles (so you won't have to worry about this ever again!)
You can replace the glass, somewhat cheaper than buying a new oven.
I think your answer is pretty far-fetched. Why would I replace an oven just because I can't see through the window? Also, I will look into Bruce's answer to replacing the glass and see how much it might cost me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.208221
| 2010-12-10T20:27:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9981",
"authors": [
"B. Clay Shannon-B. Crow Raven",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Curt",
"Izkata",
"James Gaehring",
"Joe",
"Mirousek",
"Naomi Campbell",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"rsavchenko",
"sarge_smith",
"user20444",
"user2777737"
],
"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
}
|
10329
|
Is granulated sugar (American) the same as caster sugar (UK)?
I have an american cake recipe which includes 'granulated sugar', would this be uk caster sugar? It is for the stage when you beat in with the butter?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca (and I just added that one)
I'm not familiar with the naming conventions for sugar in the UK so I apologize if I become patronizing.
Granulated sugar is the every-day table sugar here. It's what I grab a spoonful for my cereal and such, and it is the kind used in almost all of the baking I've done. Is caster sugar what you usually have around?
Caster sugar is called "super-fine" sugar in the States. It is finer that granulated sugar but not as fine as powdered sugar (icing sugar for the UK right?).
Honestly, I can't say that I've ever bought any as I usually only see granulated and powdered, but Wikipedia tells me that "Castor sugar can be prepared at home by grinding granulated sugar for a couple of minutes in a food processor."
That being said, if you're just beating it into butter than I would think the caster sugar should be perfectly reasonable for the job. Though I agree with bikeboy that you should go by weight if you use a substitue.
Running around This Site, I found that there are aprrox 7oz(200g) per cup granulated sugar, and 6.5oz(190g) per cup caster sugar. So you would actually need more sugar if using caster sugar, as it is less dense. Obviously not a lot though (200/190=1.053).
At the professional level at least, powdered sugar and icing & glaze sugar are slightly different. Icing sugar has more corn starch added so that icings will set up thicker.
It could be my imagination, but the granulated sugar in my (UK) kitchen seems finer than it was 30 or 40 years ago, possibly almost the same as caster sugar used to be. The caster sugar on the shelf is even finer, but still granules and not a powder.
No, it's not the same thing. Granulated sugar is normal table sugar and caster sugar has a coarseness between granulated sugar and powdered sugar. You can get it in the baking aisle and it's called baking sugar. This type of sugar definitely gives a better texture in recipes that require it. I've tried making fudge with normal sugar since I could not find the castor sugar here in the USA, and it was a total disaster as the texture of the fudge was very coarse. I'm glad I found the baking sugar now.
It sounds like C&H Baking Sugar is what is generically known in the US as superfine sugar.
Caster Sugar has the same consistency as our Baker's Sugar (or superfine sugar) but the main AND THE MOST IMPORTANT difference between the two is what constitutes the sugar. In America we generally use the sugar beet to make our sugars. But Caster Sugar - in order to be classified Caster Sugar - is made from Sugar Cane (Cane Sugar.) [Baker's Sugar is made from Cane Sugar as well so it is the same product as caster sugar in the U.K.] Cane Sugar has a much more multifaceted and deeper flavor than sugar beet sugar or corn syrup. If you can find Cane Sugar - if the package specifies that it is cane sugar - the specification is often hard to find in the USA - then you should always buy cane sugar instead of sugar beet sugar. (Do a side by side taste test of Lyle's Golden Syrup versus Karo Corn Syrup one day and you will see quite clearly why the added flavor provided by the minerals that constitute sugar cane make it the far better choice for baking/cooking.)
By the time the sugar is made into white sugar, none of those minerals are left. Obviously there would be a huge difference between something like turbinado sugar and beet sugar, but both white cane sugar and white beet sugar are basically pure sucrose. Syrup processing is also a different process than that of making granulated sugar, so the syrup comparison isn't really relevant.
In NZ (which tends to use british terms), granulated = white table/everday sugar.
Caster sugar is finer / more powdered down.
We (personally) use 'raw sugar' for most day to day things - it's exactly like our white 'table sugar', but is browner as it hasn't been bleached as much. So just use your bog standard 'normal' sugar :)
yes usually you would use castor sugar when beating in with the butter as it is finer than uk 'granulated sugar'
I assume you meant US when you used UK above, as caster sugar is definitely finer than US granulated sugar. I agree that it would be fine to use, though I think I'd want to measure by weight rather than volume as caster sugar, being finer, would probably give more sugar for a given measured volume than coarser granulated sugar.
Surprised you mention it's an American recipe. Granulated sugar in Britain is coarse white sugar used for tea/coffee etc - usually loads sold in white packs with blue colouring. Caster sugar is basically the same stuff just ground finer, usually sold in white packs with orange colouring it's what you would use for baking (warning if you use this for hot drinks it's much sweeter - because it's finer). Icing sugar - usually sold in white packs with pink colouring - is used for making butter cream and icing for cakes/buns/cupcakes and again is the same stuff just ground up even finer into a powder.Apologies if this does sound patronizing but it's one of those things if you don't bake you won't know. Happy baking.
Caster Sugar is Baker's Sugar in the USA
Any link or proof supporting that assert would really help.
Baker's sugar is not a category or generic name in the US; it is C&H's trade name for their superfine sugar. C&H is not well distributed nationally (mostly on the west coast), so it is not even a wide spread term here.
Australian here. I believe "granulated sugar" is what we call raw sugar. We often use the British terms for stuff, so that may be it.
It's crunchier than brown sugar (and not as brown, but not white either) and, well, granulated (it's made up of granules). It's not as "fine" as white sugar (which is not as fine as icing sugar, which I think Americans call powdered sugar, as it is powdered).
Nope: US "granulated sugar" is completely white, and while you can tell that it's made up of crystals, you can't tell what shape those crystals are. I'd say US "brown sugar" and "granulated sugar" are equally crunchy - the former simply has some molasses added.
I think 'raw sugar' is sugar that's from sugarcane. Can anyone confirm this?
1.) Caster Sugar is closer to (US) Powdered Sugar than (US) Table sugar.
(AU) Raw Sugar is more coarsely ground than (US) Table Sugar; Close relative to Turbinado in color and granule size.
Powdered Sugar is what you will find on the outside of Donuts, funnel cakes, zeppoli's, beignets and pfeffernusse cookies. (I don't think that's what you're looking for.)
2.) What is packaged here in the US as RAW SUGAR is actually bleached completely white and then tinted towards brown by adding back some molasses. I'm not sure if it's the same process overseas.
I think you need to provide a reference for number 2 to have any credibility.
I've got to second SAJ on that one. What you're describing is how brown sugar is made, but not products labeled as "raw" sugar.
What is labeled raw sugar in the US is usually turbinado sugar, which is just cane juice that has been dried and then (as the name suggests) spun to remove impurities.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.208712
| 2010-12-20T11:06:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10329",
"authors": [
"Btuman",
"Dave Cope",
"Even Kjemsås",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Saw",
"Julian",
"Malendia",
"Marti",
"MattCamp",
"Michael Campbell",
"Mien",
"Nick Bowden",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Steve Aldridge",
"Yue Y",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83055",
"rkreddy8080",
"schrodingerscat11",
"user170432",
"user21131"
],
"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
}
|
10430
|
What are some good tips or techniques for using a carbon steel wok on electric coil range?
I was just given a carbon steel wok for christmas. I used it to cook my first stir-fry vegetable dish and I noticed on that the directions indicated to cook on a high flame. I was not sure if this translates to an electric range as turning on the electric burner on high. I am interested in any general knowledge or hints on the most effective use of a carbon steel wok on an electric coil range.
I wok on an electric stove and have found there's a few tips to really help - its not perfect, but it helps:
Preheat, preheat, preheat. Before you start any of your prep, put your wok on the stove and crank the heat. Let it heat up before you do anything at all to it.
Make sure everything is at least at room temperature. We often use frozen stir fry veggies, but we thaw them out first and they're at least at room temp before they go in. The same goes for meat. For sauces, we'll often microwave it so that its a bit warm before it even goes in. If you have a screaming hot wok, and you add cold food - then for a long time it will only steam the food.
Do it in batches. Don't crowd your wok until everything is already hot. If you're doing meat and veggies - do the meat first, take it off, let the pan reheat, and then do some of the veggies. Work in batches so that the pan temperature doesn't drop and give it time to reheat between batches. Assemble it all at the end.
Ran across this post and didn't really care for the existing answers.
My father-in-law, an authentic Chinese person from China, has a round-bottom wok, which sits on a little stand so that the bottom is just above the element of the stove. He turns the heat up to max. Seems to work for him but it's probably not super efficient.
It is hard to get a wok anywhere near authentic stir-frying temperature over an electric burner. In fact, most home gas stovetops won't do it very well either. If you've ever watched someone cook in a wok over a proper wok burner, you'll know how crazy hot they get. But if you just want to get some use out of your wok, even an electric burner will be workable.
@bikeboy389: Well, "authentic" is pretty subjective. And people have to make do with the tools they have, sometimes. But he's lived in Canada for 40 years and used this stove for 30 and he still manages to make Chinese food. The wok is almost the only "pot" he uses.
Yeah--perhaps I should have used quotes as you did. The fact is that it's hard to get true stirfry results when the majority of us are only able to get the wok hot enough to stir-steam on our stoves. That's why the results at top Chinese restaurants are so impossible to get at home. I'm happy to live with the approximation, but it IS an approximation.
I am first of all assuming your carbon steel wok has a flat bottom. You want maximum contact.
If you're stir frying, you want to turn your heat as high as possible. The idea is to cook everything very, very quickly. Crank it all the way. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.209275
| 2010-12-22T20:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10430",
"authors": [
"Mario Elocio",
"Michael",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"MtWoRw",
"Pete",
"bikeboy389",
"dmourati",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
11686
|
How to find a competent knife sharpener
I have a santoku that I will be wanting to get professionally sharpened in the next few months. This is the first knife I've owned that was reasonably expensive so I want to make sure I take care of it. Are most professional knife sharpening places familiar with the differences in Japanese knife edges vs a more traditional (for the U.S.) German knife? For example, the angle is different and one side is flat on my santoku compared to, say, a French chef's knife.
Aside from just asking them if they know what they are doing, are there any specifics I should look for or questions to ask in finding someone who can do this properly? Also, is there any kind of reasonable price range I should expect or does that vary too much to say?
Even if you go to a professional place, the person working that day might not be experienced; one of my friend had a sushi knife butchered at a place he had been going to for years -- the normal knife guy wasn't working that day, and the person doing the sharpening ground down both sides.
You can learn to sharpen your own knife quickly and cheaply. Your results will be as good as a professional if you take your time. Then you don't have to worry about someone else messing it up. A good whetstone will cost you under $50, and then you are set for years.
Allow me to help you fast forward through my years of pain trying to get my knives sharpened. I looked all over to find a local sharpening service. I called fancy restaurants, chain restaurants, and restaurant supply stores. I found one who said they performed the service and promptly had three knives really scratched up.
I tried doing the sharpening myself. This isn't a bad idea, but most home sharpening systems won't let you put a true new edge on your knife. The best luck I had was with a Spyderco Sharpmaker. This will do a good job, but I found it to be a pain, and it never really got me the results I was looking for.
Then I discovered sharpening by mail. Its awesome. Ship your knives off, get them back in a state where you should keep bandaids handy. Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal comparing several services. I used the Knife Guy and couldn't have been happier. Unfortunately, it looks like he's no longer accepting new customers since the article came out, but the other services they compared seem to have done well.
One other Note. I read in an interview with Alton Brown that he only sends his knives off to be professionally sharpened once a year or so. If you use a honing steel properly that's all you should need. I've certainly found that to be the case with me.
I also use the Sharpmaker at home and the two default ceramic stone types are great for maintaining an edge but you won't really be able to reach razor sharpness or set whole new edges unless you pony up for the ultra fine and the ultra course stones sold separately. Thanks for the wall street article tip I'll definitely look into it.
Also, maybe note that to get the best results when sharpening at home you should always hone the blade first to have a straight edge to work with.
I'd recommend checking with a reputable cookware/cutlery store in your area for a recommendation--ideally a local one, as they're more likely to have recommendations than a big national chain (though places like Sur La Table may still have some).
You might also check with restaurants in your area--some of them might have a service they use.
Butcher shops and fish markets are also great places to ask for advice. Most businesses that use knives as a part of their everyday routine should be able to point you in the right direction. It's usually easier to walk into a store like a butcher shop and start asking technical questions without feeling like you're interfering with the staff's business, so I'd probably start there.
I take mine to the local sewing store. They have someone come in once a month to sharpen sissors. I talked to the guy he also does knifes. I took him one of my old cheap chefs knifes first and was pleased with the result so now he gets my good ones too.
+1 for not risking the good ones out of the gate
It will really be down to each individial company. Be specific about the type of knife when you enquire and when you drop it off for sharpening, get a receipt/job sheet detailing that, and specify the one-sided sharpen: 'Japanese knife, sharpen one side only'. That way you have some comeback if they f%^& it up.
You need to find a bladesmith. They often sharpen more things than just kitchen equipment, such as carpentry tools. Sometimes they work out of non-chained hardware stores. Look for business with names like "Sharpening" in them, eg: Superior Saw Sharpening.
Oh boy. Be careful. Knife sharpening isn't a easy as people think. There is a ton of information out there, all of it giving different advice, different techiniques, diffent tools.
I've been a professional chef for 9 years and devoted countless hours to trying to master the art of sharpening.... The reality is- for the average person, you have to be careful.
As the questioner noted- there are big differences between how you sharpen knives. Western styled knives (sabatier, henkel, wustof...) have a different angle(bevel) than japanese styled blades. Traditional japanese blades have a much lower angle (15 degrees?). And western styled Japanese blades are in between (mac, global)
It gets complicated very quickly once you start getting into the nicer blades. If you use the wrong sharpening technique or tool, you mess up the bevel and have to really work to get the right edge back.
For the average person, i would use a sharpening steel. And if i have to sharpen my western styled knives, use an electric sharper. Dont use the rough grinder too much, otherwise you'll eat the blade faster. This is the easiest, cheapest and most consistent method for beginners.
For japanese blades, send it out. There may be mail in services. I know that Korin in NY has a knife sharpening service. And the knife master is very well trained in polishing/ sharpening. I would trust few others. Most people only sharpen one way and don't know the differce. Oh yeah- grinding a japanese blade on a whetstone will damage the blade ( the metal /edge is too fine ). Of course you could always learn how to do it by hand with a whetstone. But that takes a lot of practice.
A sharpening steel does not sharpen a truly dull blade, it is a maintenance tool. And uncooled electric grinders are always terrible advice especially for beginners.
You will also want to consider what experience they have with different grinds of knives - Hollow vs. regular, for example, and their familiarity with edges. At the very least, sharpeners should be able to distinguish hollow from v-grind and convex edge. You may want to ask if they're familiar with single- and compound- or double-bevel sharpening. Ask what kind of waterstones and grits they have. Can you watch them sharpen your knives? This is a dead giveaway. I have been lucky to find more than a few great knife sharpeners in the city, and they are uniformly happy to let you see them sharpen your knife/knives, and talk about what they're doing and why.
Generally, Japanese knives benefit from being sharpened over a waterstone, a formation of natural stone or a pressed stone slurry that, when wet, will form a slurry that gently and consistently abrades your knife edge to sharpen it very fine. The greater the grit of stone they possess, the sharper they are able to get knives. They can require anything from 15-19º for the edge; changing the angle changes the characteristics of the knife. The angle of the edge affects how cleanly the knife slices through material, its edge retention,and a bunch of other characteristics. Depending on the quality of the metal in your knife, you may not need or be able to achieve lower angles or finer-grit sandstones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.209564
| 2011-01-31T15:05:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11686",
"authors": [
"Chef",
"Gijs Overvliet",
"Hayden Fennell",
"Joe",
"Joshua Aslan Smith",
"Michael Owen Sartin",
"Mojtahedi",
"NickW",
"Terror in the Kitchen",
"Tracey",
"brightlySalty",
"fordeka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81094",
"kei",
"lithic",
"michael",
"rackandboneman",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24357
|
How should I layer the ingredients in a taco salad?
When making taco salad, I often run into problems:
If the beans or sour cream come in contact with the tortilla chips, the chips will become soggy.
If the cheese comes in contact with hot ingredients, such as meat or beans, the cheese will melt too early and lose flavor.
Ingredients placed the top are often eaten more quickly, so the dish becomes too plain near the end.
What is a good way to layer or assemble the ingredients in a taco salad, which avoids these problems?
While reading your question it sounds like: 'How can I make a salad without the ingredients to touch each other'. So I think what you actually wants is not possible.
So if you want all of your 3 points to work for, I would suggest you don't make a salad, but serve the chips/cheese separated from the rest of your ingredients. Also, then you can mix the ingredients easily such that your dish does not get plain at the end.
Maybe it won't look as nice as you want it to look, but it's about taste in the end isn't it! So just:
-Serve the chips/cheese separated from the rest of the salad
-mix the other ingredients such that your dish does not get plain near the end. (I would say, except for the sour cream, you don't want that to be fully mixed with the other ingredients)
-I also think that serving your chips separately gives you the change to eat them with some side dishes, like guacamole or a salsa.
If you really want it to be a salad, you can maybe make smaller portions, so give every person it's own plate. Then there is in total more 'edge' on all plates together to put the chips on, there they will become get less soggy. Also a personal plate will be less 'deep' and so you won't have the problem of getting a plain dish at the end. You can put on the cheese afterwards at the table, so it is not already melted before being served.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.210434
| 2012-06-11T07:03:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24357",
"authors": [
"Sally",
"Selena T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55580",
"kingledion",
"mcmahoniel",
"t1m0",
"user45384"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24524
|
What happens if I wash my baker's couche?
I have heard from several sources (some of them including people from SA chat) to not wash a baker's couche. They do not need to be washed because generally they are dry and have nothing the bacteria can feed on/grow on.
Is the advice to not wash the couche due solely to the fact that it isn't necessary or is it also because it will degrade the couche somehow?
I had accidentally spilled apple juice on my bakers couche. My baker's couche is made out of untreated, unbleached flax linen. How would I clean my baker's couche without deteriorating it in anyway?
Flax is a very problematic fabric to wash, and even more problematic to dry. You risk ending up with stiff, wrinkled, and/or shrunk fabric.
I would never machine wash the flax couche. Actually, I wouldn't wash it after regular use, when it doesn't come into contact with anything but flour and lean dough. But if it accidentally got dirtied with something else, you are obviously better off washing it than throwing it away.
In this case, I would hand-wash it in room-temperature water, neven in a washing machine (not even the wool cycle). Use wool detergent (no fabric softener), and don't crumple the fabric while washing. Instead, try to let it soak a bit (maybe 15-20 min) and then gently "shake off" the dirt under water. You can add a bit of food grade citric acid for the last rinse, because acid acts somewhat similar to fabric softener.
When it is washed, don't wring it. Shake off as much water as you can, then lay it between two frotee towels. It should be spread out, not wrinkled or folded. Keep it at room temperature, not near sun, wind or a heater. Change the towels after 6 to 8 hours (the first time you may have to change them sooner). Repeat until it is only moist, not wet. Then spread it somewhere to dry without towels, again away from sun, wind, or excessive heat. Turn it every few hours. It will probably be stiffer than when you started with it, but I think it will be still usable.
Are you kidding? Linen is, like, the most washable fabric in the universe! It literally gets stronger when wet, unlike pretty much any other fiber. Yeah, it gets wrinkled; if this bothers you, iron it dry rather than letting it air dry. That said, the problem with many linen articles of clothing is that they're sewn without preshrinking the fabric, which means you risk making children's clothes if you wash something labeled "dry clean only".
@marti it won't get ugly the way silk would, but it gets stiff after washing. Its wrinkles are very, very hard to get out with the iron, and after ironing its fibres are very... I think pressed is the best word I can say about it, it is just very different from unironed fabrics.
Linen is one of the most durable fabrics. As a matter of fact the oldest known surviving cloth is linen.
Modern people are scared of linen because most have no idea of how to care for it. Once it was the preferred fabric for bed linens (why we still use the term if not the fabric, although I do and you should definitely try it, you will never go back)
If you follow Marti’s directions for care you will be fine.
The reason you do not wash a baker’s couche has absolutely nothing to do with the fabric and everything to do with what is in it, yeast.
Over time a couche builds up yeast that aids in forming the skin on lean breads as they rise while absorbing a small amount of moisture and this skin translates to a wonderful crust you get on the bread.
If you have to wash a couche it does mean you will have to restart leveling up your couche to get it back to performing its best and only time and use will do that.
Here is a link to a site I feel explains it well. I have never used this business before: https://www.stgermain.co/blogs/product-support/what-is-baker-s-couche-and-how-to-use-it
And if you read the details on this fine baker’s couche (I do own one of these) it will support my claim as to why you don’t wash one
https://shop.kingarthurbaking.com/items/bakers-couche
I had to wash mine due to moisture getting onto the couche and mold forming. Used a similar process to what Marti described. The world did not end.
I think it depends on the fabric. Mine came from TMB Baking; I had purchased four yards of their linen couche fabric so I washed it, then cut it in half so I'd have two.
It's perfectly fine and the linen is amazing as it doesn't even need flouring.
BTW, it might unravel a bit while being washed, but that's not an issue. You could always zig-zag the ends if it bothers you.
You need to stitch over the raw edges. I hate to say this but it really would be easier if you could find someone with a sewing machine. You might be able to hand overcast the seam if you know how to do this.
IMHO, without a machine, I would take it to any seamstress or tailor shop and they could whiz it in a second. Ordinarily, you do not wash a couche, but in this case, I would too. I think the most gentle hand wash cycle in your washer, warmish water should not hurt it, but rinse it two or three times. Linen does not shrink.
You could even partially dry it in the dryer, then stretch to finish drying to get it to smooth out as much as possible. That said, I had heavy linen on hand at home and do not own a couche like yours, but linen is incredibly tough. If you have to iron it to get it smooth enough to use, spray it with plenty of water and use a hot iron.
I've never used a baker's couche (and in fact had never even heard of this tool before reading this question), but I do know a little about fabrics, and it seems that a baker's couche is nothing more complicated or mysterious than a piece of heavy linen fabric. Based on that, I'd say you'd be perfectly fine to wash it.
Linen is unlike most other fabrics in one important respect: it actually gets stronger when wet. This means it is perfectly 100% washable, despite what clothing labels try to tell you. The reason linen clothing is traditionally labeled "dry clean only" is that linen shrinks when washed, and clothing manufacturers don't always pre-shrink their fabrics.
Besides shrinkage, two other things happen when linen is washed: it gets wrinkled (well, OK, so it gets wrinkled if you look at it cross-eyed, but anyway), and it gets stiff. To remedy both of these, you need to iron it dry. As in, start with wet (not just sprayed-with-a-spritzer-bottle barely-damp-on-the-surface, but actually wet) fabric fresh out of the wringer, and the highest setting of your dry (as in, steam turned off) iron. (There's a reason said highest setting is often labeled "linen".)
Now you'll have linen that is not wrinkled, but is probably a little shiny and crisp. With clothing, five minutes of wearing (especially when it's hot and humid, i.e. perfect linen weather) will solve that. For a couche, what you may need to do is loosely roll it up, put it on a sturdy wooden surface, and whack at it with a rolling pin or clean stick. Or you can just start using it - it should soften right back up with use.
As far as whether to use detergent and what kind, since this will be used next to food, you want something that will rinse out thoroughly; but since you will be ironing the fabric, you also don't want any food residue in it to get all scorched and icky. Personally, I'd use a delicate-fabrics detergent and lots of rinsing in warm water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.210628
| 2012-06-17T22:25:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24524",
"authors": [
"Angry cook",
"Ian Hyzy",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55874",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23019
|
Are there any negative effects to kneading bread dough longer?
Is there such a thing as over-kneading bread dough. From what I understand, kneading the bread dough is what allows the gluten strands to align and form the beautiful gluten networks that create bread with all the little air bubbles.
If that is the case, is it always, "the more you knead the better", or are there any negative effects that occur if you knead it longer than what your bread recipe states.
There are several negative effects from over-kneading bread dough:
Overheating - if the dough gets too warm, it will ferment too quickly (or over ferment) and will therefore lack flavour.
Oxidisation - kneading for too long can cause the flour to oxidise and bleach, again impairing flavour.
Breaking down - eventually the molecular bonds of the gluten will break, which is obviously not what you want to happen!
The latter two are really only possible with electric mixers, however.
Most doughs are ready for fermentation when they reach an internal temperature of 77-81ºF (25-27°C). You can also check the gluten development with the Windowpane Test: pull off a chunk of dough and stretch it with your hands. It should stretch to form a very thin translucent sheet, without tearing.
Just a note to add--without using an electric mixer, it's hard to over-knead. It's not impossible, but if done by hand it's likely you'll get tired of kneading before it's "too late," and bakers that aren't used to how bread feels and looks when its ready tend to under-knead, not over-knead.
I disagree with number two. Flour sold in shops is already oxidized, and this is a good thing. "Just-milled flour [...] makes gummy doughs and poor quality bread. As flour stands exposed to air, however, oxygen [...] reacts with the thiol groups in dough and prevents their interfering with elasticity." (Corriher: Cookwise, p. 56). In the US, producers even speed up the process using chlorine bleaches. Also, the aeration which happens in the dough during kneading is a good thing, it gives the yeast oxygen to grow on and makes for a lighter bread.
Oxidisation is essentially bleaching. Any baker will tell you that unbleached flour is best. See BBA, page 58.
@rumtscho - Some oxidation of flour is good, for the reasons you state. But excess oxidation of developing dough is bad, as Jeffrey Hamelman (more of a bread expert than Corriher) clearly states. I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive, since oxygen can have a chance to react with different elements of the flour when it is hydrated in bread dough compared to in its dry state.
Another negative effect is that the dough becomes hard and gummy.
It is also possible to overknead for a specific bread dough recipe. For example, American Sandwich Loaf bread is a lightly kneaded, white-flour pan loaf, and if you kneaded it heavily you would get the wrong texture and flavor. It might still be good, but it would be a notably different bread. Likewise brioche, pain de mie, foccacia, potato bread, and many other breads whose soft texture owes itself to a short kneading and limited gluten development.
So no, more kneading isn't always better.
Definitely yes, i really overworked my ciabatta dough and it now has a very dense crumb. Everything was fine the dough fermented like a star but due to overworking, it failed in the end.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.211295
| 2012-04-14T18:11:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23019",
"authors": [
"Amila",
"Athanasius",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kelseydh",
"algiogia",
"bryanjclark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"jerry",
"kranberry",
"ramblinjan",
"rumtscho",
"user52039"
],
"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
}
|
22118
|
How can I thicken tea?
I tried thickening mint tea with cornstarch. I was hoping for something with a more thick mouth-feel. I got the consistency I was looking for, but the cornstarch imparted a slightly mineral/dirty flavor. It certainly didn't ruin the tea, but it wasn't what I was hoping for.
My specific steps were:
Boil water
Add cornstarch slurry
Cook 4-5 minutes more
Take off heat, add tea bag and sugar (Splenda) then steep.
Will cornstarch always impart this flavor or was it my technique?
Will another common thickener work better (I don't want to have to buy some powder off of Amazon)? Ideally, I would like a thickener that adds no color or flavor, though I'm perfectly happy with one that just adds color.
Thanks.
chai marsala everytime
One ingredient traditionally used for this exact purpose is salep. It's a sort of flour made of ground orchid roots. You can buy it online.
You could try using arrowroot. This is a widely available alternative to cornstarch - it is used in cookery because it doesn't turn liquids cloudy like cornstarch does. In your case, it might work better as it also has a more neutral flavour.
Substitute 2 tbsps of arrowroot for 1 tbsp cornstarch, and make a slurry with cool water as you would cornstarch. One issue is that overheating can break down the arrowroot, preventing it from thickening, so you are probably better off adding it to the tea after removing it from the heat.
I'm going to recommend trying something a little bit different - instead of "thickening", I think what you really want is "body", which is similar, but different sensation. To get the mouth-feel I think you are after, you should try a complex sugar, like maltodextrin.
Maltodextrin is a complex carbohydrate, made from starch and composed of many sugar molecules, that is too large to be tasted as sweetness by the tongue, but adds some of the "texture" of sugar. It is used in energy drinks and homebrewed beer to add body and carbs, without adding much sweetness.
Start with 1% by weight added to the tea, and see how it works. Typical amounts for brewing are 0.5% (3.2 ounces/5 gallon batch) to 2% (12 ounces/5 gallon batch), with 1.25% (8 ounces/5 gallon batch) being the most common recommended value for people experimenting.
For you, for a pot of four 6 oz. servings of tea (24 ounces/680mL), about 0.24 oz (6.8g) of maltodextrin would be a good place to start. That would be roughly two teaspoons, depending on the density of your maltodextrin.
You can buy maltodextrin at "fitness nutrition" stores (bodybuilders use it for making special nutrient gels) and home brew stores. Midwest Supplies has maltodextrin for under $2.
Unflavored gelatin would likely work for you. It's available in most grocery stores. I'm not sure the ratio you'd want, but 1/4 oz. unflavored gelatin into 1/2 gallon (!) tea should have some effect.
Also, drug stores now sell stuff that thickens liquids under names like Nectar-Thick. The stuff isn't cheap, but it's not horrifically expensive either. It should be able to thicken tea.
the cornstarch will always give this taste upon cooking it for a little time (5 min), it requires min around 20 min to be cooked, which will make your tea too thick, it is not recommended.
There is no need for cooking starch this long. Both my experience and the books I have a) confirm that starch gives a slight taste b) confirm that starch reaches its max thickness after a few minutes of cooking (even less than 5)
@rumtscho: true for the thinckness not for the taste. I find that longer cooking strongly diminishes cornstarch taste (same for flour, potato starch etc).
Powered sugar, soon after boiling. I wouldn't consider cornstarch for my drink over powered sugar, though I hear it contains 3% cornstarch, sounds like a great give and take to me. I use it for my chai:)
Instead of thickening your tea, why don't you buy a tea that brews a thicker liquor?
Some oolong teas such as 'Tieguanyin' is already more thicker than a green or black tea. If you want a real thick tea soup then go for a 'ripe pu erh'.
I'm not sure if this is thick enough for you but you can give it a try, and still add some thickener.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.211601
| 2012-03-09T06:24:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22118",
"authors": [
"Mark Dominus",
"Peter Point",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22627
|
What to place beneath the vegetables before placing them on the baking tray?
In order to prevent their surface from burning, what can be placed beneath vegetables to be roasted before placing them on the baking tray?
I am thinking of applying oil to the tray, but I'm not sure if that's enough.
I usually put tinfoil down and then lightly oil it. If done carefully, the tray stays clean and doesn't need to be washed and the foil can be thrown out (or used for a second batch of veggies if you have one).
by tinfoil you mean aluminium foil used for wrapping breads?
@AnishaKaul: Yes, I meant aluminum foil, but I still hear it often called "tinfoil". ...I guess from when it was made of tin?
does the vegetable burn if tinfoil isn't used?
@AnishaKaul: No, you can oil the baking tray and put the vegetables directly on that. But then you will have to clean the baking tray after. I like to use foil on the tray because I've gotten good enough that the tray stays completely clean and doesn't need to be washed after I'm done with it.
cleaning the tray is not a problem for me, I am just worried about the burning food. Is there something called baking sheet too?
@AnishaKaul: To me, a "baking sheet" and "baking tray" are probably the same thing. Oiling the surface that the vegetables go on will prevent them from sticking to the surface and burning, but if it's too hot, they will probably burn no matter what.
" To me, a "baking sheet" and "baking tray" are probably the same thing." Oh, I read that term on this website, thought that's something different. :doh: Thanks.
@AnishaKaul: I think "baking tray" is British English.
@Jefromi They should fix a particular English standard for this site ;) to avoid confusions. :D
A tray suggests a highish lip around the outside, a sheet suggests little or no lip.
@ElendilTheTall Does lip or no lip make a difference in cooking? Lip may work as a handle for sure.
A lip is better for roasting (which is why roasting tins have big ones) because they prevent the food from burning quickly. A lipless sheet is used mainly in baking.
This answer, and some of the comments concern me (Someone who tries to be environmentally conscious). Save the environmental damage that production, transport, and post-use "storage" of the tinfoil produces, in lieu of a spray of oil and a couple of minutes of cleaning something that has a far longer life. Also, not to be taken literally - What is the point in using a tray, when your food is actually sitting on another surface?
@user66001: I have a small kitchen with a small sink. The baking trays do not really fit in the sink so cleaning them is awkward and difficult when the baked item burns and sticks to it (oil helps, but then there's a sticky and oily mess to clean, instead of a burnt one). The last place I lived had a large dishwasher which could easily hold trays, so in that case, I wouldn't bother with using foil since clean-up was much easier.
@user66001: " What is the point in using a tray, when your food is actually sitting on another surface?" Do you mean the foil as "another surface"? The foil is very thin. If you try to lift a piece of foil covered in vegetables, the foil will flex and bend, and the vegetables may fall off.
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner - It is a pity that some places have sinks which are ill equiped to deal with cleanup of their "owners" projects :) As for the two surfaces, was more speaking to idea of the tray being designed to function for the intended purpose, and (assuming ways of cleaning it) the unnessary need for the tinfoil. I am just one of those that wonder what Earth will look like in years to come, given the current rate of use of it's resources, which drives me to try to reduce my impact as much as I can (Blood, sweat and tears, for the most part, be damned) :)
You can avoid oil altogether if you cover your baking trays in parchment paper. Just make sure that you fit the paper to the shape of the tray and don't be surprised if the edges turn brown/black at higher (400 degrees and up) temperatures.
If you need help locating parchment paper, I would suggest visiting nearby restaurant supply stores, checking out your local supermarket (Reynolds has a brand of parchment paper available), or utilizing an online store such as Amazon or King Arthur Flour.
Oh, and one last thing: I recommend parchment paper because I used to volunteer as a prep cook and we would constantly use it to bake things like fish sticks, pizza pockets, and vegetables. Why? Because nothing got stuck on the pans, nothing got burnt, and clean up involved stripping off the paper, wading it up, and throwing it in the garbage. Now if that's not easy, I don't know what is.
I love using foil, but only for certain things. And now that I paid $9 for a large roll, I won’t use it as much anymore. It also tends to turn potatoes a bit grey and I can taste the foil.
The Irish girl that I am, I love using enamel roasting pans. Here is the trick, put the pan in the oven first to pre-heat. Then in a bowl add your potatoes (well rinsed), carrots (cut smaller) or mix in some sweet potatoes. Add your spices then oil and toss. In 10 mins when the pan is hot, pull out the rack with the pan, then throw in the mix. A lot of sizzling goes on. Halfway through the cooking process, toss the mix and cook some more, I always use loud timers. The potatoes don't stick or burn, unless your oven is too high or you leave them in too long. If they do stick towards the end, just pull it out and let the pan cool. The potatoes will then release on their own.
The great thing about enamel pans, they darken your potatoes and carrots to such a sweet flavor. Also, when they start to get a buildup you can throw them in your self-cleaning oven. Just lean it up on one side. Remember, your self-cleaning oven sides are enamel.
+1 ... and save all that disposable tinfoil/parchment paper! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.211943
| 2012-03-29T01:18:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22627",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"John",
"Wilburn Rice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"michaelmoo",
"socrates",
"user51022",
"user66001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16693
|
Can I use cottage cheese instead of cream cheese when making a cheesecake?
If I can, would there be any difference in the measurements? For example if the recipe calls for 8 ounces of cream cheese, would it be the same amount of cottage?
I've made cheesecake with many different types of cheese and it pretty much always worked.
Of course texture and taste vary, but that's the beauty of it. Try a single cheese, see what it gives and then start experimenting mixing them.
For instance cottage cheese tends to give a slightly more "crumbly" texture. To compact it you can add some fresh cream.
Sour cream also makes a wonderful addition, and marries well with some lemon zest, taken that you like a bit of acidity in your cake.
I've also tried to add mascarpone and even gorgonzola, they all work well, and give you very peculiar mouth-feelings to combine and mix as you please, but obviously add in calory content quite a bit...
As for the amount, you an just keep the same as cream cheese.
What sorts of cheese? Anything close to cottage cheese, and any idea how that might affect texture?
I've used cottage cheese and it makes the cake slightly more "crumbly". To compact it you can add some fresh cream. Sour cream also makes a wonderful addition, and marries well with some lemon zest. I've also tried to add mascarpone and even gorgonzola, they all work well, and give you very peculiar mouth-feelings to combine and mix as you please.
Aha, a voice of experience! +1 (You might want to edit the "crumbly" part into your answer, to help it more directly address the OP's question.)
Some recipes to back up this answer: http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/omas-cottage-cheesecake/detail.aspx or http://www.food.com/recipe/cottage-cheese-cheesecake-210645 or http://bakingbites.com/2005/03/cottage-cheese-cheesecake/
ABSOLUTELY you can substitute cottage cheese (even fat free) for cream cheese in a cheesecake recipe. Small curd seems to work best--possibly because a bit more of the moisture is retained in the product after draining. After running the cottage cheese through a food processor (I've not found a blender quite powerful enough), you're left with an awesome soft cheese perfect for cheesecake recipes.
To drain the curds, use a cheese cloth lined colander. I usually allow for about five minutes of drain time before running it through the processor.
(Hint: UN-drained cottage cheese run through a food processor is a delicious substitute for cream cheese in cream cheese frosting)
If you're pinched for time, why not try neufchatel cheese if you're looking to cut the fat but still have a yummy outcome?
Something else that helps ensure a less crumbly finish in the lower fat cheese cakes...use powdered sugar for half of the sugar in your recipe.
Short answer: Probably. However, there is one thing to keep in mind is that cottage cheese usually has a higher sodium content than cream cheese. Also to get a smoother blend faster try an immersion blender in the jar that came with it, or any narrow, deep 2 cup pyrex measuring cup. I found that the food processor took a long time with a lot of stopping to scrape the sides back down. Good luck!!
I've used cottage cheese and noticed too much liquid after baking the cheesecake. I see some recipes add additional flour and then noticed on this blog some drain it. MMmmmmm...
While, I realize you don't have the reputation to comment yet - an answer like you just did is more of a comment than an answer. Try adding some "meat" to it and you have an answer. Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
@Lynn Straining the cottage cheese (like with a cheesecloth) might remove enough of the liquid to make it behave more like cream cheese. You can add that to your answer if you'd like....
i don't know the science behind it, but even if you thoroughly blended your cottage cheese beforehand (so there's no lumps) i still would think that there would be a serious consistency and flavor difference between the two. the flavor difference might not be unpleasant, but cottage cheese is so much more fluid than cream cheese, which might cause problems in the baking and setting of the cheesecake. to be honest, if it were me, i would try it anyway (equal measurements and all) because that's one way to learn.
I always use creamed (smooth) cottage cheese. Works perfectly!
I do, it works marvellously for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.212470
| 2011-08-07T14:57:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16693",
"authors": [
"4bstractor",
"Cascabel",
"David Plotkin",
"Ehsan Rashid",
"J Crosby",
"Martha F.",
"Michelle",
"Quincy Reed",
"Sasha Chedygov",
"Vindicare",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"jake",
"nico",
"rick",
"user51196",
"user734028"
],
"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
}
|
15681
|
What does vanilla extract add to a recipe?
I have been cooking for a while and have noticed small amount of Vanilla extract needed in cakes, cookies, muffins, even a smoothie recipe. Often times I forget the Vanilla or don't have any. What am I losing in general in a recipe without any Vanilla Extract?
Then in this recipe 1 cup yogurt, 1 banana, 4-6 cups milk, 1 peach, 1 teaspoon vanilla extract what does the Vanilla add or subtract?
Vanilla extract adds the flavour of vanilla! Not as nice as using a real vanilla bean, but significantly cheaper and much easier to get hold of.
I could go on about how it adds an aromatic note, a comforting familiar flavor, etc... but basically that's the answer: adding vanilla extract adds the flavor of vanilla...
There seems to be more to it: I read somewhere that vanilla is supposed to be a flavour enhancer. If this is true, then all other flavours are more strongly perceived. But I can't find where I read it.
@rumtscho: you are correct! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla#Usage mentions it as well. http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/2011/02/vanilla-goes-way-beyond-dessert.aspx?pg=2 explains this a bit, but not enough for me to provide a good answer.
Just an FYI, always make sure you're using vanilla extract, not vanilla essence, the latter being a horrible fake product.
Vanilla acts sort of like salt. It is not just there to add flavor but to enhance the flavors around it.
Vanilla, (as pepper or salt) it's used also as a flavour enhancer. http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/2011/02/vanilla-goes-way-beyond-dessert.aspx
In recipes that contain eggs (mainly deserts), vanilla might not add any noticeable vanilla flavor but it will remove the unpleasant egg smell.
Unpleasant egg smell? You need to start buying better eggs, man. ;)
I find vanilla extract doesn't do much at all! I have baked cupcakes with and without vanilla extract but they both taste the same!
Vanilla is just for a flavour but you can add almonds, chocolate and strawberries or anything else really!
Bringing out the flavors of the other ingredients as mentioned, but if you don't have it you can use maple syrup in its place in equal amounts.
Vanilla bean would be expensive, but so incredibly good. Vanilla extract is massively produced, it isn't as concentrated as real bean. They add other ingredients to stretch the vanilla flavor.
But the bottom line is, vanilla enhances flavor.
Hello KevinTheChef & welcome! Please do not just sum up the already given answers (even when the facts are correct). Perhaps you have some thoughts of your own that might be helpful?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.212846
| 2011-06-21T22:05:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15681",
"authors": [
"Agulesin",
"Andrew Wolfe",
"Austin",
"Ddh3eaa",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jeff Laurence",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mien",
"Roger Mellie",
"Stephie",
"Terrie Gum",
"Tonigem",
"bhupendra singh",
"chrissy nelson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"user33243"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10549
|
Royal icing - how important is accurate measuring?
Making royal icing today, for a rather overdue Christmas cake.
I always end up with too much icing sugar, based on my normal recipe which asks for 4 large egg whites and 500g icing sugar.
So today I used 3 egg whites and as much icing sugar as "felt right". Is this fair enough?
If it's taking a long time for stiff peaks to form, is this a sign of too little icing sugar? And if I overdid the icing sugar how would I tell?
Peaks? I don't think I've ever whipped royal icing to peaks ... I've always used it as something drizzled on, which then sets up stiff.
@Joe: royal icing can also be used for piping flowers and other decorations, for which it needs to be fairly stiff.
I have to agree with @Joe. If you've got egg whites, and sugar, and you whip it until it forms stiff peaks, then what you have is a meringue.
The difference between meringue and royal icing is basically the amount of sugar.
I agree with @Marti, the Royal Icing I know is usually a very dense meringue format.
The consistency of royal icing depends on many things, including the size of your eggs, but also the humidity/weather. So if you know what stiffness you want, it's perfectly valid to add sugar until it "feels right". (I usually make royal icing with meringue powder rather than fresh egg whites, which removes one variable from the equation [the size of the eggs], but I still have to adjust the sugar to get the right consistency.)
As far as troubleshooting, if you've been whipping away and it's still gloopy, by all means add more sugar. If you overdo the sugar, you'll know immediately: it'll be too stiff to mix. (In which case, depending on the quantities involved you can either just add a teaspoon of warm water, or you can whip up another egg white separately until soft peaks form, then fold it into your icing.)
I can't believe no one has said this. You liked your old "pre-modification" recipe, right? But you just want less of it? Your eggs are the same size as always?
3egg whites/4egg whites=X/500g icing sugar. Remember learning cross multiplication in school?
Assuming your eggs are the same size: if four egg whites marry well with 500 grams of sugar, then three egg whites will behave the same way with 375 grams of sugar.
To have a sense of accuracy:
Weigh 2 egg whites together - note that weight and then note that same weight divided by two.
Add a third egg white, weigh the total. Take the total weight of three egg whites, divide by three. That's an unnecessary step, but it will give you an even better idea of margin of error.
So the weight in grams of two egg whites divided by two should be about equal to the weight of three egg whites divided by three. Get it? If they're significantly different, take the average of three and run with that.
So now you know not only the total weight of your egg whites, but also the average weight of your egg whites. Knowing that average weight can allow accuracy regardless of the weight of future whites. Just replace #ofeggwhites with total-weight-of-egg-whites, so grams instead of #ofeggwhites.
So if you don't want to weigh your egg whites, you can at least estimate. (That is of course eliminating such things as weather from the equation, but it's a great place to start.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.213197
| 2010-12-28T13:17:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10549",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BrownEyes",
"Chris Ford",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"daviddesancho",
"dubiousjim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user21638"
],
"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
}
|
15439
|
How do I stop my pastry shrinking?
So I line a flan tin with shortcut pastry. It's quite a nice deep pan (sides are maybe 2 to 3 cm) so it looks like there's going to be plenty of room for a filling.
But after 20 mins baking blind, I get the pastry out. The sides have shrunk right down to about 0.5cm in height. Almost no usable depth for a filling.
Is there anyway to stop the pastry shrinking like this?
Very strange, never seen such giant shrinkage. The have-you-plugged-in questions: are you properly lining the walls with a stripe or rolling the pastry wide enough (as opposed to trying to spreading the dough ball in the pan with your fingers and pulling the sides up from the spread dough)? Also, are you filling the whole height of the pastry during the blindbaking (because the walls will collapse else)? Also, what's your recipe, 2:1:a few drops?
Very strange indeed; pastries usually expand, not shrink. The recipe might provide some insight.
You didn't grease the pan, did you?
The key is not to roll it too thin nor too thick, it should be as thick as pound coin. Then once you've rolled and put the pastry in tin place back into the fridge for 10-20 minutes. (For Yanks, according to the Royal Mint, a pound coin is 3.15mm, which would be about 1/8")
How thick is a pound coin? We don't have many in the US :)
According to the Royal Mint, it's 3.15mm, which would be about 1/8".
Another thing you might want to try, is after you have put the pastry in the tin, then pop it in the refrigerator for 10 minutes or so (depending on the thickness of your pastry and the coldness of your fridge).
That will get the pastry nice and cold so that it won't melt as quickly in the oven!
5-10 minutes in the freezer works even better
This has happened to me on occasion when I got lazy and tried to skip steps. My pastry walls were melting and sliding down the pan before they were able to set.
There are several best-practices that will help solve this:
Keep your dough chilled. If the dough is warm or if it is built into a warm pan it will melt in the oven before it has a chance to set.
Make a better lip (if there is one). A more substantial edge around the pastry will give some physical support to prevent falling.
Use foil and pie weights to reinforce the structure during the beginning of baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.213467
| 2011-06-13T23:56:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15439",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Anson",
"Chloe Welling",
"Erica",
"Kyle Hale",
"Margo G",
"Shitikanth",
"dopiaza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"nico",
"pjg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10875
|
Tips for getting a meat loaf to come out just right?
I'm very new to cooking and honestly don't enjoy it all that much, but I am trying to expand my skills beyond very simple foods like tuna helper and chicken, so I thought I would try making a meat loaf as the next step.
However, since I've never made one before, I'm not really sure what I should be looking for in a recipe, or if there's anything I need to know about the preparation that might not be mentioned in a recipe. I'm wondering about things like:
Does it matter what type of meat I use?
How do I control how heavy/dense it is?
How can I make sure that it doesn't fall apart?
What oven setting should I use so that it cooks all the way through but doesn't burn the outside?
Any other useful tips would also be helpful.
Hi, thanks for joining the site. We'd like to help, but, as this post explains - http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/728/what-types-of-recipe-questions-are-allowed - this is not a recipe swap site. If you could reword your question to ask about a particular part of making meatloaf or about how to improve a meatloaf recipe you have, we could help you more. Thanks.
As you're asking for 'ingrediants and stuff', this is bordering on a recipe request ... but for other recipes we've handled technique related questions.
I've reworded this to minimize the recipe-request aspect. I've had to make a number of assumptions in the process so please let us know if this is straying too far from what you really want to know.
You'll likely do better first trying a recipe, and see how it comes out and we can tell you how to adjust it for your preferences, but a few things to consider when making meatloaf:
Don't squish the meat or work it too much while you're mixing it; you'll end up with a rather dense meatloaf. (unless of course you like that sort of thing).
Some people prefer on fattier grinds of meat for a 'juicier' meatloaf ... I personally go with 85/15 or fattier.
Mixing types of fat with different melting characteristics will also change the texture; for this reason, some recipes call for adding pork sausage, or a blend of ground pork, beef and veal.
Vessel is important -- some people will cook their meatloaf in a loaf pan; personally, I like a little crust on mine, but because of the grease that comes off during baking, I use a broiler pan.
Shape will affect the crust and cooking time -- a larger cross-section will need a longer cooking time, but the top may crust up too much; you can either tent with foil while cooking, coat with a glaze, top with bacon strips, etc.
Mixing the meat while chilled will keep the meatloaf less dense, but allowing it to warm up before cooking will allow it to cook more evenly. (so the outside isn't overcooked while the middle's still cold; especially important if you're not going with a glaze or similar)
Almost any vegetables can be added as a filler, if you pre-cook them to soften and remove most of their moisture so they're not overly wet. Onions, bell pepper, carrots, cellery, dark greens (spinach, chard, etc), summer squash (eg. zucchini, yellow squash) all work well.
To speed up cooking time, or if you're living alone and know you won't eat the whole thing, consider making smaller loaves. You can even make it in a burger patty size & shape for individual servings.
Great answer on the meat part. Just to add, part of controlling the density is adding a starch (bread crumbs, oatmeal) which is one of the things that keeps meatloaf from being a brick and meatballs from being hockey pucks. Not a requirement certainly, but traditional and will give you some leeway, which is good for a new cook.
@Doug -- I made it community wiki, so feel free to add ... I've always done dry breadcrumbs (not necessarily stale, just not soaked first), so I don't know how different starches might affect things
One thing I've found that helps keep it together is something called Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP). It's a vegetarian protein substitute that comes in a dry crumble (among other forms) that works great to absorb the fats in whatever meat you use. I found about 250mL of TVP to 1L of ground meat works well.
I've never been unlucky enough to make a dry loaf, but I suggest finding a well-regarded recipe and following that. Beyond that: don't squish.
I cook in a 12-inch cast-iron pan, with a hand-shaped loaf in the middle. This gives room for the grease to spread away from the meat without losing it altogether. The cast-iron is easy to clean. Others prefer loaf pans. I suspect that my use of the cast-iron over a loaf pan does the most towards preventing a hard and dry loaf.
Finally, the recipe I have based my loaf on calls for half the dry ingredients and 1/3rd of the egg that I use. In my case, this has not resulted in mushiness. Of course, this doesn't really make the loaf very healthy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.213698
| 2011-01-09T10:12:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10875",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brady",
"Chad",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Jackie",
"Joe",
"Ken",
"SO AI Can Scrape Deez Nuts",
"StevieHoward",
"Yardboy",
"ericn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user22339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57090
|
Sourdough starter began acting strange after storing in fridge
I recently began developing a sourdough starter and it seemed much easier than it sounded - within a few days it was growing well and smelled good (like yeasty bread dough). On about day 5 or 6, I had to go away for the weekend, and so I stored the starter in my fridge, and now it's acting sort of strange.
Before I went away, I fed the starter and put it in the fridge right away. When I came back 2 days later it had still grown in the fridge. Not as much as usual; before my trip the starter was maybe growing from 1 cup to almost 3 cups, now it was closer to two. This, I think is expected - being in the fridge would retard the yeast's activities.
In any case, I took out the starter and let it sit for an hour or two to get it back to a more normal room temperature, and fed it again. (I think it missed 1, maybe 2 feedings because I was out of town.)
Anyway, now that I am back to regular feedings the starter is still growing well and then falling (which I believe is what it should do when it eats up all the food). But it's doing it really fast. I.e. in less than 12 hours. And then the starter begins to smell weird, like alcohol. It's pretty intense.
What happened to the yeasty smell? That was much nicer than this new, alcoholic development. I read online that the alcohol smell comes when the yeast run out of food and switch from aerobic to anaerobic mode. Should I really be feeding it more than once a day?
By putting the starter in the fridge you primed the yeast to start producing different waste products (i.e. more alcohol) and depending on the strain of yeast the cold of the fridge may not have slowed them much. In other words, you have an over-yeasted or possibly contaminated with bacteria or other fungi from your fridge starter. Looks like you'll need to start over unless dividing the starter will get things back on track, but you'll have to try and see.
Thanks. Any suggestions for how to get it back on track? I have been using 2 Tablespoons of starter to 1 cup white flour to 1/2 cup water to feed and it keeps continuing
doesn't the starter's feeding process change or progressively slow over time?
Huh. That seems like a really intense feeding regimen; I dilute 1:1:1 once every 2 weeks and keep it in the fridge. I think you may be feeding it too often.
Sourdough starters are rarely completely ruined, unless you're growing significant amounts of mold or something.
It is possible that your refrigerated "break" early in establishing your starter ended up hurting the yeast population and accidentally selected for something else (perhaps undesirable bacteria) that is now growing and creating odd odors.
It's also possible that your starter is perfectly healthy and well-established. A strong starter should often rise and begin to fall in 12 hours or less. Mature starters tend to go through a cycle where they smell yeasty as they are expanding, have alcohol notes around the time of collapse, and then acidic (vinegar/acetic acid and lactic acid) notes as they age further, due to bacteria converting the yeast waste products into acids.
Have you tried to bake with your starter yet? I'd see how well it works and whether it can successfully leaven bread dough. If so, it's probably fine. Starters do often go through periods of odd smells and weird behavior in the first couple weeks, but they'll stabilize after more regular feedings as a more consistent set of microorganisms becomes permanently established.
You don't mention any liquid floating on top ("hooch") or any discoloration. If those were appearing, I might be a little more concerned. If not, try baking a small loaf with it, and see what happens. My guess is that it won't be very sour, but with a feeding regime like you have, it probably shouldn't be.
Lastly, you asked about whether more frequent feeding is required. I don't think so, given how much you dilute your starter during feeding. Twice per day feedings are recommended at room temperature for those who do something like a 1:1:1 (i.e., 1 part starter:1 part flour:1 part water by weight) or 1:2:2 feeding. You're doing something closer to 1:8:8, which means it will take longer for the yeast to process all the new flour and then for the bacteria to deal with those waste products. The only danger with such high dilution in young starters is that microorganisms actually present in the flour may still be able to overwhelm the things you want to grow and/or the starter may not be developing enough acidity by the end of your growth cycle to kill off those bad things.
Does your starter smell (or taste) acidic right before you feed it? (It doesn't have to be strongly acidic, but at least mildly so.) If so, I think your starter is likely very healthy and having youthful growth spurts.
In any case, I'd test it in a batch of dough before trying to diagnose further. In a worst case scenario, as long as you're getting some acidity before feeding (and not seeing mold, hooch, discoloration, or other weird things besides the odor), you should just keep feeding regularly, and it will likely sort itself out in a week or so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.214111
| 2015-04-30T15:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57090",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"Chef_Code",
"Dorothy Towler",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jason",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nancy Foote",
"Stephen Powell",
"Tony Moffitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"นวรัตน์ โพธิ์วัน"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39352
|
How long, optimally, should you marinate chicken or beef?
When cooking meat, marinating is a frequent technique. However, what's the optimal amount of time that one should marinate your meat? Is it different for different kinds of meat? What are some guidelines, generally, for marinating meat in different circumstances? E.g. when preparing steaks for grilling, or chicken for baking, or cubed beef for stir-frying, what are optimal times for marinating?
Your edit doesn't make it easier to answer. It is like asking "what is the optimal way to cook potatoes". There are dozens of ways to cook potatoes, each with different results. In the same way, there are dozens of ways to marinade each meat, independently of the subsequent cooking technique, each with its result. Pick a recipe and stick with it. Nobody will be able to give you a more concrete answer than Jolenealaska's.
It is important to remember that there is a difference between "Marinading" and "Brining". Marinading is only a 'surface treatment', and is done in order to flavor a meat. Brining is longer more complicated chemical process designed to move additional salt and moisture deep into the meat. Many of the 'typical' acids in a marinade will ruin a meal if used for 'too long' as brine.
@CosCallis Thanks! Would you mind detailing that as an answer? I'd like to hear more about the difference between brining & marinating, and time differences for different expected outcomes.
I included my previous post as a comment, as it is not a direct answer to the question posed; but I thought it might be a 'useful' addendum. This post should be helpful to you. http://mmmthatsgood.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-marinate-or-to-brine.html
Yes, optimal time to keep meat in a marinade varies drastically. It depends on the type of meat, the cut of meat, the marinade, and the intention. For instance, Sauerbraten is traditionally marinated for at least three days. On the other hand, there are many applications that call for very short time in the marinade. "Velveting" is common in Chinese cooking, that's a marinade of 30 minutes or less. The variations of techniques concerning marinade are endless.
Got it -- It was clear that there would be different marinating times. I added more detail to my question about specific cooking techniques and the marinating times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.214531
| 2013-11-11T10:42:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39352",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Eniac",
"Greycastl",
"James EJ",
"Jason",
"Jeevan Kodiyan",
"Mouke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95393",
"rifah",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40899
|
Making sticky rice without rice cooker
I know that a rice cooker is the easiest way to make sticky rice, because of the way it is steamed. However, I don't have a rice cooker: what is the most effective way to make sticky rice using regular kitchen tools and appliances, i.e. ones which most people would have? (I am not against getting a rice cooker: I just don't want to invest in an appliance which I would probably not use that frequently. So I'm interested in learning how to make sticky rice with your average kitchen tools and appliances.)
I like to do it in a big bowl in a microwave. Does that count as "regular pots and pans"?
Do you have a splatter guard, by any chance? Or can you easily acquire one?
@DavidWallace Yes I think that does! I will edit the question accordingly.
@ElendilTheTall I do not but I'm sure I could get one. I mostly don't want to get kitchen tools that are so specialized, i.e. I would rarely use them.
Well, splatter guards are very cheap.
You can replicate a Thai rice steamer with a deep frying pan, a splatter guard, and a heatproof bowl. Just place a mound of soaked glutinous rice in the centre of the splatter guard over simmering water, then place the bowl on top, and steam for about 20-30 minutes, turning the mound over once or twice to ensure even cooking.
You don't need anything but a pot, lid, and spoon. The easiest way is to cheat and add some sugar, probably 1/4 cup for every cup of rice.
First you wash the rice several times, stir it around and squish it a bit to get the external layer of starch off. Once the water comes out clear you don't need to wash it anymore. Next add water and the sugar, bring it to a boil, then lower it to low heat. Stir it every 3-5 minutes until the rice is done.
What is the point of adding sugar?
Rice is starch, and starches are chains of sugars. When you make sticky rice the hard way some of the rice's starch gets converted to simple sugars which make the rice sticky. Adding sugar means you don't have to convert starches to simple sugars, it's essentially a cheat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.214752
| 2014-01-06T09:45:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40899",
"authors": [
"Adrian",
"Andrew",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Jason",
"John",
"Paul Wildenhain",
"Veronica Giesy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95235",
"mdegges"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19761
|
Clean an entire fish before or after storing in a freezer?
After buying an entire fish from the supermarket, I was wondering if it is better to clean an entire fish before or after putting it to a freezer for storage (not long, abound a few days)?
Or the solution depends on the kind of fish? Today I bought some butter fishes. Before, I have bought porgy, bluefish, mackerel, pomfrey, ...
Thanks and regards!
Yes the fish should be cleaned and prepared before being frozen. Reference: http://www.helpwithcooking.com/food-storage/freezing-fish.html
Thanks! I wonder whether the contact with water during cleaning the fish will not be good for storing the fish in the freezer?
@Tim The ice will actually protect the fish from air. Here is another good source on this: http://fishcooking.about.com/od/howtochoosefreshfish/qt/freezing_fish.htm
It has been my experience when buying commercially frozen uncleaned fish is that cleaning it as it unfreezes and starts to rot is truly upsetting. Not recommended!
I would never buy a commercially frozen uncleaned fish. If you're going to buy an uncleaned fish it better be freshly slaughtered.
Absolutely must be cleaned before freezing. I grew up on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain where my father was a commercial fisherman, shrimper, boat builder. We never, froze fish without gutting and scaling them. Same with shrimp - at least take the heads of but best to take black "vein" out and remove shells.
I'd say it depends on the type of fish, and how you plan cooking it.
I prefer scaling and cleaning the fish before freezing. This way I'm only storing what I will be eating and have no need to worry about additional smells and bacteria in the freezer and whilst defrosting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.214951
| 2011-12-19T00:24:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19761",
"authors": [
"Daedalus",
"Doug",
"JSideris",
"Laurel",
"Michael",
"Rapier",
"Somatic",
"Tim",
"anon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126714
|
Are Feroli (italy) and Olimp (Greece) legitimate brands of extra virgin olive oil?
Are Feroli (italy) and Olimp (Greece) legitimate brands of extra virgin olive oil? I could not find any information on the Internet that has been censored in China. They are being sold on PDD, one of the biggest online ecommerce platforms in China, and the platform is probably not indexed by search engines. Thanks.
What do you mean by legitimate?
i can't find them beinh discussed on the internet censored in China. They are being sold online in China.
@Tim all I can find when googling for Feroli is online shops in Russia. For Olimp I found what looks like the manufacturer's site (along with a bunch of Russian e-shops)
Your question doesn't really make that much sense. Are you asking if they are real olive oil, or something else?
@Esther Do their extra virgin olive oil look trustworthy?
@gdd what doesn't make sense about asking if a brand for olive oil is legitimate?
I think Feroli is a knockoff. There is a Ferroli but they make heating oil as I recall from living in the area. Not sure about Olimp but there used to be (not sure if it still is) a Spanish brand "Olimpo" which we never bought because it had a reputation for not being particularly good quality.
@Tim I'm pretty sure he means "what does legitimate mean to you?" the Olimp brand site describes the kind of olives used, where they are grown, and a unique process they use (soaking the olives before squeezing to remove bitterness). The site also have a number of different oils made with different olives and describes the taste of each. I'd assume it's actual olive oil, but I can't tell you for sure.
I'm just assuming that "legitimate" means "real olive oil from the place it says on the bottle" and answering from there.
"legitimate" probably refers to olive oil adulteration/fraud, something that's had a lot of ink spilt on it
Olive oil fraud is a huge problem, it makes sense to ask if an olive oil brand is legitimate.
Olimp olive oil is an olive oil produced by Gold Line Group, an European olive oil company. Whether or not it is 100% Greek virgin olive oil is hard to determine; per the book Extra Virginity, the majority of olive oil sold in the world is fraudulent, and there are no reliable international certifications. But it's as likely to be real Greek olive oil as anything I would buy in the market here in the US.
Feroli, on the other hand, is not a company or brand of oil that exists outside China and Russia. Sometimes Chinese importers relabel real olive oil with brand names they feel are more marketable inside China, but your odds are poor. It is more likely that this is not real Italian olive oil, and it may not be olive oil at all.
Thanks. How is sam' member mark extra virgin olive oil?
funny enough, the two are sold by.the same Chinese retailer on PDD. The retailer also sells Aranta (Spain) extra pomace olive oil, which is also listed on the website of Gold Line Group
I suspect that the Gold Line Group is good at exporting things to China, something that not many European manufaturers are.
Feroli, olimp, aranta have similar packaging styles. I cant find feroli on the website of Gold Line Group
It's not one of theirs. And that tin is a fairly standard size/shape for olive oil, so the similarity doesn't mean anything.
How is sam club's member mark extra virgin olive oil?
For what it's worth, @Tim, the Olimp web page claims it is "Olive oil [...] made only from natural olive oil". That is either an error or an actual admission that they are not producing olive oil, but are somehow refining it. Olive oil isn't "made from olive oil", it is made from olives. As a Greek living outside Greece, my simple rule of thumb for Greek olive oil is if the bottle doesn't have any text in Greek, then it is likely a crappy tourist trap. This isn't always true, and some excellent oil is produced for export only, but it is a helpful rule of thumb.
@terdon thanks. I am going to cancel the order ...
The web site is clearly a direct machine translation into English. I don't know that I'd read too much into the wording there.
@terdon I bet some Chinese companies are about to take note of your comment and will add some meaningless and grammatically garbled Greek text to their labels...
@terdon No idea about Greek olive oil exports specifically, but in general, most exports of liquids like wine and oil are in wholesale quantities, so in tank containers containing (tens of) thousands of litres of the stuff. Bottling into retail packaging then takes place close to the target market. There's no point shipping the bottles, unless it's a niche specialty product. So South African or Californian wine sold in Europe is almost always bottled in Europe, and I would be surprised if European oil in China wasn't handled the same way. The bottle and label is going to be made in China.
I can’t say anything for sure about this particular brand, but there are a few phrases in your pictures that are likely questionable:
‘Olive Oil Product’ : means that it’s something made with olive oil, not that it is exclusively olive oil. I suspect that it is a blended oil
‘Product of Italy’ : means that it has been in Italy. It usually means that it was packaged in Italy from imported oil
‘100% quality’ : means absolutely nothing
‘100% natural’ : is used on so many things that it’s effectively meaningless (there have been some lawsuits in the US over this claim, and the courts decided that High Fructose Corn Syrup can be considered ‘natural’ depending on how it’s made)
In the US, there will always be an ingredient list which will show what type of oil (or oils) it actually is, and there is usually some statement about where the olives are grown (Such as ‘packaged in Italy from Italian, Greek, and Tunisian olives’). Unlike the ingredient lists, those statements are not required to be in any particular order, so it’s possible that it is primarily Tunisian olives with enough Italian and Greek ones for them to be able to confuse the issue.
Some other counties also have labeling laws, but China may not be one of them.
Thanks. Which brands would you choose, olimp (Greece), sam's club member's mark (Spain), star (spain), or ebates (Spain)? The last two.with only half a year before expiration
I honestly have no idea. ‘Best by’ (what you called ‘expiration’) is something that the manufacturer estimates, but may mean absolutely nothing. How the item has been stored (eg, at what temperature and constant vs varying) plays a huge factor of when oil starts to have issues. I would recommend buying from a store with high turnover more than anything else.
typo: ebates (spain) -> ebest (spain)
Yes best by, but it is called "expiry" here. All the four have similar prices per unit, and the last two are near their expiry. EVOO is expensive in China, and products of legitimate brands are affordable only when they approach their expiry, and such products come from other countries because they are hard to sell there but have high turnover rates here.
The Sam's Club Member's Mark is olive oil, but it's pomace oil -- the dregs of olive oil -- and not virgin olive oil.
Searching for results in Italian about Feroli olive oil or Feroli olio oliva returns 0 results.
Also the Italian flag with the "product of Italy" on the packages seems like a sloppy graphic job.
I am not sure what you mean with legitimate, but at least it doesn't sound like an olive oil made in Italy.
It's probably a marketing strategy to make it sound more appealing to the average customer, like calling any wine Chateau something, to make it sound like a French wine.
"Olive oil product" screams "we can't legally call this olive oil" to me
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.215146
| 2024-02-20T14:40:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126714",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Hobbamok",
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Tim",
"TooTea",
"Tristan",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89705",
"leftaroundabout",
"terdon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1848
|
How do you sharpen a serrated knife?
I have some quality serrated knives but over time they get dull.
How do I sharpen them?
Check out Cutco cutlery: http://www.cutco.com/home.jsp. Two of my favorite knives are serrated, but the factory will sharpen them for me. I sold them during college, so I got a discount, but I still think they'd be worth every penny if bought at full price. Just send $5 and the knives to the factory, and they'll come back good as new. In fact, if they're very damaged, the factory will just send you new knives.
Thanks, but I'm in NZ. They only seem to service US and Canada.
Aww, darn. Sorry for not checking their availability before recommending.
Take them to a professional. Nothing you can affordably buy in your home will work well.
Personally, I don't buy quality serrated knives. I buy cheap and replace when dull. Only my normal blades are quality, and these I have sharpened yearly.
I second this -- I have a reasonably expensive home sharpener, and replaced my Wusthof bread knife with a white-handled $9 special a year ago. It's way better (right now). It will get replaced when I can't get it to do what I want.
I'd like to add that the pro that I take my knives to charges about $3 a knife, so it's really not expensive to do.
I've found that my Chef's Choice (120) does a decent job honing my serrated knives, and an excellent job of sharpening my other knives. It's more expensive than buying new cheap knives until you have more than a few to sharpen regularly. (http://www.amazon.com/Chefs-Choice-120-Professional-Sharpener/dp/B00004S1B8)
The Chefs Choice 130, which I absolutely love, can hone serrated knives on the third (polishing) stone only. This is enough to improve the cutting significantly, without having to take it out for a professional sharpening.
I don't know the 130 specifically, as I got the Trizor 15° rather than a 20° model, but you can actually work serrated knives in the middle fine grinder as well as the honer. It obviously doesn't get into the scallops/flutes perfectly, but it does a good job on the tips & the reverse edge. I got my 25-year-old bread knife back to 'pretty darn good' with it. They're really quite special machines, worth every penny.
dmckee is right - that you can use a rod & file to fix - but that's a HUGE pain and very difficult to do. not preferred unless absolutely necessary.
michael has a point, that some electric sharpeners allow you to hone serrated edges. this is because those machines use a flexible rubber wheel on the honing stage. this doesn't correct misaligned teeth though. it will help.
you CAN use a stone to re-align the flat side, if your teeth are bent on that side, that can also help - but again, requires great care and skill.
the best solution is to NOT damage the teeth to begin with. don't cut on glass / stone. use a knife block or store the serrated blade in a sheath. don't EVER dump the blade in with other knives, the teeth are easily damaged.
if you take care of it, a serrated blade will last you a lifetime.
In my experience, serrated knives are sculpted from one side of the bevel only. The other is flat. I just hone mine on a fine oil-stone, using a stream of water at the sink faucet for lubrication. My stone's mounted on a wooden paddle so it's easy to use for sharpening kitchen knives. Yes, I'm probably just sharpening the tips of the serrated edge, not the gullets, but that's the part of the knife that does most of the work and needs it most. You just need a bit of practice with a honing stone to be quick and effective in restoring your knife edges to keenness.
This kit from Spyderco is not cheap but it does a great job. Only use the triangle corners.
Also mini steels designed for serrated.
Results will be very dependent on the exact serration pattern....
@rackandboneman Works for me. Have you used the Spyderco?
Nope. But seen so many kinds of serrations that I find it hard to imagine that one solution will be safe to recommend for all of them...
@rackandboneman I am not imaging. I have used the product on many patterns.
I have experimented with a rat-tail file for course work and a straighting rod for fine (basically following my old boy-scout instructions for knives and axes). Very labor intensive as you have to do each serration separately.
The results were better than nothing, but not particularly good.
It you are going to try it, you will need to find a file with a diameter that matches the serration.
I hone it with a steel. I was a little surprised the first time I saw someone do this but it really works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.215839
| 2010-07-18T21:46:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1848",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"JustRightMenus",
"Marg",
"Peter V",
"Tetsujin",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rbrayb",
"rundeploy",
"yossarian",
"zk."
],
"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
}
|
2788
|
Why does my steak turn out well done when the temperature probe says it's only rare?
Is it because I used a poor cut of meat? Did I not cook it fast enough? Should I have removed it from the heat sooner? Is my cut too thick? Is my temperature probe too conservative?
This question is a little vague, but probably your temperature probe is lying to you, or you're not accounting for resting your meat. I would suggest a legit thermometer rather than one that gives you hints about the meat -- you'll have more control over the final product.
Temperature Guide:
Medium Rare Beef has an internal temp of 145F / 60 Celsius
Medium Beef has an internal temp of 160F / 70 Celsius
Well Done (ruined) has a temp of 170F / 75 Celsius
Remember that on resting your beef will rise roughly 10F / 12C in the middle as the heat distributes. So, if you pull the beef out at 160F / 70C, it will be well done by the time you eat it.
If you want Medium Rare, pull it out at 135F / 55C.
Great answer! Yes, the temperature continues to rise in the meat after you remove it from the heat source.
It's easy to understand how this would be confusing if you had something which flashed 'medium well' on it and that was it. I'm always annoyed when companies try to dumb things down like this -- it's not hard to learn the actual rules in this case.
While those temperatures are what the USDA recommends, I tend to find them a bit high. So the definition of medium rare can also be part of the problem. I've seen Medium Rare defined as anything between 130 and 145, which is a significant difference. See wikipedia for more details on ranges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_(meat)
I agree with youssarian, you should subtract at least 5 degrees celcius from these to match your description
There are a few things going on here. First, when I test meat without using a thermometer (as most cooks in an industrial/restaurant kitchen do) I use a neat technique that is available to anyone with hands. With your non-dominant hand, touch your thumb meat (the inner thumb, where it meets your hand). This approximates rare. Then touch your index finger to the tip of your thumb (dominant hand). This can approximate medium rare. Then do the same with your middle finger, medium, ring finger well, and pinky, super well.
Actually, most cooks in a restaurant just get used to what the meat feels like since they cook so many steaks.
Now to your question. Certain cuts will feel different when cooked at different temps. Also, certain cuts will look more cooked in the middle and still be tender (feeling like rare - e.g., fillet). So if this is going on, I would just cook the steak until you like it (but remember to let it rest).
In my kitchen, we have several meat thermometers, so your problem can be remedied by testing with different thermometers. I recommend every kitchen have at least two, and probably three. Troubleshooting meat is multi-pronged and learning how to not rely on a thermometer can help a great deal.
the above method works well, but you've got to be working the line (cooking a lot of steaks) to get it right....former sous chef
I run into this problem when the probe is placed wrong. The tip should be in the center of the thickest part of the meat, not too close to any bones or large fat chunks.
If ti is too far off center, then the thermometer will read done when the deepest part of the meat still has to cook some more.
i am experiencing the opposite
Not sure why this was down voted. Actually, this is a valid observation. Maybe not the best answer, but not worth negative points.
If you don't let meat rest for the juices to redistribute and cut it open the juices run out turning a rare piece of beef to a well done looking piece of beef. Let the meat rest at least 15 minutes so this doesn't happen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.216242
| 2010-07-22T14:47:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2788",
"authors": [
"Ananth Pattabiraman",
"ClaudeShannon ",
"Erez A. Korn",
"Ian Robinson",
"JustRightMenus",
"Peter V",
"Pyrolistical",
"Roman Kagan",
"Shripad Marathe",
"Spammer",
"Thorst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"juggler",
"michael",
"nicorellius",
"user4949",
"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
}
|
2842
|
Are garlic butter and garlic oil interchangeable?
When eating something like crab, garlic butter seems to be a Western thing while garlic oil is Asian.
Is it just a personal preference thing, or does it matter which one you use?
Note: Garlic butter is just melted butter with garlic, while garlic oil is oil heated to a high temperature and then poured over garlic.
I don't understand why you would think they aren't interchangable. They're both edible, so you can exchange one for another. Am I missing something?
Well it depends on what's meant. If the question means, "will all recipes calling for garlic butter taste exactly the same if made with garlic oil", then I think I'd say "no".
I agree that they're similar, but I don't think I'd personally call them "interchangeable" in a culinary sense, just like butter and oil aren't really interchangeable in all cases.
Now, it's not like the ingredients police will arrest you for using one in a recipe instead of another. Note that melted butter is about 20% water (depending on how long you've heated it), but you're probably not baking with this stuff (though it occurs to me that it'd be an interesting addition to a salty cracker recipe).
I do not think so. Garlic butter will usually have fresh garlic in it whereas garlic oil will be oil that had garlic cooked in it. With garlic butter you're going to get a fresher, more pronounced flavor (say for putting a dollop on top of steak). Garlic oil is going to give you a deeper, more spiced flavor (say for using in a salad dressing).
At least in the two examples I gave above, they are not interchangeable. They may be in cases where you end up cooking them for a while - for instance, when sauteeing vegetables with butter/oil.
When all is said and done, it depends on the usage.
If by interchangeable you mean you can use garlic-oil when it's reported to use garlic-butter (or vice versa), then I think they are not interchangeable.
The taste of garlic-oil is different from the taste of garlic-butter; I don't think that using butter instead of olive oil for the recipe of spaghetti with garlic, oil, and red peppers would be the same.
Yes, they are interchangeable. In fact, I use both, depending on my mood. My wife hates me when I consume too much garlic (I like garlic probably too much), so I use even other options when this is the case.
If I am making a saute with yummy veggies and shrimp I love to use a garlic oil, but eating lobster I may opt for the butter. But certainly either of these would be good with either dish ;--)
One more comment. They might not be interchangeable if you are cooking something really hot, as the butter will break. In my case above, I would add some garlic butter to the cooking dish, but wouldn't rely on it for the saute. For low temp stuff, it boils down to preference.
Depends on what you are doing with it. As a condiment the major difference would be the flavor profile. Calorically and in terms of fat content most low-flavor oils are extremely similar to butter (and even olive oil has a similar number of calories, although the fat is considered healthier).
For cooking purposes, however, different oils and butter have completely different smoke points. Examples:
Extra Virgin Olive Oil - 320 degrees F
Butter - 350 degrees F
Refined Corn Oil - 450 degrees F
Soybean Oil - 495 degrees F
So you can heat these fats to different temperatures before they burn and smoke. For cooking use, you want to be careful not to burn your fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.216831
| 2010-07-22T18:41:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2842",
"authors": [
"Faust",
"HuBeZa",
"JeffK",
"Leandro Bardelli",
"M Mc",
"Mike Yockey",
"Niklas",
"Pointy",
"Spencer Ruport",
"ajpyles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6641
|
Does adding salt help water boil faster?
I've always heard adding salt to water makes it boil faster. Is this true? If so, why? If not, why do people do it?
the best way to make water boil faster is to put on a tight fitting lid. Or move to a much higher altitude. which ever is easier.
@Sam, I would avoid using altitude as a way to speed up boiling (not that it's even easy do). It boils faster because it's at a lower temperature, and for most uses (eg. Tea), the temperature of the water is an important factor, not just the fact that it's boiling.
Actually adding salt to water makes it boil slower; it increases the boiling point so it takes a little longer to get there. It actually doesn't matter what you dissolve in water (or anything else). Adding a dissolved substance elevates the boiling point and lowers the freezing point.
No. See: http://itotd.com/articles/521/water-freezing-and-boiling-myths/
Anecdotal however, I often observed that if you have water close to the boiling point adding salt can make it boil instantly. Not sure why.
I suspect it is because as the salt is dissolved, that portion of water (salty) is now denser and remains at the bottom of the pan and gets more exposure to the heated bottom. Pure speculation though.
I would assume the instant boiling is an effect of adding nucleation sites, though this too is speculative.
@dmckee - I think that is right as well; it isn't that you've suddenly reached the boiling point, you just release a bunch of bubbles of oxygen that are trying to come out of solution.
Try this in the microwave: Use a pyrex measuring cup, and nuke a cup of water for about 2 minutes. Watch during the last minute, so that you can time when it starts to boil. Lets assume 1:45.
Now, do it again, but only nuke it for 1:40.
Take it out, and add a spoonful of salt (Stand back!!!!) It should explode into a boil.
What happened is you actually raised the temperature of the water above 100 deg. But the boiling action requires nucleation points (salt crystals!) In the pot on a stove, the bottom is above 100, but the top isn't. Adding salt causes the bottom to nucleate.
Be very careful with the experiment that @chris suggests. Vibrations in the vessel can also nucleate the boiling, and people have been hurt when apparently quiescent liquids suddenly boil over. Ideally you would wear a full face shield, rubber apron and long rubber gloves. (I superheated half a cup of half-and-half and set it off in the middle of the kitchen, once. Splashes went five feet in every direction and the spousal unit and I both got multiple small burns.) That said, this is a fantastic demo.
Some good answers here already, however, there are a couple of small effects to consider:
1) The solubility of gases in water decreases as the temperature is raised. So as you heat water to boiling, the gases dissolved in it become super-saturated. Adding salt to a supersaturated mixture provides nucleation sites for the gas to come out of solution (ie form bubbles). Those bubbles can make the water look cloudy or white, which can be mistaken for the start of boiling.
2) Solid NaCl actually releases heat when it is dissolved in water. Not very much heat, but if the water is on the narrow edge of boiling already, that added heat of dissolution can be enough to get things boiling a half a giffy sooner.
Again, these are both minor effects; the first merely looks a bit like near-boiling, the second probably can't be detected without a good stopwatch.
In the table you linked of enthalpies of dissolution, the change in enthalpy for NaCl is positive (+3.87), which means NaCl requires heat to dissolve, rather than releasing heat. In contrast, the change in enthalpy for HCl and NaOH dissolving is negative, and they release heat when they dissolve.
Good golly, you're right. Still, it's a small value.
I can see why it may be misinterpreted that adding salt makes it boil 'faster'.
One thing that the salt WILL do is introduce a surface (on the salt crystal) that helps the dissolved air to release from the water (looks like tiny bubbles). It can lead people to think that this is starting to boil.
When water is actually boiling it is because liquid water is turned to water vapor, thus causing bubbles.
I don't claim that it's true, but here's one more explanation, this one in favor of salt making water boil faster: http://www.swri.org/10light/water.htm
Briefly, they say that salt has lower heat capacity than water, and so water+salt will heat up more quickly than water alone. This overshadows the tiny increase in boiling point that the salt will also cause.
On the other hand, that same site says that adding salt to water will increase its volume, where I think the opposite is true (not 100% sure on that one).
Aside: It's fun how such an easy-to-evaluate experiment has so many different opinions, even with regard to the outcome of the experiment, let alone the explanation (:
Here's someone's video of doing the experiment (the water did boil faster with salt): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcrDuc-XjRQ
Of course, you can poke plenty of holes in their methodology. We need a large government-funded study!
Here is one more link relating to the specific heat of water, when substances are dissolved in it: physics.stackexchange.com
There, they did an experiment on cooling water, and found that water+salt cools faster. I think it's reasonable to believe that it heats faster, too.
Salt decreases the vapor pressure within the vessel of whatever you're trying to boil. Therefore more pressure is needed to overcome the atmospheric pressure and for your liquid to reach a boil.
You guys misunderstood. It doesn't make it Faster it makes it Hotter. This will help you understand. http://www.knowswhy.com/why-does-salt-make-water-boil-faster/
Interesting point. But how much salt does one need to add to raise the temperature of boiling from 100 to 106 degrees? With sugar, you need 80% sugar concentration to reach 108° to 118° (the first stage given in candy charts).
@rumtscho A lot. http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1457 gives ~0.5°C/3% salinity (and says we can scale that). So, 106°C would be around 36% salinity. Except not, as Wikipedia informs me you can't actually do that, 28% is as high as you can go.
It would increase boiling speed by being a bubble nucleator. We are talking kinetics not thermodynamics. The slight boiling point elevation would make little difference.
The salt in the water is denser so it goes down on the bottom and it takes a lonnnnnnggggg time for the water to boil but on the other hand, no salted water boils water faster!
its because a lot of households have hard water which has many ions and a high boiling point. adding NaCl softens water and actually reduces ion content in the tap water making it easier to boil. everyone else is theoretically right to state that adding table salt to water increases boiling point but that is for pure water not tap water.
How does dissolving an ionic substance in it reduce ion content? Is it making something precipitate out?
Salt doesn't soften water. "Hard" water has calcium and magnesium compounds dissolved in it. They will still be dissolved in the water after adding salt, so adding the salt hasn't altered the hardness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.217154
| 2010-09-03T01:31:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6641",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"DavePhD",
"David Richerby",
"Fishinsis",
"Harry Freudenberg",
"Jay",
"Judith Shelley",
"Learn Digital",
"Michael Natkin",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rookian",
"Sam Holder",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"dsample",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9361",
"rumtscho",
"user3420035"
],
"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
}
|
83783
|
Why/when would grapes (and other fruits) have better flavor/texture when served chilled?
I thought fruit would be more flavorful if served at room temperature. However, recently I had the opposite experience with a bunch of grapes. I'm wondering "why?"
I bought a bunch of unrefrigerated, room-temperature, grapes at the local market. I tried eating them right away, but was very disappointed by the texture and flavor: mushy, and not very sweet. I thought the grapes were from a bad batch, or had been out too long (in the sun?). Or maybe the grapes needed seeds to be flavorful (I think these grapes were bred to be missing the normally huge, bitter seeds).
Anyways, I put the grapes in the refrigerator. A few days later, I was surprised by the totally different texture and flavor when chilled. They had the more solid texture I had originally expected, as well as the sweet grape flavor. There was a tangy/tart flavor that had originally been missing when I ate them unchilled.
Can anyone explain my recent experience? Usually when I try the same fruit before refrigeration and afterwards, the unchilled fruit tastes much better, or at least the same (with peaches, for example). I think I've even eaten room-temperature grapes without a loss in flavor.
The exact type of grape I was eating were Kyoho grapes ("Geobong" grapes in Korean)
Are you sure the grapes didn't just ripen in that period, making them better regardless of refrigeration? I mean I strongly prefer cold fruit and only eat it refrigerated at home, but leaving them out (in the sun) should generally ripen up and make them sweeter, depending on the specific fruit. It is after all its natural wild state
They get even better when frozen
It's because different taste buds are activated differently depending on temperature.
A new study reveals why our taste perception is enhanced as the temperature of food and beverage products increases, explaining why beer is more bitter and ice cream is sweeter when consumed warm.
......The study... identified microscopic channels in our tste buds - termed TRPM5 - as being responsible for different taste perception at different temperatures.
According to our researchers, the reaction of TRPM5 in our taste buds is much more intense when the temperature of food or fluid in increased, sending a stronger electrical signal tot he brain and resulting in enhanced taste.
Note, this particular article is over 10 years old. There has been a lot of research that has both confirmed and extrapolated greater details on this.
Food temperature affects taste, reveal scientists - Food Navigator
Other, more recent articles -
The Guardian (2013): Hot or not? How serving temperature affects the way food tastes
Flavors Fluctuate with Temperature - Scientific American (2012)
In the case of your grapes, there is probably some kind of flavor profile or combination that is greatly enhanced by temperature. If the skins have a pungent bitterness that is enhanced at a greater temperature, it might overpower the flavors you like, while at a lower temperature, it gives a hint of those flavors that is more pleasing, while the grape also has enough sweetness that still carries through while cold.
That is probably a much more likely scenario than the particular food rapidly ripening or decomposing to that degree.
It tastes different because chemical and biological reactions are dependent on temperature.
Being alive means that the organism is expending energy to keep its metabolism running and its biochemistry at an equilibrium which couldn't exist without the whole system geared to support it. Once a part is separated from the organism, in all but the lowest organisms, its metabolism changes. The flesh of animals starts decomposing, but the metabolism of plants also changes (although they can continue to be alive and even procreate if you supply them with good conditions). Some reactions stop, barriers break down, enzymes which have been kept in check start acting on the cytoplasm, etc.
And what happens when the equilibrium is disturbed depends on the external conditions. So a bunch of grapes which has spent some hours in the fridge will taste differently than a bunch of grapes which has spent some hours out in the sun, or some hours in a closed warm tub. So some kind of difference is to be expected, and that's what you are tasting. It is not unique to grapes, or to fruit, or even to plant matter, it is actually much more pronounced in meat.
As for why you prefer the taste from the fridge, this is not something we can guess. Personal tastes are exactly that, personal. There is no known mechanism to find out for sure how an individual started liking a given taste, although in some cases guesses can be made (sugar content, or memorable events connected to a smell, or simple familiarity are common). So you just have to take it as an information you discovered about yourself - it is no different than "I like spinach" or "I like honey". You simply like cooled grapes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.217878
| 2017-08-20T07:31:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83783",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8594
|
How to work with Dried Mushrooms?
I was recently given a bag of dried mushrooms and am unsure how to work with them. What's the best way to use them?
what kind of mushroom?
I honestly don't know. It's a large zip-lock full of round, whole mushrooms.
Soak them for a while in warm water, and you'll be able to use them, yes.
However It is equally important to know that you should reserve the liquid for its essential mushroomness, and yet also that said reserved liquid should be run through a coffee filter to remove grit.
+1 for mentioning straining the liquid. I've forgotten to do that, and you end up with a very crunchy sauce.
For some mushrooms the necessary "a while" can be quite long, e.g. 30 minutes. Be careful with the liquid, depending on the mushroom its taste may not be what you are looking for and you may want to discard it.
Do you have to soak them in a deep pan? So that the grit remains on the bottom? I too recently used some dried porcinis and my pan sauce ended up very gritty. The package said to 'blanche' them.
I guess you must be referring to dried Shiitake Mushrooms.
I agree with all the answers above, but I must make some additional steps to it. I also believe we are talking the whole mushroom. If it is sliced mushrooms, you will need to soak them for less time.
Yes, it's best to use cold water and it will take at least couple of hours.
I would soak them in cold water for about 15 mins
Pour all the water out. Put in fresh water and keep soaking it. I will do this step couple of times. Remember you may save the water to use as flavouring, but you have to clean the mushroom and make sure the bitterness is gone. Also, I must say the imported Chinese mushroom must be handled carefully as there have been reports that they may contain dangerous chemicals.
After a couple of hours, make sure the mushrooms are soft, take them out of water, and drive them thoroughly. You may keep the water if you wish.
The mushrooms are good for foods that are steamed or stir-fry.
Hot water
If you are in rush, then you may use hot or warm water. You still have to go through the cleaning process, but the time will be less.
Soup
If you use mushrooms for making soup, you may not need to soak it. I would soak them for quick 10 mins and give them a clean. Throw them straight into water and boil them to make soup. The flavour of the mushrooms will come out nicely.
Perhaps not the 'best' way to use dried mushrooms, but if you powder them up in your spice grinder, they make an excellent thickening agent for soups/sauces. You won't get thickening at the level of cornstarch or arrowroot, but it will thicken things and impart a mushroomy goodness.
Depending on the mushrooms, it may take a little longer. You could soak them in warm/hot water and it'll be quicker, but if I have the time I generally soak them in cold water for about an hour. I'm told it retains much more of the flavour when you do that.
For some a few minutes in warm water will reconstitute them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.218295
| 2010-10-27T23:47:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8594",
"authors": [
"Greg",
"MVCylon",
"Nancy",
"Nate",
"Simon",
"Taeraresh",
"Tea Drinker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76269",
"janeshs",
"mike kemsky",
"sambellerose",
"user17646",
"user2175632",
"user2215"
],
"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
}
|
9022
|
Trouble making corn tortillas
I have tried a variety of experiments to make corn tortillas, but the results have been far from satisfactory
The only masa I can get this corner of the world is imported from Mexico or USA and is chilled or frozen
The masa and water mix goes soft after I let it stand for 30 to 60 minutes
I use a typical tortilla press, but it never gets them really thin, just flat, say match thickness?
The main problem is that using a well seasoned cast iron comal they take longer to cook than I would expect (more than one minute), and tend to dry out too much, and don't like being bent. If I stop cooking them after a minute they taste very uncooked
They taste so so ... the kids will eat them all day made up as Quesadillas
Where am I going wrong?
all the recipes I've ever read just say to cook until bubbles form, and usually that takes me well over a minute. To use the tortillas I usually have to warm over a flame or in the microwave to soften.
I assume this is about Mexican/American-style tortillas; if not, please revise the cuisine tag as appropriate.
If you're planning on eating them soon after cooking, it's probably good to either put them in a tortilla warmer (like restaurants use on the tables - they close tightly) or cover with a slightly damp towel, so they can't dry out.
@Aaronut thanks for the retag - can you delete a tag from future use?
You mean prevent a tag from being used in the future, i.e. blacklist it? Only the admins can do that; it's reserved for extreme cases.
They may be too thick. You can try placing several pieces of paper or thin cardboard into your tortilla press to get thinner tortillas. (If you aren't already using plastic or wax paper to press the tortillas, then you'll have to start, so that the paper doesn't stick to the tortilla.) Experiment with several different thicknesses until the cooking is more uniform/faster but they're still thick enough to support the food. (You'll also need to modulate the heat.) Once you find the right thickness you can just leave the extra sheets of paper/cardboard in the press for future pressings.
Have tried this, no real change, other than the hinge on my press has bent slightly :-/. Will try again with different masa
This has now shattered the casting of the press :-(
Old post but the way I get my corn tortillas thin is putting the ball between plastic wrap and using a glass casserole dish to flatten them it works better than a press I think the tortillas are still a perfect circle and you can see what your doing. I use a smaller size than 9 x13 allthough im sure that size would work just as well its the only thing I use for corn tortillas i haven't used a tortilla press in 20 years and before that just a couple times call me old school but growing up and living in new mexico all my life my grandmas and aunties never had a press in their houses so i learned to mske them with out a press.....flour of course is all hand and rolling pins but that's another subject.i hope this helps you oh! And if you feel they are getting too dry while cooking keep a small spray bottle of water by the stove and give the tortilla a couple of sprays before flipping it over...makes a big difference!!
your answer might also be useful in the question about how to make tortillas without a press: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7020/67
For masa harina- corn tortillas:
In my experience, the dough should be the consistency of play-do. I often add a touch of oil while kneading the mixture (by hand). Perhaps a half teaspoon of oil. The thickness is more ideal at about a half matchstick thickness. Try using smaller balls of dough to get thinner tortillas. It should be an inch or more away from the edge of the press when you open it. For example, if using a 7 inch diameter press, the tortilla should come out with a 5 inch diameter. Use less dough, press harder.
On the comal, set the heat to nearly it's highest setting and it should take 90 seconds to 2 minutes per side. Immediately place into warming basket or on plate and cover with a towel- they will continue to cook together in there, and create a softer tortilla once you get to the table to eat.
I'm guessing the rest / carry-over / steam is a significant part of what was missing.
This question is a very old post, but I'm going to go for it anyway.
I assume you mean Masa Harina or Maseca masa. I use Maseca Nixtamasa. This recipe gives me 100 % consistency (with corn tortillas, gorditas, and puffy tacos- same proportions for all 3):
2 Cups masa
1/4 teaspoon salt (whisk well before adding water)
1 1/4 Cups water
Stir together with a serving spoon size spoon. You'll have some "stray" masa at the bottom, under the dough ball, so at that point, start incorporating it with your fingers as you knead the dough a bit.
Roll the dough into balls (size varies according to what you're making) and place into a gallon size freezer bag to keep dough from drying out.
I use a press (Tortilladora from Amazon). (I keep mine hanging on the wall, but it's used a lot.) Cut the "zipper" off of a smaller freezer bag (quart, I guess), then cut about an eighth inch off of each side. Open it up and lay one side of the baggie on the press. Put a ball of dough on the plastic, lay the other side of the baggie over it and press a little with the heel of your hand- then press the first time with the press. Open it up to see where your masa is positioned on the press. Center it and really press again (harder). How thin you get the dough depends on how big the ball was. You kinda have to play with it.
My comal is a De Buyer carbon steel crepe pan, set at about 4 1/2 to 5 on a ceramic glass cooktop. (The temp on your range may vary) I press the next tortilla while the previous one is cooking.
Hat tip to Lisa Fain, who has homesicktexan.com blog, for the recipe. It's a beauty!
It's great that you mention where you got the recipe and give credit to the author. That's far more than many people do. Thanks. However, please link to the actual page where you found it. Stack Exchange tends to be strict wrt. referencing requirements. Thus, it's best to comply with what's detailed on that page whenever possible, or at least as much as possible (i.e. include a link). I'm unsure it you're actually quoting something. It doesn't look like it, but I haven't checked. But, it's good to have the link to your actual source (i.e. the actual page, not just site).
I use plastic to cover my press, I give it 2-3 good hard presses then open and give everything a half turn then press again seems they come out thinner this way, getting just the right masa texture is important too, and the right comale or pan I might try the above suggestion on two pieces of cardboard covered with plastic next time I make, also I do find wax paper not a good choice it sticks the masa for me my question would be do the more expensive hard wood presses make a thinner product than my metal one?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.218605
| 2010-11-11T08:33:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9022",
"authors": [
"4Z4T4R",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Geoff",
"Joe",
"Makyen",
"Nibood_the_slightly_advanced",
"Ryan",
"TFD",
"gbjbaanb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89095",
"justkt",
"nguyen tung",
"sleeves"
],
"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
}
|
8519
|
Does a colder refrigerator keep things fresh longer?
Are they simply "cold" or "not cold", or does the degree of coldness make a difference? Does it depend on what is being refrigerated?
Your refrigerator should be set so that it maintains a temperature no higher than forty degrees F. This means that you shouldn't be opening the door frequently or leaving it open longer than necessary. If you are aging beef in that refrigerator, you want the temperature to be no more than thirty-five degrees F according to some sources, but these sources conflict.
Below 32 degrees F you are obviously duplicating the functionality of your freezer, but not as well.
One thing I've seen time and again- make sure the food is at or below forty. Just because the air in your fridge is at forty doesn't mean that your food is making it down to that temp. I normally keep mine about three degrees colder than the temp I want the food to stay at.
Your refrigerator should be cold as possible without having any cold-spots where things will freeze. Inadvertently freezing vegetables or meat really slowly (as is apt to happen in a spot that is just slightly below the freezing point) will damage them in taste and texture.
Proper airflow keeps temperatures more homogenous; you should make sure to allow proper airflow by leaving small gap in the back and sides of fridge. It is not a good idea to cram bags and others in your air space as it will create uneven cooling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.219239
| 2010-10-25T13:27:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8519",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Korneel",
"Serefind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"jimchristie",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15462
|
Baking watermelon
A while back I saw an article/recipe for baking watermelon -- the watermelon was cut into fillets and baked for a couple hours (IIRC). This was supposed to totally change the texture and give it an interesting and new taste/texture.
I cannot find the recipe now, and cannot find any other recipe similar to it.
This is not a recipe request, but rather a question about the technique: how would one go about baking watermelon (what temp/how long?) and what is the result? In what kinds of dishes would one use baked watermelon? Savory? Sweet?
(Note: I know this question is worded poorly and is slightly ambiguous. any help in rewording and working into a good SE question would be welcome!)
I actually finally found the original source that I read oh-so-long ago. It was an article on Boston.com in which they featured a recipe from the chef at 51 Lincoln. The recipe can be found here, and while I can't seem to find the full article (it's behind a paywall now), it's discussed in a blog post here.
In short, you put the watermelon slices in a roasting pan, cover them in cream sherry and butter, cover with parchment paper and aluminum foil, and bake at 350 for 2 and a half hours.
The blog post mentions that the chef serves it with a "confit of tomatoes, eggplant chicharrones, and French feta", and that they typically sell out of the appetizer.
Very interesting! Not sure I would head towards sherry as a flavoring here, but to each their own. Love the idea of eggplant chicharrones though.
@Michael yeah, I feel similarly; I remember when I read it that I was intrigued by the technique, but wanted to try something different with it; just thought I'd post it now that I've found it.
Here are a few references for cooked watermelon:
(My blog) Herbivoracious, has a recent post showing how to sear and compress watermelon.
Ideas In Food has a watermelon that is grilled, then cooked sous vide, and then scored and sauteed to resemble a duck breast.
Modernist Cuisine has a recipe for watermelon bulgogi that involves a long dehydration
All of these methods produce quite a change in texture from raw watermelon.
#2 and #3 were the first two references of which I thought, too; perhaps I should also start reading #1!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.219389
| 2011-06-14T19:30:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15462",
"authors": [
"Archenoth",
"ESultanik",
"Erhannis",
"JM Fullerton",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike",
"Phineas Fogbreath",
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3357
|
What kind of steak to use for fajitas?
Following Steven Raichlen's recipe, we used skirt steak to make fajitas on Sunday. I found the meat particularly chewy/tough and rather unpleasant overall. What can we do to improve the experience?
Genuine fajitas are made with skirt steak. The most important thing you can do when making fajitas is marinate appropriately. That recipe calls for a dismally short marination time (30 mins to an hour). When I make fajitas I marinate them a minimum of 4 hours, though typically overnight. I usually use a combination of soy sauce, lime juice, garlic, olive oil and salt in a zip-loc bag.
Another thing to be aware of is how you slice the meat. If you bought your fajita meat presliced from a good butcher, then chances are he cut it properly - against the grain. If it's a random supermarket butcher you may or may not have had it cut properly. If you cut the meat yourself, make sure you slice it across the grain, otherwise you'll be chewing some very tough long proteins.
Also, as with any meat, don't overcook it. Medium rare is just fine for a skirt steak.
Some people will substitute a flank steak for a skirt steak when making fajitas. Flank tends to be a little less tough, but not as flavorful. The above marination and cutting guidelines apply to flank steak as well.
Update - I also notice that the recipe suggests 3-4 minutes per side for medium rare. This doesn't sound right to me if the grill is on high heat. Skirt and flank steaks are rather thin and 2 minutes per side on a hot grill should be medium-rare.
Also, make sure you let it rest. I usually rest any steak for 5 minutes, not 3 as the recipe suggests.
The meat was not presliced. The intention was to cut it across the grain - we pulled on the steak slightly, then sliced it the direction it didn't want to pull apart. The meat was medium rare.
@280Z28, if you can face it, persevere with skirt steak as once it's right it's simply the best for fajitas. A long marinade is the key to it
I'll give the skirt steak another shot, any tips for picking out the best possible at the store today? I'll marinade it tonight and cook it for lunch tomorrow. :)
@280Z28: I just realized I was giving fajita advice to a Texan. Get on the ball man! :D If you can get one that was cut today do so. Otherwise you're looking for the "usual" steak properties, great even marbling throughout. The more fat you see in the steak the tenderer it will be. Don't go for one with giant hunks of fat though, it should be laced throughout.
@280Z28, haven't heard of the pulling technique for deciding the way to cut, so wanted to toss in a description regarding that. On a skirt steak, you should see a lot of lines running across the meat, this is the grain. You want to cut against the lines, not with them, that way each cut will have all of those gaps running through it. Normally a skirt steak cut is a lot longer then it is wide and the grain runs the short way. It will seem counter-intuitive (since cutting the short way gives you fajita-ish length cuts) but you want to cut thin strips the long way, then cut them to length.
@280Z28: How did it turn out?
@ManiacZX: Hmm, I've never seen a skirt steak where the grain runs the way you describe.
I went to a meat market instead of the grocery store and picked up a 2.4 lb skirt steak. The butcher had cut it so the lines ran across the short way. Turned out much better this time - I really need to get an instant read thermometer though because I cooked it medium rare in the thinnest part to rare in the thickest, and it would have been a bit easier to eat if it were medium to medium rare instead.
@280Z28: I'm glad it worked out better!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.219622
| 2010-07-26T21:38:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3357",
"authors": [
"Chai n Brew",
"Gavin S",
"Maarten",
"ManiacZX",
"NeedTungsten",
"Nobody",
"Rob",
"Sam Harwell",
"Seth M.",
"fredden",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7326",
"naeg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2801
|
Which types of apples are considered to be "quick-cooking" apples?
In my great-grandmother's recipe for Open-Face Apple Pie, she writes, "Cut apples in eighths if they are not quick-cooking." I assume that this means some apples will cook more quickly than others, but I can't find a list of such apples anywhere.
One of my favorite topics, having grown up close to two apple orchards...
Most likely, by "quick-cooking," the recipe intends you to use a pie or sauce apple, i.e. one that softens readily with heat.
Sauce apples. Use these for a pie if you like VERY soft pie contents. Personally, I prefer applesauce that has some chunks in it, so I don't use "sauce apples" for sauce; however, the standard is to list for sauce those apples that practically dissolve (like McIntosh).
Pie apples. An apple listed for pie is typically one that retains its shape but softens well (like Cortland, Mutsu, Empire, Jonagold, or Fuji).
Consider the taste. Some apples (Gala, for example) lose a lot of flavor when cooked, and are best for eating raw. Others gain tremendous flavor when cooked (Empire).
Which apple to use is certainly a matter of preference. Some people like their pie apples to remain quite firm (using, say, Granny Smith), while others like them to be VERY soft (and thus use a "sauce" apple).
Here's some apple lists/charts ... I'd say look up the varieties readily available to you, and see which ones are listed for sauces or pies.
http://www.baumanorchards.com/chart/index.htm
http://www.recipegoldmine.com/kitchart/kitchart71.html
Look up the website for your local orchard - they may link to a usage chart for the apples they grow!
This might relate to the 'hardness' of the apples. Some apples cook down to a sauce much quicker than others (Bramely might be considered quick cooking whilst Cox's might be considered slow cooking).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.219951
| 2010-07-22T15:25:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2801",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Eli",
"James McLeod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7295",
"ysdx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101022
|
What is the difference between connective tissue and suet/fat deposits?
A google image on the term 'meat connective tissue' seems to show what I believe to be fat deposits/suet in the case of meat pictures. So what then is the difference between fat deposits and connective tissue?
Suet is a particular fat from around the kidney area of cattle, it is not intramuscular.
I just learned from the other poster that adipose is considered a type of connective tissue, so from that perspective they are the same thing. However, I when chefs say it the fat would be something flavorful that you can render easily, and connective tissue would be a tough fibrous structural component that takes much longer to break down with heat. You can certainly feel the difference when you touch it, despite it not looking all that different in a photograph.
Here is a man separating connective tissue from suet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRsO9KdxXk&t=190s
Fat is a type of connective tissue, alongside bone, tendons, cartilage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connective_tissue
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.220227
| 2019-08-29T11:28:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101022",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99690
|
How to barbecue an egg?
I recently discovered that eggs are outstanding in front country hiking:
inexpensive
nutritious
richer flavour than boiled
cooks in 10 minutes
just add salt.
The only problem is that they explode!
One thing I tried is vary the heat. My conclusion is that directly putting the egg onto feeble embers works best. This probably corresponds to having strong embers under an elevated grill.
Another thing I tried is punch a hole into the top of the egg - to relieve the pressure. Sometimes is works correctly, with the catch that relieving the pressure is equivalent to significant portion of the egg white falling into the fire. Other times the whole solidifies and the egg explodes anyway.
Assume the lack of a closed top barbecue, but availability of aluminum foil and basic dishes.
Boil your eggs, or fry them in a pan.
It's the equivalent of trying to cook a can of beans without opening the can... heat == expansion == boom.
Perhaps this question belongs on https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/ then.
@Vorac there is a discussion considering this kind of comment, https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3402/are-comments-like-this-would-do-better-on-x-stackexchange-helpful.
From what I understand, the usual way to campfire-cook an egg (without pots'n'pans, I mean) is to pierce a little hole in it on one end, I think on the large end so the bubble of air leaks out before any egg does, and then partially bury it right next to the campfire so it bakes slowly-ish. I've heard of burying in earth or in ashes, depending on one's setup. You can cover the top with a leaf (just make sure you know what it is a leaf of) if you're worried about something dropping through the hole while it cooks. it does take a while, like ten minutes or so, it is a tradeoff of a slower method of cooking for a higher chance of not blowing itself up. I've seen it done, it works pretty well.
So I mentioned campfire cooking since you talk about hiking, and because it's the closest method I know of to what you're asking, but since you're talking about a barbecue setup... that will be a bit trickier, since there's no convenient heat-sink right there to leave the egg in to bake.
The solution would probably be the same, though, it needs to be buffered from the heat so it bakes slowly (suddenness of temperature shifts or physical expansion being very good for explosions). Piercing might still be helpful, though, depending on how fast or how hot it is cooked.
Loosely wrapping in leaves or other, hm, disposable wrappings. I've seen suggestions of using a hollowed potato or an orange peel, just anything thick, moist, slow-burning, and nonpoisonous you might have on hand. Even foil might work, though it'd take quite a bit to get a proper loose thickness since it conducts heat much better. This method will make the heating a bit slower, and slower is less likely to explode, etc. Again, don't just grab any random leaf, make sure you know what kind it is, if it's going to be in contact with your food. Maybe even a clay or mud coating (optional inner foil to keep the egg clean), I've heard of it being done for fish and the like.
If you can find or make somewhere conveniently nearby the heat where the egg can be left, that might work too (especially if it gets quite hot). Some metal shelf or hanging container or even something tucked right up underneath might work quite well, though this solution might take a bit of rigging depending on your setup.
Third option would be, if you're eating anything else with your egg (like beans, or anything saucy) you can poach an egg right on top. You can just crack it on and let it cook, it's a known technique (a recipe would be something like "eggs in purgatory" which uses a tomato based sauce though one can use anything wet or saucy). If you're cooking something more solidish and not saucy, like chopped veggies, you may be able to plonk your egg in with them, in the shell, and just let them serve as a temperature buffer.
Egg shells are known to help in coffee preparation ... maybe just boil the egg if making coffee?
@Joe - good idea. Eggs in the shell are mostly self-contained, they could probably be tossed in with most anything liquidish without too much of a flavor change either way... coffee, tea, oatmeal, soup.
The "buffer off the heat" is crucial in my experience, left on top(in the corner) of a commercial BBQ about half the eggs survive(the holes help ... a little). All the other advice also sounds awesome but I haven't tried it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.220332
| 2019-06-22T16:30:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99690",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"Vorac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53390
|
What is the purpose of the light coating of flour in a three-step bound breading?
I've always understood "bound breading" to refer to a three-step process, performed with chicken or other meats that have been portioned and patted dry:
Dredge through (seasoned) flour and shake off the excess;
Coat with beaten egg, slightly thinned (with water, milk, etc.);
Coat with an even layer of desired breading (crumbs, more seasoned flour, etc).
Recently, I came across this web page which describes bound breading as a two-step process, excluding the first step of dredging in flour. It occurred to me that, although I've always done bound breading this way, it seems like the thin layer of flour between the meat and the egg mixture would actually work against the breading sticking firmly to the meat. And yet, this is the way a bound breading is done in all the recipes and cookbooks I've encountered previously.
What is the purpose of that first light coating of flour, structurally speaking? Obviously if you use seasoned flour, you're adding seasoning; but does it really make the breading stick any better through the cooking process?
The flour as the first dredging step does help the rest of the breading stick. Think traction. It gives the egg something to hold on to, which then holds on to the breadcrumbs. You're right, the vast majority of recipes that call for this kind of breading call for a three step process. That's because it works better. I've done it with and without the initial flour dredge. With is better. Considerably.
(And the rest of the breading won't stick to just the meat.)
Empirically, you're right. It helps the rest stick. But my theory for why it works is different. Meat has a wet surface, and also starts releasing more juice while frying. The liquid layer would separate the egg from the meat, if there isn't flour to absorb it. If you leave a floured piece of meat sit around for some time, you'll see what I mean.
I happened to test this out on Friday evening, using chicken breast, two eggs with a splash of milk, and panko bread crumbs. Not only was the breading successful, it held equally well with or without the flour dredge. I had to look closely, once the chicken was cooked, to tell which pieces had received which preparation. There is clearly more to the story.
The initial flour coating is technically known as a "pre-dust". The goal of a pre-dust is to absorb the moisture on the surface of the substrate (e.g. chicken), and reduce the moisture at the boundary between the substrate and the coating. Excessive surface moisture can easily develop through condensation on cold meat, from washing the pieces, and from juices released by the meat during resting and cooking, and that moisture limits how well the coating can stick to the food.
Of course, for the pre-dust to work, it needs to hydrate and gel during cooking. If the pre-dust is too thick it works against you, with residual dry flour preventing adhesion.
Pre-dusting is more important when you plan to coat with starchy batters, than when you plan to coat with beaten egg: Egg proteins adhere to meat pretty well on their own, and cook more quickly than wheat starch gels. So egg/crumbs will work almost as well as flour/egg/crumbs, but batter/crumbs won't work as well as flour/batter/crumbs.
The last Cooks Illustrated -- America's Test Kitchen -- says the breading sticks better without the initial flour dredge. They fried chicken and exhaustively tested everything and concluded that the egg wash and the bread crumbs works best.
OTOH, i did a recipe that mixed a little flour in with the egg wash -- thinner than a crepe batter -- and thence to the bread crumbs. that works well, too.
Are you referring to Crispy Pan-Fried Chicken Cutlets (Sept 2017)? It says, "To streamline the traditional multistep breading process, we ditched the flour and found that we got a more delicate crust." I'm not finding another reference to breading from that or the previous issue online; I would be interested in citing and locating the source material.
I have used the two ways and all worked well,thus thinking the purpose of using flour is to coat the marination to avoid it washed away when passing the meat through egg wash.
Often wondered this myself. It seems totally arbitrary because as soon as you put the meat in the egg the flour is washed off anyway. I tend to think it's one of those emperor's new clothes things, like everyone sees cooks doing it on TV or youtube and just copies them, but the folk you see doing it in videos are probably just doing it cuz they saw other folk doing it, etc, etc. I mean don't get me wrong I still do it myself, I just get the feeling it's probably pointless
Try flouring a piece of meat, letting it sit for a few seconds, rinsing it under the tap for a few seconds, and then feeling the surface. You'll see that the flour is not washed away just because you dipped it in liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.220711
| 2015-01-07T23:58:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53390",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Andrea Lopez",
"Angie Mullins",
"Buk Lao",
"Cascabel",
"Elizabeth Whiteman",
"Marvin Hicks",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"mary jo Schutz",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124580
|
Is there an extra virgin olive brand produced in Spain, called "Clorlina"?
Is there an extra virgin olive brand produced in Spain, called "Clorlina"? Its barcode is 8436544133904, and I heard 84* means production in Spain.
I have searched for "Clorlina" in Bing, with or without "olive oil", but only found it is an olive oil brand being sold in China (for example, here). The link says that the brand was founded by a prestigious company named Aires deJaen, by a noble family named Lopez, in Jaén, Andalucia, Spain.
Internet access from China is very restricted, so I am not sure if I got the necessary information.
Thanks.
For what it's worth, that article number is registered to a Spanish olive oil bottling company, whose website is available in Spanish, English, Chinese and Japanese. So this might be a product of that company specifically designed for the Chinese market.
And the article number prefix (= the GS1 country code) does not make any claim about where the product was produced. It just tells you the country of the GS1 member organization where the company registered their "GS1 company prefix".
re: "84" means something; false. The outer 8 is a checksum digit that depends on both sides of the barcode's digits, it won't even be the same for two similar products from the same manufacturer. The left side of a UPC is the manufacturer ID and the right side is a product/size ID...
@dandavis, according to the EAN specification, the last digit is the checksum, not the first. There is no requirement for the placement of the human readable digits, but the first digit is frequently placed outside partly to keep the other two sets of numbers equal length and partly to indicate the approximate width of the left quiet zone. (a > is often appended to the other side of the barcode to indicate the width of the right quiet zone.) A nice little summary of the data format can be found here.
No, there is no such olive oil brand in Spain, nor would there be. The word "chlorlina" in Spanish is almost identical to the word for "chlorine". Nobody would name their olive oil that.
This is certainly a China-only brand. It may be made up of low-quality olive oils (or other oils) from random locations. It could also be real olive oil from Aires de Jaen, who notes on their web page that they export to China. There's no real way to tell, unless you can personally distinguish quality olive oil by taste.
(added extra info from @L.Dutch per comments below)
Thanks. It is very clueless for me to find affordable olive oil here. Many of native products are tasted like soy oil, and one or two are twice as expensive as imported ones.
The web page of Aires de Jaen mentions that they do export in China, though it doesn't mention the brand under which they do it. It has even a Chinese version of their site.
Well, clorlina does not really exists: https://dle.rae.es/clorlina?m=form, but yes, it sounds like something you use for disinfecting swimming pools ;-), so there is no chance to use it for something edible...
@L.Dutch Do you find their extra virgin olive oil legitimate? anything suspicious?
https://www.airesdejaen.com/zh-hant/%e5%b0%8e%e5%87%ba/ - potentially legitimate - it looks like Aires de Jaen partners with people to create their own brands, so it could be someone importing under a brand they made up called "Clorlina" - but, yeah, I can't find any mention of it either.
@FuzzyChef Why is the product likely to be low-quality and contain oils from random locations? I feel this is unfounded unless explained clearly.
@AravindhKrishnamoorthy China has fairly lax laws concerning food production, so it is very common that expensive food items are adulterated with cheaper ones or made entirely of cheaper items. Olive oil would be one such expensive food item that is likely not genuine. Same with, for example, honey.
@AravindhKrishnamoorthy adulteration and outright fraud is rife in the olive oil industry; most of the EV olive oil sold worldwide is fake. The reason I say "probably" here is that if the olive oil is being sold under a made-up name, then it's fairly likely that other things about the oil are fraudulent as well.
@L.Dutch well spotted! Do you want to post that as a contrasting answer?
I think it's at most an integration to this answer
OK, added to the answer then.
The Spanish Language Stack Exchange has a question and an answer about this same question. According to the answer this is a case of the name "Gloria" being transliterated into Hanzi as 歌洛琳娜 (Gē luò lín nà) and then this is transliterated back into Latin script as "Clorlina". I don't speak Spanish or Chinese myself so I can't confirm whether this is correct or not.
It sounds vaguely plausible, but... the bottle has plenty of text that tries to look like Spanish. Would they really change the name while keeping the rest of the text "Spanish" if this were legitimate?
@Luaan I can't say for certain but it's possible that the text is just machine translated from Chinese to Spanish which can work mostly OK but fail on trickier parts. At least Google Translate translates "歌洛琳娜" as "Gloria" but maybe some other machine translation system gives a different result.
As a Spanish speaker I was surprised by this post, no one would name their olive oil "Chlorine" and the Spanish search results on Duckduckgo show nothing except the page you attached
Thanks. I think no one here bothers to figure out the meaning of the word. As long as it is from Spain, it is probably legitimate.
considering the Chinese law enforcement problem with "gutter oil," I might take some comfort in an oil with chlorine in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil
No, there is no "Glorlina" brand in Spain for olive oil. It is only a brand used for export.
歌洛琳娜橄榄油产自西班牙安达卢西亚的哈恩地区
It says exactly, “Glorena” olive oil is produced in the Jaen region of Andalusia, Spain.”
Glorlina is a poor translation of 歌洛琳娜 (Glorena). Glorena is a woman's name, although uncommon, but existing in the Spanish language. Example - Glorena Castillo, Glorena García…
It could also be a poor translation of Gloria, as noted in an older answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.221159
| 2023-06-26T22:57:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124580",
"authors": [
"Aravindh Krishnamoorthy",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"Heinzi",
"L.Dutch",
"LightBender",
"Luaan",
"QuantumWiz",
"Rmano",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Tim",
"Yorik",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87868",
"lupe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120863
|
Is the green button on this frozen young turkey breast to be removed before being cooked in a slow cooker?
Is the green button on this frozen young turkey breast a thermometer? should it be removed before being cooked in a slow cooker? How can I remove it? Thanks
Just out of interest, does anyone else see that as a light blue button, rather than green?
@gidds: oh no, here we go again :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress. In this case, however, it is obviously blue :)
I wasn't intending to get into all the deep matters of colour perception or linguistics :-) But this has reasonable colour references (the turkey, the metal pot), and a quick check in an image editor confirms that the button is all on the blue side of cyan, so the question title confused me, and I'm relieved to find I'm not alone!
It could be a language thing, there are languages that don't have such a clear distinction between green and blue.
That looks to me like a pop-out turkey thermometer, yes; it's basically a spring-loaded plunger that's stuck to itself with a food-safe adhesive that, at a certain temperature, unsticks, which means the spring built into it can 'pop out' the little button to give the cook an indication that the turkey breast has reached a safe internal temperature.
However, I would nonetheless recommend that you remove it, for the following reasons:
These thermometers are typically calibrated for use in an oven, with the turkey being roasted; the different cooking environment of a slow cooker might effect how the heat spreads through the bird and make the thermometer's reading less useful.
The temperature these thermometers are set to pop at, even under ideal conditions in an oven for roasting, is often significantly higher than even the FDA standard temperature for safe poultry and generally results in what most would consider a dry, overcooked bird (at least for the breast meat). The more advanced wisdom is to bring your turkey to a lower internal temperature - around 160-165F or 71-74C, check using a meat thermometer, ideally an instant-read one - and make sure it stays there a little while, generally by resting the meat after you take it out of the oven.
If you can get it out easily without mangling the breast before cooking, it's one less thing to have to remember later; if it's stuck in there, though, it might be easier to take out later once the meat is cooked.
Thanks. Is it safe and healthy to be cooked in water or vapor in slow cooker?can it contaminate turkey in high mostroious temperature? How can I remove it?
The whole dealie is designed to go in the oven, it's perfectly safe to leave it in and cook with it there, it's just not terribly useful as a thermometer. To remove it you should just be able to pull it out; be gentle but firm, to avoid damaging the meat or skin unnecessarily, use a bit of paper towel to improve your grip if necessary, and if it seems really stuck you can leave it until after the turkey's cooked, at which point it should be easier.
I'm sure it's safe @Tim, but do you want a piece of plastic immersed in your food for hours if you can avoid it? Those are generally easy to get out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.221661
| 2022-06-19T23:36:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120863",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"GdD",
"Tim",
"WoJ",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"luator"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64664
|
Are my pots oven-safe?
My pots are
WearEver Cook & Strain Stainless Steel 1.5-Quart Saucepan
Model No.: A8342264
Tramontina 3-Quart Sauce Pan, Stainless Steel
Model No.: 80154/516
The handle of the first one is steel, while the handle of the second one seems to be a mix of steel and black rubber (or something that looks similar to rubber, and you can google and check similar images)
Can I bake or roast chicken drumsticks in either pot inside an oven? How much should the baking temperature be?
I have been using both pots on cooktops to boil food. Sometimes I forgot to watch, and the water was dried out, and the pots were burnt and became black.
If I put the pots inside an oven with only chicken inside the pots and without adding water (supposedly?), will that burn the pots as well? Why not?
WearEver Cook & Strain Stainless Steel 1.5-Quart Saucepan
From Amazon Q/A:
Question: Is this pan oven safe?
Answer: Oven safe to 500ºF if handles are all stainless steel. Oven safe to 350 ºF if handles have any silicone or phenolic parts. The oven should be completely preheated before placing the pan in the oven to avoid thermal shock. Cookware should not be used in the microwave or on outdoor grills. (per the users manual)
Tramontina 3-Quart Sauce Pan, Stainless Steel
From the Walmart website:
This saucepan is oven safe up to 500 degrees Fahrenheit
Note that the website shows an all-metal handle!
For recommended temperatures etc., see your various recipes for chicken or whatever you are planning to roast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.221963
| 2015-12-22T06:00:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64664",
"authors": [
"Adam Sulik",
"Alberta Gilbert",
"Dayle Onyschuk",
"Narayan C",
"Pamela Snyder",
"Phyllis Cohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64336
|
What does "serving" and "serving size" mean?
I have a tin of 16 oz mixed nuts, whose label says
Serving Size 1oz
Serving Per Container 16
I have a can of 454g refried pinto beans, whose label says
Serving Size 1/2 cup (124g)
Servings Per Container about 3.5
What does "serving size" mean? Does it mean the appropriate amount of intake in a meal for a normal adult? What if I eat much more than the specified serving size each time, such as 3oz of mixed nuts, or 248g of refried pinto beans?
What is a "cup" in serving size? Is it the same as a cup for a rice cooker?
Does the "serving size" assume that I also eat other things in the same meal, or I eat nothing else in the meal?
Mixed nuts do not seem like staple according its serving size 1oz, while refried pinto beans do because its serving size is 124g. Does determination of the serving size of a can/tin of food depending on whether the food is intended as staple or not?
Does it imply how many servings per day? I.e. the frequency of servings?
I'm removing question 4, because what you should eat is very definitely off topic here. How to read nutrition labels (the rest of your questions) is maybe borderline but all right I think, since it's pretty factual.
question 4 is "Can I eat a serving of refried pinto beans to serve as my staple in a meal, so that I don't need to eat any rice or pasta as staple?" What I want to know is that mixed nuts do not seem like staple according its serving size 1oz, while refried pinto beans do because its serving size is 124g. Does determination of the serving size of a can/tin of food depending on whether food is intended as staple or not?
Okay, that formulation is fine. "Can I eat X?" isn't a good question here, though. Obviously you can, so you're actually asking should.
For the "what is a cup" question... I went ahead and answered it, but generally when you have multiple questions, you should post them as separate questions. The other four are all basically "what does serving size mean, and are any of these guesses right?" but that one is pretty different.
Related/partial duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42581/1672
Servings/serving sizes are simply an amount that is "customarily consumed". There is no implication about what you should consume, about how much to eat per day, how often, or what part of the meal. It's just about what people tend to eat.
The FDA has put a fair amount of effort into coming up with some sort of guidelines for all this. If you care to see details, you can read this part of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 21, Part 101, Subpart A, Section 101.12). Essentially, they have amounts for categories of foods, so that ideally if anyone makes a new product, there'll already be an applicable entry in the tables.
But obviously generalizations only work so well. There are foods in any categories where those serving sizes will be unrealistic. There's personal variation. There's variation in how large a part of a snack or meal a given food provides. There are manufacturers trying to make high-fat high-sugar high-calorie food look less bad, and picking serving sizes as low as possible within the guidelines. So you'll frequently find that they're wildly off from the amount that you'd eat for a single snack or single meal, and they'll more likely be too small than too large.
A better way of looking at serving sizes is that they're intended to be of the right order of magnitude, so that you can reasonably easily estimate the nutritional content of the amount you actually eat. For example, if your cereal is in the category with a 30g serving size, and for your particular cereal that's one cup, then whether you eat half a cup or two cups of it, you'll be able to do the math.
So for that purpose, what matters is the rough amount that people tend to eat, hence the notion of "customarily consumed" amounts. That does mean that as you say, "staples" which people tend to eat as a large part of a meal will tend to have larger serving sizes, while things typically eaten as snacks will have smaller serving sizes. But that's not a judgment about how you should eat them, just how people typically do eat them.
The parts of nutrition labels that are intended to provide some guidance about how much they think you should eat are the % daily value column, for the individual nutrients, not the serving sizes. So to see whether your mixed nuts or refried beans are an "appropriate" amount to eat, you have to look more carefully, and possibly adjust for differences between your dietary needs and the generalizations made by the FDA to pick the daily value numbers.
It's not too hard to find things where one serving provides more than the recommended daily intake of some particular nutrient, and it's also not hard to find things where ten servings would be well below the daily value for everything. So the serving size itself definitely doesn't indicate anything about number of servings to eat; it's just a sort of arbitrary but hopefully convenient unit.
That covers most of your numbered questions. As for "what is a cup"... it's a standard measurement. In US stores you should be able to find 1-cup (or fractions/multiples thereof) measuring cups. It's equivalent to 236.6 mL. It's not just the contents of any arbitrary cup, so the measuring cup that comes with your rice cooker is probably not the same - likely 180 mL.
Thanks. I have updated some questions and added some new ones.
@Tim You should probably not move goalposts that way - once your question is answered well as-written, the answer should be accepted. (I'm not 100% clear on the timeline of your exchange here though, so take this admonishment with a grain of salt.) If the answer raises more questions, you should post those as new Questions, and maybe politely direct people here to that post, as opposed to dangling the accept in front of someone trying to milk their attention window for what it's worth.
@millimoose In this particular case I think you're half right - the "what is a cup" question definitely should've been posted separately as I mentioned on the question. The rest is really just asking the same question in a lot of different ways, so it's not really the worst - I think more along the lines of realizing that the question wasn't phrased quite right so answers didn't quite address all the details he wanted, but not actually adding new questions.
The serving size is an arbitrary amount of the product, typically expressed in weight or volume. The servings per container number is simply calculated by dividing the net amount of product that particular container size holds, by the serving size amount.
The manufacturers essentially pull the serving size out of thin air — it's a theoretically amount someone might be served, but it often has no basis in reality. The labeled serving size is relevant however, because it pertains to the nutrition information that also appears on the label.
Therefore, when a product is high in calories, fat, sugar and/or salt, the manufacturers will specify an inordinately small serving size, to make it appear the product is less unhealthy than it really is. In reality, people may actually consume many multiples of those amounts.
If you wish to know the nutrition information of your own real-life servings, then you need to multiply it by the percentage of your serving amount, relative to the labeled serving size. For example: if your serving contains 12oz, but the labeled serving size is 4oz, then multiply the nutrition information by 3.
Regarding "what is a cup?" — although "cups" are commonly used measurement in recipes, it's really quite imprecise. For example, a cup of flour may vary in amount, depending on how tightly packed it is. It's much more accurate to measure by weight, that's why your serving size for 1/2 cup is accompanied by a weight of 124g. To calculate your own nutrition information, measure your actual serving amount by weight instead of volume.
You most certainly should not try to perceive healthy eating guidelines, or how often to consume the product, based on the manufacturer's chosen serving size. There are many other places to get good advice of how to structure a healthy and nutritious diet. The label on a box of pre-packaged, processed food is the last place I'd go.
They don't pull it entirely out of thin air - see the link in my answer. For example, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to make an extremely fatty/sugary cereal then use a 1 teaspoon serving size. Manufacturers will certainly use things on the low end of what they can get away with, but it's not entirely unbounded.
@Jefromi They "pull it out of thin air" in the sense that they don't do a survey of actual breakfast cereal eaters to find out how much people eat of the product in real life — it's a number that isn't based in reality. I agree with you, that they'll do what they can get away with. There's been some pushback recently by the FDA to come up with more realistic serving sizes, and the more egregious examples have received some bad publicity. So, yes, a 1 teaspoon serving size is something they couldn't get away with.
My point is that although the amount might well be unrealistic, it's also partially based in reality: it has to be sort of vaguely sort of reasonable. If it's too far from reality, they won't get away with it, and the FDA has laid out some notions of reality in that Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion document.
Most civilized countries force a nutrition label using standard sizes (for example, in Europe it is often 100g across all products). In USA it is hard to pass consumer protection regulations because of strong lobbying, so the FDA compromised on the "serving size" semantic that can and is abused by manufacturers, with but a token protest from FDA. The new regulations (https://goo.gl/EyH0hm) is better in that it clearly states that if manufacturer chooses BS serving size then they must also write some BS on why they chose the BS size - which is even worse protection than a slap on the wrist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.222142
| 2015-12-12T19:29:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64336",
"authors": [
"Ashley DeLauder",
"Cascabel",
"Chris S",
"Dinh Quang Tien",
"ElmerCat",
"Gina Mae",
"Gregory Rieper",
"Guss",
"Irina N",
"Jan Simson",
"Judy Bradshaw",
"Katherine Aschinger",
"Kathryn Maguire",
"Lili Hernandez",
"Tim",
"Titus Vedanayagam S",
"Todd Pendleton",
"Tony Frith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9322",
"mary ann koehnlein",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76049
|
How to remove most water from food when cooling them down before putting to a refrigerator?
Today I baked some liquid eggs, see the picture below. After baking, there was no liquid in the eggs any more. I waited till them became lukewarm, and put them inside a plastic bag used for packaging frozen vegetables before. I continue to keep the bag of baked eggs at the room temperature, and after a while, I found a lot of water dripping from the outside of the bag.
I doubt that the bag is leaking. But why is there so much water?
The liquid eggs are no longer liquid, why give off so much water when cooling down?
Shall I avoid the water before putting the baked eggs into the freezer?
How can I deal the water from cooked food better than letting the water dripping from the bag?
I remember after I baked a turkey and put its pieces in plastic bags into the freezer, I found some ice in the same bags. Did the ice also come into being for the same reason as the water from the baked eggs?
I think your answer will need to be about eggs specifically. Most foods don't give off water like this.
Water vapour in the air trapped in the bag when cooling down even from lukewarm bag will cause condensation.
Water dripping from outside the bag? That makes no sense to me. There is no purpose to keep the eggs at room temperature for a while if you plan to freeze (or refrigerate) them.
I, like Paparazzi, am really confused here. You say the water appeared only outside of the bag (and not in the bag)? The reason for the turkey ice is partially related to Namphibian's comment about condensation from the air and likely partly due to sublimation and re-freezing of moisture from the food surface in the freezer (aka the stuff that causes "freezer burn" over longer periods). But the water on the outside of the egg bag is very strange.
There was some water inside the bag, but there was more outside the bag. @Athanasius
Condensation should not form on a bag (or object) at temperature greater than room temperature. Condensation only forms at the dew point temperature. The dew point is always air temperature or less. Unless the bag is leaking what you are reporting does not make physical sense.
The answer to your question is pure and simple. Condensation. Anytime you put anything into plastic that is not cold it will cause it to sweat. The best way to freeze anything is to place it in your freezer, uncovered and unwrapped immediately or within 5 to 10 minutes after removing it from the oven. Once it is frozen, and that should take anywhere from1 to 2 hours depending on what you are freezing, remove it from freezer and wrap quickly and immediately, making sure it remains well frozen, then return to freezer.This is called flash freezing and is the best way to keep the integrity of your food intact. When defrosting your food, especially if it is something like a piece of frosted cake, unwrap the item as soon as you remove it from your freezer, then let it defrost. Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.223006
| 2016-12-01T04:31:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76049",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Namphibian",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51371",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62300
|
Are Santoku blades ambidextrous?
Been in the market for my first good knives - mostly want either a Chef's Knife or Santoku as well as a paring knife.
I'm left handed and unsure if Santoku blades will work just as well for me or not. I'm obviously not a pro but before I spend $60-$100 on a knife I'd like to make sure I'm buying something intelligent that will last. I've only ever used a Chef's Knife but the more I read the more I think a Santoku might be better for me.
Any knife that has a symetrical blade profile should be ambidexterous in use. Santoku and chef knives typically come with a symmetrical profile1, so you should be able to get a decent choice, whichever of the types you finally choose. Whether you chose a V-shaped or double-bevel, a hollow cut or a convex blade is ultimately up to you, your intended uses and your honing skills. Some knifes feature an asymmetrical edge, but as these are often intended for special uses and for left- or righthanded use (depending on the orientation of the sides), a good manufacturer should point this out.
If in doubt, either ask your sales person or simply look closely at the blade. Another option is laying the blade flat on the table (or on a wooden block, if the hilt gets in the way) and pressing along the cutting edge. The angle of the sharp edge will "lift" the spine. If it behaves the same way on both sides, you should be fine, whichever is your dominant hand.
And a big thanks to a ESultanik below who reminded me:
Knife handles are not necessarily designed ambidexterously, even if the blade is. In fact, I suggest "trying on" every knife you are willing to spend more than a few dollars on - it should feel safe and comfortable and fit your hand size and grip well. A handle that doesn't fit your hand is uncomfortable at best, dangerous at worst.
1 This forum discusses various styles, including pictures.
Guess I'll have to ask since the one I am looking at is online (Kickstarter) and doesn't specify. Thought, I guess incorrectly, that Santoku blades were usually not symmetrical. Thanks for clarifying and offering the tip for checking.
Ya, just wanted to ask here before I made myself sound stupid asking them. They replied that all the knives are designed ambidextrously and should work fine for me. Now just to decide if I want to buy just two (Paring+Santoku or Chefs) or their entire 5 piece set.
@Ryan you could always hop over to the Frying Pan (the Seasoned Advice chat) and ask there for input, if you like.
While the blade may be ambidextrous, keep in mind that some knives have contoured handles that are designed for a specific handedness. Manufacturers of such knives typically offer a left-handed version, though.
Stephie, you might want to mention single bevel knives. You covered Symmetrical, but single bevel knives are not really ambidextrous.
@Ryan you might be thinking of Deba knives which are definitely not ambidextrous.
@Escoce, that's what I meant with symmetrical - sorry if I fluked with the technical terms in another language. Will edit, but not now. Thanks!
@Stephie I am taking symmetrical to mean double bevel. Single bevel would be asymmetrical.
There are some edge/blade designs that are double bevel but are still asymmetrical (70/30 for example), not common on a santoku though. These would usually be advertised as right or left handed. Some shapes of usuba could be mistaken for a santoku at a casual glance - and they are often real single bevel designs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.223600
| 2015-10-05T16:12:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62300",
"authors": [
"Cam",
"Chris Frias",
"ESultanik",
"Escoce",
"Jessica Zingsheim",
"Kim Renko",
"Michael Foy",
"Rick Mueller",
"Ryan",
"Sharon Davis",
"Stephie",
"User1000547",
"greg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19278
|
How to prevent a vinegar taste when poaching eggs (using vinegared water)
How does one remove the vinegar taste from eggs that are poached in water with vinegar added? Would rinsing the eggs in a sugar solution help?
Sugar counters the acid taste, but not the smell of vinegar.
I assume you mean eggs that have been poached in water with vinegar added?
I usually add vinegar to my poaching water when making poached eggs. However, I rarely taste the vinegar. I would suggest
Use less vinegar. I use no more than a tablespoon for a shallow frying pan's worth of water
Use a milder vinegar like white wine vinegar, or even lemon juice
Use really fresh eggs if you can, in which case you don't even need vinegar
Lots of people use a saucepan full of water to poach eggs. I used to, but always with inconsistent results. Usually the egg white would just disintegrate and form a foam.
Now I use a small, shallow frying pan. This means the egg white has less opportunity to disintegrate, and also means I need to use less vinegar to help the white set.
If rather than poaching you mean pickling, there's little you can do to remove the vinegar taste, as the vinegar will have penetrated the egg thoroughly.
Thanks ElendilTheTall, actually what I did was for each egg, I put one tablespoon. Never thought that I can use lemon juice to replace vinegar. Maybe a lemon egg will taste better?
Most of the lemon flavour is in the zest, so you shouldn't notice too much of a lemony taste, if any.
@ElendilTheTall, clearly you've never had a truly ripe lemon. While unquestionably the zest contains a concentrated amount of flavor, the juice of a tree-ripened lemon will have a lovely fresh and fragrant flavor of its own (i.e. while we associate both the juice's flavor and the zest with "lemon", they don't actually taste very similar).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.223929
| 2011-12-01T09:22:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19278",
"authors": [
"Anderson Karu",
"Denish Vachhani",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marti",
"MsAlliance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19456
|
How do I prevent coconut milk from separating in Thai curry?
It seems like every single attempt I've made at making a Thai-style coconut curry ends up with the sauce mixture separating. Although it usually still tastes good, the coconut ends up looking like it has curdled.
My question is what could I be doing wrong? I've mainly been following the recipe on the side of the curry paste I have (Thai Kitchens brand, IIRC).
Stir some of the paste with a can of coconut milk (I've been using Chao Koh) until that boils.
Add some fish sauce and chicken broth along with the meat and vegetables
Simmer until cooked.
My suspicion is I may be using too much chicken stock. I usually use about 1-2 cups. The vegetables I add(typically bell peppers and onions) will also contribute additional liquid to the curry.
My family and I love this dish, but I would really like to perfect its preparation. What steps can I take to prevent the coconut milk from separating from the curry?
Even though it isn't really milk (in the dairy sense), coconut milk still naturally separates into a thick cream and thinner liquid like regular milk. As such, when working with coconut milk you should still follow the same procedures you would to make a milk-based cream sauce.
The number one rule when making any creamy sauce is: DON'T LET IT BOIL! Boiling will guarantee that your creamy sauce (including sauces made with coconut milk) will break in some form or fashion. At most, you should cook these at a bare simmer.
Other than that, there are some techniques you can use to keep your curry smooth.
You could use an emulsifier like honey (common in vinaigrettes, where it is used to make sure the oil and vinegar don't separate), added toward the end of cooking.
You could also use a thickening agent, like a cornstarch slurry or a quick roux. Curry paste is also a thickening agent. As a general rule of thumb, when making Thai-style curry I usually cook my vegetables in a little more oil than I think they need, then add the curry paste and sauté that until it has absorbed the oil (along with any dry spices). It will act as a roux for the coconut milk and make sure there are no lumps in the final curry.
Lastly, cooking the curry uncovered at a simmer, stirring occasionally, will thicken it up nicely and help all the ingredients stay together.
I kinda suspected the "do not boil" part. Will update on my next attempt
A heaping teaspon of tapioca powder works very well for rescuing broken coconut milk sauces.
I'm not convinced about the cream + boil = separated formula. When I have a cream based sauce in the oven at 350F (180C) for 45 minutes, it certainly boils but does not separate.
In my experience boiling the coconut milk is not a problem. I had Thai cooking lessons and the instructor boiling the living daylights out of the coconut milk for 10 minutes - and still produced a great curry. You want to add plenty of water/stock after cooking the coconut milk to make a watery sauce.
The separation you are getting is caused by inadequate mixing of coconut solids and curry paste. This will happen if you add coconut cream at the wrong time (or the wrong way) and you then cook it incorrectly.
David Thompson is a world renowned chef and an expert on Thai cuisine. Here's my adaption of Thompson's technique:
Place 5 or so tablespoons of coconut cream into your pan and fry it until the clear oil separates from the solids. This happens when the most of the water has boiled out of it. If you don't shake the coconut milk before you open it then the cream will be at the top and it will save you time.
Once coconut cream has separated, stir in the curry paste and fry that until the oil starts to separate again.
Add the remainder of the coconut milk, stir to combine then season with fish sauce and palm sugar for saltiness and sweetness respectively.
Simmer until you are almost at the desired thickness. Steam or fry any vegetables you want in the curry during this time. How you cook them will depend on the texture you want. Vegetables, such as broccoli, can impart a bad taste to a curry if they are added raw.
When the curry is near to the desired thickness add any meat. The timing depends on the size of the meat and whether it has bones.
When meat is cooked through add the vegetables to reheat them.
Enjoy.
David Thompson also mentioned the following rules of thumb:
Green curries are on the sweet side of salt/sweet balance and red curries are on the salty side.
Use sweet vegetables in a salty curry and non-sweet (usually bitter) vegetables in a sweet curry. This is so you don't lose the curry's basic flavour profile in the taste of the other ingredients.
I live in Thailand and, unfortunately, most restaurants here don't even make their green curries sweet. The green curry pastes available at markets here are so salty and can't be counteracted by palm sugar. It's probably for preservation since the pastes are not in cans or packets.
Some people do argue that green curries shouldn't be sweet. Those in the know point towards the Thai name for a green curry: แกงเขียวหวาน (gaaeng khiiaw waahn). Directly translated: curry green sweet.
Nice thorough answer! There are many questions here about Thai cuisine, I hope you take the time to look at/answer more. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Thank you so much for the positive comment @Jolenealaska! I will definitely see what I can do about some other questions. Is there anything in particular that you could suggest?
Nothing in particular, just that if Thai cuisine is a specialty, use the search engine to search for Thai. If anything else, technique or ingredient or whatever interests you, search for that. Read the FAQ under "about" and don't be shy! If you've got a question, ask, but I recommend reading the FAQ first. Again, welcome.
Dang. I'm going to have to try this then. Thanks!
I'm disappointed to see the answers to your query. They're way off the mark.
OK - firstly, you want to get the oil to separate when cooking the coconut cream in Thai cooking. Without that, you end up with a smooth, creamy sauce which just isn't the authentic way to do it at all. That's the standard beginner's mistake. You can use the heavy cream (the harder top of an unshaken can of coconut milk) to start with, let it bubble so that the oil starts to separate. You can then add your paste and continue to fry it for a couple of minutes and then add the rest of the milk. Yes - you DO want the milk to boil lightly. You need to add the fish sauce at this point, anyway.
Plenty of authentic examples to show you the process on Videojug, if you want to take a look there.
But the OP wants that smooth creaminess - at least that seems pretty clear to me from the question. So, it doesn't really matter too much if it's authentic. Also, I'm not sure where you got that idea; it's a very common way to see curries prepared. Sure, it's not the only way, but it's perfectly authentic.
@hunter2 I think this is still a valid point. If oil separation is normal, the recipes may be written to make it happen. This at least answers the "What am I doing wrong?" part of the question: nothing!
The answer was actually in the question. You use Chakoh milk and it's doing what it is supposed to do....split. It does this because it has no emulsifiers. Plenty of (inferior) brands around with emulsifiers that are less likely to split. There is a good explanaion here Cooking with Coconut Milk
I use the light coconut milk. I add a teaspoon and a half of corn flour to it with some suger. I stir fry the paste then add the meat and veggies. I then add some vegetable stock and let the mixture boil down before adding the corn flour milk mixture at the very end.
It's not by any means traditional but it does work and is easy to do.
If ever you need to add milk to a hot dish it is likely to either curdle or separate.
The trick is to take some of the hot liquid, a couple of spoons should do, and put it into a small bowl.
Now let it cool down a little.
Then you add the milk to the warm liquid in the small bowl and beat it with a fork. The two liquids should incorporate without separating.
You can then add this beaten liquid back to your hot dish while beating or stirring the gravy or curry all the time.
This technique works for both fresh and coconut milk as well as for yogurt.
From my experience: Know your locally available brands of coconut milk, and stock and use them according to their differing properties.
Even those that, according to the label, are additive free (all the examples below are, I refuse to use other brands), differ wildly in how easily and radically they split.
For example, in Germany, you can get Alnatura's house brand, which is good quality... but splits at the slightest provocation. Perfect to pre-split before you add a curry paste that needs some hot cooking, not so good as the sole brand used unless you really want a strongly split curry. Rewe's house brand is inexpensive, has too much of a metallic taste for subtle dishes though, and has medium splitting properties - can be used for starting too, or to split together with the curry paste, splits too easily for anything that you want to actually boil. Aroy'd white can (70%, sold as coconut cream), similar properties, too thick for most dishes, can become cloying if overused. Aroy'd green can (according to label, meant for dessert), not too thick or strong tasting, you won't split it without roasting the solids unless you use a nonstick pan and care - good to add volume when you already split out the amount of oil mirror you want in the previous steps.
I had this problem. I just mixed a couple of teaspoons of corn flour with a little water and whisked over a low heat. xx
possible solution, but yields a different, and in some cases disadvantageous texture.
Whisk it if it has separated - just tried it and works a treat!
When I make Thai dishes, the coconut milk goes in right at the end.
I generally make my own curry paste, and it goes into the pan first after the oil is hot.
The vegetables/meat/other stuff go in afterwards.
Once those are all done to your satisfaction, you add the coconut milk.
Turn the flame off before it boils, and you should be fine.
Going to attempt the dish again soon and will try this.
Do you use light coconut cream? That may be why. And never boil, but you can simmer.
Nope, full fat only (brand was listed)
Fry curry paste, then add in coconut cream on high heat.
Stir till bubbles and oil break out. add in meat/ veg.
Add in seasoning.
Then add in coconut milk (1:1 ratio to water) and turn off fire when boiled.
Sometimes if it curdles, you can try this solution:
Scoop the curdled liquid (santan) out and blend it by using a blender. You will get it creamy again.
Mix it in the pot again on a slow fire and stir a while.
Put it in near the end, never let it boil and keep the lid off.
Don't boil it
There are many reasons why it might separate, depending on ingredients, but the obvious one is not to boil it, just simmer it after all other solid ingredients are nearly/fully cooked to your liking
You can boil the hell out of anything you want to make soft but not the coconut milk that should be added after.
Miso soup is the same you boil your fish powder and tofu, seaweed or vegetable and then turn off the heat and stir in the miso. You will get the best result that way.
Here's what I did to fix this issue. (It was a Thai chicken soup though and not a curry - so it's a little more "liquidy"..
I added a TBSP of cornstarch. Then I poured the broken mixture through a strainer into a blender. I blended it for 60 seconds, poured the mixture back into the pot with the solids...
Turned out good..
If it splits then strain sauce into jug, use a stick mixer to blend sauce well, recombine and your sweet. Easy.
Do not cover the pan after adding the coconut, try to add the coconut at last,
This is trikes from our kitchen zanziber island
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.224161
| 2011-12-06T18:59:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19456",
"authors": [
"Addelia",
"Derek Dysart",
"Desiree M",
"Emmet",
"Hunter Brumley",
"Janet Lowe",
"Joe Spaziano",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelly",
"Melanie Evans",
"Noreena Falta",
"Pamela Sikkink",
"Robert",
"Sammy Spets",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Sunil Chauhan",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"cloake",
"greysi00",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98420",
"hunter2",
"jim aspell",
"libby dutchess",
"lindamarie",
"mschnab",
"rackandboneman",
"tylerbwong",
"user21820",
"user3476517",
"user45417"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25956
|
Can I whisk macaron batter like meringue?
I was wondering whether there's any reason you shouldn't whisk macaron batter like you whisk merengue batter, i.e. first whisk the egg whites until you get soft peaks, then add sugar (in the case of macaron batter, sugar and almond meal mixed together) and then keep on beating for a little while? It seems it'd be easier to get a batter with meal/sugar properly incorporated yet not too runny. But while this method is standard for making meringues, it's obviously not for macarons, so I'm guessing there must be some kind of a reason for it?
The reason I'm asking is because I tend to either undermix the batter (giving the macarons proper feet/pied, but lumpy domes) or overmix it or otherwise getting it too runny (getting smooth domes, but no feet/pied). It seems like it'd be easier to maybe have the batter a little too stiff, and then just massage it a little when it's in the piping bag.
edit: I actually tried it out (with a batch of just a single egg white) and I guess I realized the answer to the question. As soon as the almond meal/sugar mix is added, the egg white contracts and it becomes impossible to whisk any more air into it. So my follow-up question then is if it might work better to add only the sugar first, and then, after reaching the desired consistency, add the almond meal? Or would you only be creating an unnecessary extra step with no big difference in outcome?
The process I follow for making macarons is:
Whisk egg whites until foamy
Add caster sugar gradually and whisk until very stiff, adding any colouring near the end.
Stir in almond meal and icing/confectioners sugar (there is no need to fold gently)
Use a dough scraper to mix the batter in a back and forth motion until the batter falls like a ribbon off the scraper.
I tend to hand-whisk the almond meal and confectioner's sugar together before adding to the egg whites to ensure even mixing.. Since I have started using the above method, found in Jill Collonna's book Mad About Macarons, I have always had very nicely shaped macarons, with excellent feet. Prior to this, I had been carefully folding in the almond meal/sugar with generally poor results.
You are correct in your findings that adding the almond meal during whisking the egg whites prevents more air being incorporated. The almond meal is oily and the oil 'kills' the meringue. This is why your beaters and whisking bowl should always be spotless, and why you can't have any egg yolk in your whites.
Making macarons is part science, part art, and it takes a lot of practice to get the results just right. I have cracked the macaronnage (mixing) stage, but I'm damned if I can bake them correctly without browning the top! Keep practising and you will get there.
Thank you for the advice! Will give it another go this weekend.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.225283
| 2012-09-03T03:58:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25956",
"authors": [
"Marcus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11447"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23761
|
How can I stop my pie from burning?
My oven heats up by putting on the grill. Yesterday I was making pie and the top burned a little bit. This happens almost every time. It happens at the moment the grill goes on for a short moment because the oven has cooled down a bit. So the top of my pie burns, but the middle is not fully cooked jet.
I always make sure the oven is fully heated before putting in the pie, and of course keep the oven door open as short as possible.
I was wondering, is there a trick so that my pie does not get burned when the oven is re-heating?
Right now I turn down the oven a little bit so it won't re-heat which indeed prevent the pie from burning. However, in this way I do not get the optimal result.
How is the result not optimal when you bake at a reduced temperature? What is wrong with the pie?
Well if I bake a pie which need long time, for example over an hour, I have to reduce the temperature for about 4/5 times with 5 Celsius. Which results in a reduced temperature of 25 decrease. This is a reduction of over 10% in most cases, which results in a slightly different cooking time. But if I want to check if it is ready, I have to open the door, which will again result in reduced temperature...
What you need is to deflect the heat from the top of your pie. If you have two racks in your oven, and can position them so that the pie is in the middle with a rack above it, place a piece of aluminum foil directly above the pie. Another option would be to set a piece of foil on top of the pie after it has partially baked. Either way will protect the top from direct heat, allowing the ambient heat to penetrate and bake the whole pie.
Great minds think alike :D
I guess this only works with pies and other bakeries without a crunchy crust? For example you want 'soggy' breads. If I want a crunchy crust, should it work by removing the aluminium in the last minutes?
You can either remove the foil toward the end or wait until it is partially browned before adding it.
Just use a standard metal cookie/baking sheet on the rack above. Saves wasting Aluminium foil :-)
The issue with using a sheet pan is that heating one with nothing on it may cause it to warp. At one cent (US) for a square foot or so of aluminum foil, I'm inclined to 'waste' the foil...
@Lotte : don't tightly cover the pie, you just want it to deflect the radiant heat (which is why TFD's suggestion of a pan on the shelf above works).
Simply cover the the pie with foil once it has browned sufficiently. The foil will protect the pastry while the filling cooks. This is a common method for preventing pie crusts that are blind-baked from over-browning.
I have tried brushing with cold water every 10 mins if some bits of the crust, e.g. edges, are going brown too fast. Seems to work pretty well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.225541
| 2012-05-15T08:28:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23761",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Daniel Earl Keith",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Ken Lee",
"Lotte Laat",
"TFD",
"Wenger Louise Tina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"musically_ut",
"rumtscho",
"sweetcoffee",
"user349510",
"user53891"
],
"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
}
|
108265
|
What is the minimum internal temperature measured inside meat (not air temperature) for pork ribs to be safe?
I want to experiment to prepare the pork ribs in Weber Kettle charcoal grill on a minimum possible temperature. What is the minimum internal temperature measured inside the meat (not air temperature) for pork ribs to be safe? By safe I mean meat to be prepared so that it is safe to eat.
It's not a fixed temperature. It's a function of time + temperature
@Joe not sure whether we already have a duplicate Q/A, but if not, your link looks like a good basis for an answer. (hint, hint...)
@Stephie : if someone else has time to do it, great. I'd use the 5mm numbers, but there are risks (as you'd want to know that you're in the coldest part, which might be closer to the bone for ribs)
@Joe It is very interesting table. Thank you. As I understand It shows temperature and time of water when making Sous Vide. It there any such kind of table that shows the safe temperature and time inside the pork?
@rumtscho : 'recommended temperature' is not the same as 'minimum safe', because it's assumes you just contact that temperature, not that you hold it for an period of time. You can pasteurize at lower temperatures
@vasili111 : and I usually get bitched at for answering questions in comments ... but as cough someone cough closed the question, I can't answer it normally. If you know that the meat is a uniform temperature, and your thermometer is accurate, use the times for 5mm thick cuts. If you want some additional safety margin (and I would for ribs due to to the bones), use the times for one of the thicker cuts ... maybe 10mm or 15mm.
The safe temp for pork is usually considered to be 145F to 165F, but if you cook ribs only to this temp they will be extremely tough and nearly inedible. Ribs on the grill become tender only after a long slow cook, the collagen and connective tissue that makes them tough starts to break down at 165F and it's only when they get up to about 180-190F that they start to become tender. An internal temp of 145-165 for pork would only be good for something like a tenderloin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.225807
| 2020-05-10T16:22:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108265",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Uncle Long Hair",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84142",
"vasili111"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5764
|
How to make extra crispy and crunchy breading like KFC?
I'm wondering how I would go about making extra crispy chicken breading like they do at many places like KFC and the like. Is there a certain ingredient that makes the breading like that?
Any assistance would be very much appreciated, and feel free to share any of your own recipes for crispy chicken breading if you have them. I'll be sure to put them to good use!
Thanks!
It would also be helpful to know which coating. In the US at least there is a crispy version as well as the traditional and they're very different.
First, use self-rising flour or use 1 teaspoon of baking powder added to each cup of all-purpose flour that you're using for the dredging and coating mixture. The carbon dioxide produced during frying will cause the coating to expand and become more flaky.
If you want more tender and flavorful chicken, first brine the pieces in buttermilk that has been mixed with several tablespoons of salt, some black pepper and whatever other seasonings you like. Otherwise just dip the chiken in buttermilk seasoned with salt and pepper.
Before dredging the chicken, sprinkle a little milk or water over your seasoned flour mixture. Shake the flour mixture around so that it asborbs the liquid, this will help create small crunch bits that will later adhere when you dredge the chicken. Dredge the chicken and then return to the milk and then dredge again to get a thicker coating of flour. Deep fry in enough oil to submerge, or pan-fry in enough oil to come about 2/3 up the chicken and turn a couple times to promote even browning. Alternatively, after pan frying until evenly brown all around, remove from oil and place on a baking rack on a sheet pan and finish cooking in the oven until the chicken is done.
I appreciate that. This sounds like a great idea and I will give it a shot! :)
I usually use a wet breading then dredge to coat with flour. This works better for me, but either would probably work. Drakes mix works well for both dredge and wet breading (I think it is corn flour with baking powder + seasonings).
The way to get crispy chicken is double breading the chicken and immersion frying. Basically, you need a tub with your flour and seasonings in it, a basin for water and someplace to place the breaded product. You should also invest in a shaker basket of some sort (you can use a strainer or whatever you have that you can put chicken in and clean afterwards that also has holes to allow the flour excess to fall away from the chicken. Once you have the station set up, you are ready to start breading.
Take your chicken pieces and dip in the water, then place them in the flour. Remove from the flour and shake the excess off the chicken (preferably back into the flour basin). Then re-dip into the water, straight up and down to ensure very little breading loss. Then back into the shaker. By the way, the shaker is also how you develop the little crispy crumblies that dot the outside of fried chicken. Then you deep fat fry in oil that is deep enough to fully cover the chicken.
Also you should use cake flour if you can get it. The flour that KFC and others use is extremely fine and that is going to be the closest thing you will find to what you are looking for.
I suggest you read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/24/kfc-secret-recipe-revealed. I haven't tried it myself though so I can't speak with experience.
Aside from taste, the crispiness aspect of fried foods really comes down to how you fry your food. Proper frying temperature is critical along with breading technique.
Personally, my favorite breading comes from panko breadcrumbs.
For this question, what is the proper frying temperature?
This technique makes the chicken so crispy you can't sit still and eat it!!!
Put your favorite seasonings along with self rising flour in a large bowl.
Add chicken 1 piece at the time and coat w/ mixture.
When all pieces have been coated, add water into the bowl until you reach a batter consistency, making sure each piece is coated. At this point you will need to add more dry seasoning flour mix to cover the battered chicken. Roll and toss the chicken pieces unti covered in the dry mix. Shake of excess and place in heated oil of your choice and fry until done. This works perfectly for me every time and the chispiness can't be beat!
First boil the chicken in cocacola, and then fry it with flour + egg
Does boiling the chicken in coca cola have any effect on the crispiness of the breading?
its have been an ancient question on how to get chicken crispy like kfc. here is kfc recipe mix for breading.
10 kg cake flour
650 grm milk and egg.
1 kg salt
1 kg seasoning
also note that kfc breading consist of dry ingrediants milk and egg powder that why their chicken is crispy we all know that the milk is browning and egg binding. and yep they uses pressure fryer. if you need to archieve almost similar result with your recipe you need a pressure fryer or just forget about it.
i am working with fried chicken in fact i made my breading from scratch using their measurement in making my recipe. my chicken is much more crisper and dryer than kfc. i reduced milk and egg by 150 grm added 2.5 kg brown bread flour sift my breading twice before i started breading chicken. the result was amazing i am supply breading to small restaurants competing against the giants Freddy Hirsch etc the difference is my breading is one product you open the breading and bread chicken thats all.
the only way to get away without using fressure fryer is steaming the chicken. double bread it and fry in the open chip fryer. i gave that method to chicken xpress for their hot wings and its working. yeah we can cook too in South Africa.
Use bread crumbs and egg white for coating the chicken. First mix up corn flour, garlic powder, onion powder and little pepper powder. Then coat the chicken with this. Then dip the chicken in egg white, then bread crumbs coating. Fry it in medium flamed oil. Try this very crispy chicken which is equal to KFC chicken.
I normally use all purpose flour cornmeal onion powder garlic powder paprika and meat tenderizer.Just wet the chicken with water or with marinade,toss in a ziploc with flour and seasonings.Then fry for 20 or 25 min in the fry daddy and presto!!!!
You only need to add your favorite seasonings to a bowl of rice flour. Then you coat the chicken with the rice flour, fry and eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.226033
| 2010-08-22T16:27:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5764",
"authors": [
"Adam Davis",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Ashvini",
"Bens Berry",
"DForck42",
"Erik P.",
"HLoden",
"HamzaNig",
"Hugh",
"James Mowery",
"Kim",
"Mimi",
"Rhonda Nason Mallory",
"Robin",
"Shreya",
"Specgirl",
"bikeboy389",
"chaosamoeba",
"helmar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71285",
"juergen d",
"shufler"
],
"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
}
|
6028
|
Is it safe to eat butter after it has crossed its expiration date? Does butter ever spoil in fridge?
I just came back from a long trip and I was cleaning out my fridge, and I noticed that there is an expiration date on the butter. It expired about two months from when I bought it. The butter doesn't look any different than normal butter.
How strictly should I follow the date on the box? Is there a way to test to see if the butter has actually gone bad?
Butter can go bad. The oils will go rancid if exposed to too much light and heat for too long. This accelerates the process of oxidation, which happens even if you keep the butter in the fridge. Even in the fridge your butter will eventually go bad.
Personally I follow the dates on all packages. I do so with an awareness that they usually tend to be conservative, which keeps me comfortable. Rancid butter in a taste test won't kill you, though. It'll just taste bad. So you should be able to taste this butter to see if it is bad.
While I recommend following the dates on packaging, here are signs that your butter has actually gone bad:
discoloration
melting (which will happen outside of the fridge, you probably wouldn't see it)
sour smell
sour and unusual taste
+1, as I've had butter go bad in the fridge myself. Took a LONG time though (no clue how long). Generally I toss butter when discoloration get's too bad. Sour smell or taste is an immediate toss.
I've kept it in the fridge for up to a year with no problems (it goes on sale between Thanksgiving and Christmas). Some recommend freezing for anything longer than six months: http://www.eatwisconsincheese.com/wisconsin/other_dairy/butter/butter_basics/butter_storage.aspx Of course, when cold-storing large quantities of butter, you should take fire-safety into account too: http://madisoneast.channel3000.com/news/news/madison-butter-fire-remembered-20-years-later/51957
Also consider salted vs unsalted. Unsalted butter will maybe last a week or so during the summer before it goes bad on the counter (or in the winter, if you keep your house too warm). Salt acts as a preservative and can give you more time, maybe another week or so. The preservative properties of salt can also work in the fridge. FWIW, I still have a pound of butter in my fridge from last xmas, and it is discolored but not quite bad. I will probablly toss it soon and buy a pound to hold me over until baking season...
Since I buy my butter when it goes on sale, and keep it in the freezer, I don't think I ever even look at expiration dates. But I only have one stick salted, one stick unsalted, ever in the fridge at a time.
Also, if you keep your butter not in a sealed container in the fridge, even if it doesn't go "bad," it's going to pickup odors from all the other foods, over time, and will taste off, even if it's not "bad" for you.
Yes, butter can go bad. Rancid, for instance.
This question has been treated before in this possible duplicate - does that help?
@Tobiasodenbrouw - seems like a somewhat different question (with related answers), since one was about leaving butter out and this butter was in the fridge.
Yeah, it's a bit different. Still, the link doesn't hurt.
@Tobiasodenbrouw - definitely, just wasn't sure how to take the phrase "possible duplicate"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.226595
| 2010-08-26T12:27:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6028",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Foon",
"JSM",
"Little Code",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35289
|
KitchenAid Mixers, which one to pick?
I am planning to buy a KitchenAid mixer for my wife as a birthday present. However, there are multiple models and I am not sure which one to pick. My wife will be using the mixer for making cookies, cake, pizza dough, and possibly bread.
One of the main differences between the models is the wattage, with some models having 325 watts while others having 575 watts. How important is the increase in wattage for my wife's uses?
Another difference that I found is that some model has a burnished metal dough hook while the other model has a nylon covered dough hook. Would this be a big advantage/disadvantage for either models?
Thanks.
Shopping advise is off topic across the SE network.
@SAJ14SAJ But objective equipment questions, like "what should I look for in a mixer that will be used for these purposes?" are exactly the kind of questions we love to have. (Gti09 - edit your question to be a bit more specific along those lines and I'm sure it'll work out.)
ANY KitchenAid mixer will serve the uses listed above.
@Jefromi I edited the question. Thanks for the note
@SAJ14SAJ : How is this off-topic? We used to have a ton of these sorts of questions, but you had to know how to word them ... like the one that makes this a duplicate : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/17497/67 (although, I don't know if the material of the dough hook has been covered.... that might warrant a separate question)
@Joe It has been edited since I started the close vote--at that time, it was a pure shopping recommendation quesiton.
@SAJ14SAJ : I don't see how it's any less of a pure shopping question than it was before. We are not other SE sites ... we are cooking.SE. Policies from other sites don't belong here unless it's gone through meta first. (see Kev's comment in cutting boards.) Gti09 was first asking about how worthwhile the motor wattage is, and now he's also mentioned dough hook material. The trick is in how you answer the question -- focus on features, not specific models (which might not be available in all areas or discontinued in a few months).
For making bread dough in a KA, use a spiral dough hook, as it tends unscrews itself from the dough rather than having the dough climbing the hook. ebay has examples, incase KA has not started marketing them yet.
I would recommend against gatting the models below 325 watt. The 325W models is easily strong enough for breads, cakes, and cookies. Although it does sound a bit tortured on heavier dough and doesn't like mixing tough stuff for extended lengths and gets warm.
The higher power models tend to have a different release mechanism where the bowl lifts into position and the mixing head doesn't tilt. This is generally handy (less dripping, and no wobbling of the mixing head). If you plan on using it multiple times a day, the pro models with higher wattage are the way to go.
I personally find the metal dough hook just fine, I believe the other one you refer to has a spatuala attached to scrape the dough off the sides during mixing. Sometimes useful, but not the end of the world without it.
On the issue of wattage : if it gets warm enough (because it's working harder than it's meant for), it'll trip a thermal sensor that will shut the whole thing down. You'll think it's broken, but if you turn it off and let it cool down, after a while it'll magically work again. I've typically run into this with kneading dough, but my mom tripped it once when juicing a few bags of citrus for a large (huge) batch of glühwein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.226884
| 2013-07-14T00:00:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35289",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gti09",
"Joe",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17728
|
Why do you need to fry onions and garlic before adding other ingredients to a dish?
I've been using an online Paella recipe that instructs you to sweat some onions for 5 minutes, then add garlic for a few minutes, followed by the vegetables, tomatoes, rice and stock.
Is there a reason the onions need to be added and fried first (and before the garlic)? Does it affect the taste at all?
Recipe was Saffron Seafood Paella
The recipe you used is a bad joke. It combines the ever so expensive (kashmiri, why not Spanish?) saffron with other, more prominent tasting ingredients. Paprika instead of pimentón and tomatoes, apart from adding onions...
@BaffledCook, pimentón is paprika. I'd be more concerned that it's adding the rice far too early.
@Peter, paprika is hungarian, pimentón is spanish. Pimentón de la Vera is a protected region. It's similar, but not the same.
It's not so much the taste as the texture. If they haven't been sauted first, the onions stay relatively crunchy during the rest of the cooking. The same is true of the garlic, but you'd usually have cut the garlic into much smaller pieces so it doesn't take as long to soften up, hence kicking the onion off first and adding the garlic a bit later.
Just a quick sidenote: if you put the garlic in from the beginning, it might burn, leaving a bitter taste to your dish.
When you prepare the onions first you bring out the sugars of the onion by carefully caramelizing it. The same with the garlic, but it needs less heat (and therefore is added after the onions) If you put it in with the other vegetables the onion will be cooked. It will still be sweet, but not caramelized.
This method is not especially for Paella, it is used in countless recipes.
If the recipe calls for sweating for 5 minutes, you're not going to be developing the sugar. In other recipes, maybe, but not this one. Vicky's got the right answer in this particular case, as the acid from the tomatoes will prevent the onions from softening. (although, as lots of other people point out, it'd be more traditional to leave out the onion entirely)
Good point, you would need more time or more heat to caramelize the sugar. Didn't spot the time there.
Well, I'm Spaniard myself and have never used onions to cook Paella or eaten one with it.
The thing about frying onions is not only the texture change but the sugar and juices it releases, that makes the fat where you fry it have a more "sweetness" taste.
Could you point me to a site that has an authentic paella recipe? The one I've linked is fairly bland
This is a good one: http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.directoalpaladar.com%2Frecetario%2Fpaella-de-marisco. Feel free to pm me, as its google-translated
If you don't fry Garlic, it can have a very bitter acrid taste to it. Frying it help sweeten the taste.
Doesn't the subsequent cooking also sweeten the taste, though?
If the recipe calls for onions then it's not paella. A real Spanish paella never ever contains onion. The reason given is that the onion will make the rice pass the desired point of done-nes. Personally, I don't believe that, as other vegetables can form part of a paella (like bell peppers).
Anyway, Vicky's answer is correct, you want the onions (or bell peppers) to be crunchy and that's why they have to be added first.
This was the recipe: http://www.waitrose.com/home/recipes/recipe_directory/s/saffron_seafood_paella.html
No, you DON'T want the onions to be crunchy, that's why you fry them at first...
@ChrisS, what's the point of adding saffron (very expensive) to tomato (very tasty)? This is probably the worst 'paella' recipe out there. If you are going to use saffron, make it count.
@ChrisS, and paprika? Saffron and paprika... no comment.
I'm open to better Paella recipe suggestions!
This is the real paella recipe (just for you as this is not a recipe site ;-).
@BaffledCook : you realize that recipe has saffron, tomatoes and paprika in it, right?
@Joe, although it doesn't actually add the saffron to the dish at any point. Obviously it's intended as a decoration on your work top ;)
@Joe, I'm wrong, my apologies. It's crazy, but I'm finding loads of recipes with pimentón and to me it doesn't make sense; the paprika will mask the taste of the saffron. The first recipe I have calls for food coloring to give a yellow color to the rice but without adding flavor. That makes sense as saffron will color the rice yellow, but is very expensive.
@BaffledCook, here in Valencia (which is the home of paella), saffron is less expensive. However, some people still use only food colouring, and most people who use saffron also use colouring. They'll also use cheap paprika, not pimentón de la Vera, and rosemary. It's meant to be a complex flavour. (Additional note: to bring out the flavour of the saffron, it's soaked in white wine for 20 minutes before being added).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.227203
| 2011-09-14T09:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17728",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chris S",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Peter Taylor",
"cpat",
"daramarak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84423",
"mines",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63900
|
Is the oily liquid from roasting a turkey worth keeping?
I placed a 14 lb young Round Hill Frozen Basted Turkey in a pan, and roasted it inside an oven.
After it was roasted, there was quite an amount of oily liquid left in the pan. Is this liquid worth keeping, and for what purpose?
Before you use the drippings, taste them. If they taste good on their own, they will be great for gravy. Often, the oil left in the pan after roasting turkey is used to make the roux to thicken gravy to go with that turkey. If it looks like all oil, you can use it as such.
Especially since the turkey was pre-basted, the drippings might be a mixture of oil and juices. Pour the drippings into a clear container so you can see just how much is oil and how much is juice. Scoop off the oil and cook it (and added butter as necessary) on the stove (preferably in the roasting pan) with an equal (roughly) amount of flour.
To make a roux gravy, the basic formula is 2 tablespoons fat, 2 tablespoons flour, and 1 cup of liquid to equal 1 cup of gravy.
Quote from about food which meshes with my own experience.
As you cook the flour and oil to a medium brown, try to scrape up any brown bits stuck to the pan. Those are huge flavor bombs. The liquid portion of the drippings poured off can be added with the broth that is the liquid part of the gravy.
The above link leads to more detailed instructions.
I would pour all the juices into a jug and refrigerate it. The fat will solidify on top, and I would remove that to use for roasting potatoes, saving the juices below for gravy making, with boiling water and gravy granules - quick and simple. This is what I did when cooking roast dinners for 40 to 100 customers every Sunday at my traditional English pub for a couple of years. People used to comment regularly on how tasty the gravy and potatoes were.
I agree with Joelenealaska and usually save the turkey juices to be used for gravy and roasting potatoes. I've also been known to freeze the juices once cooled and used them later in the year once thawed to moisten some of the frozen and thawed turkey meat from our Christmas dinner.
Im not so sure about a pre-basted turkey as I reckon there will be hydrogenated fats in there. However if you're roasting a fresh free-range bird this is for you! The turkey drippings (or fat, think chicken fat 2.0!)i is a combination of both fat and meat juices from the roasting and is absolute gold-dust when it comes to flavour!!
We usually pour it into a heat-proof jug and allow it to cool. You can use a couple of spoonfuls to pour over your stuffing to finish it off with flavour and ditto for roast potatoes but not too much as it has a high water content which can splash and burn easily in the oven causing smokiness.
The real treat is when heating up leftovers the next day or two, spoon over a few spoonfuls onto sliced meat, stuffing and even potatoes. It will add lots of good tasty extra taste.
BUT the BEST thing we use it for is for making fried bread for that post-Christmas fry-up. Slice some fresh white bread (on the thick side) Heat a little olive oil in a non-stick pan. Spoon in about three dessertspoons of turkey fat. It will sizzle and splash, so immediately, place your bread on top and move it around the pan to capture all that wonderful taste. Lower heat slightly and allow it to brown somewhat (watch out it may burn easily), flip it over and toast the underside a little (mostly for texture) Then place on a warmed plate, under a warmed grill. Do a couple slices and serve hot. Sprinkle with salt and enjoy. I guarantee you won't bother with the rest of the fry-up once you've tasted this. You may run out of bread!! A Christmas treat for us from my Grandmother's kitchen and we all love it to pieces - we fight over the last bit!!
Welcome to the site, Jay! While I don't think it was pointed out in the best way, it really is harder for us to read single long paragraphs of text than something more organized - and in any case, we do require that folks here keep things friendly, so if you do feel someone wasn't friendly, just flag it, no need to respond in kind. I've gone ahead and edited your answer slightly to break things up; it looks like you actually already had a couple paragraph breaks but since there wasn't a blank line between, they didn't show up separately after posting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.227729
| 2015-11-27T01:59:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63900",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan W",
"Ellen Barber",
"Jisele Macleod",
"John Wright",
"RACHEL LEWIS",
"Ray Loyd Sr",
"Robin Habeger",
"Steven Smith ubertiss",
"Tammy Grant Jones Beavers",
"annette hamilton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"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
}
|
29608
|
Do all new cast iron pans and skillets have a protective coating on them, which must be removed?
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/CastIronPans.htm
All new (not old cast iron cookware) cast iron pans and skillets have a protective coating on them, which must be removed.
Is this information correct? What is the point in buying a seasoned cast iron cokware if we have to remove the seasoning then?
I would trust a statement such as that from the manufacturer, primarily. The Lodge website only refers to the preseasoning process, there is no mention of a protective coating that must be removed. The statement from whatscookingamerica.net is unsupported.
@KristinaLopez I live in India. No tag anywhere here.
This coating is not the same thing as a seasoning.
Iron rusts when exposed to air. For cooking purposes, you season it, and it prevents rusting. Some manufacturers sell their iron cookware pre-seasoned, but others use other types of coating to prevent rust. This other coating can consist of wax or petroleum products such as parafin. Its only purpose is to seal the pan air-tight for the time it spends in warehouses and stores. It would melt during cooking and mix with your food. Therefore, you can't use it instead of seasoning.
But you can't season a pan "on top" of the wax coating. The real seasoning would stick to the wax, and when the wax melts, the seasoning will come off. Therefore, you have to remove the wax coating before making a normal seasoning from polymerized oil.
If you bought a pan which was seasoned instead of wax-coated, you can start using it without any removing and re-seasoning.
what is the way to know if it is real coating or wax?
@AnishaKaul real seasoning is a dark reddish brown, almost black. The other coatings can't be described in one sentence, as there are different options, but the most common ones are transparent, so the pan has a dull grey color and feels like a candle to the touch. Generally, if the manufacturer has not written "preseasoned" on the packaging, I would assume that it is not seasoned and that whatever coating is in place has to be removed.
@rumtscho, your last comment sums it up very nicely - maybe you can add that to your answer. :-)
okay, so today I scrubbed the wok with steel wool, and later on when it dried I rubbed my finger on it and found some blackish powder sticking to my fingers. Does that indicate anything?
Deary me, the second and third sentences here are wrong and coming from a moderator too, who should know better. Firstly, iron doesn't rust when just exposed to air, it needs an electrolyte to move the electrons to form iron oxide and that electrolyte is water. For rust to form on iron water and air are required. Secondly, seasoning isn't to prevent rusting, it's to provide a non-stick coating formed from polymerized fat and oil. Tut tut, poor and factually incorrect information.
@spiceyokooko The humidity in ambient air is enough for iron and some types of steel to rust. (The reason stainless steel is called stainless is that it doesn't rust, unlike e.g. blue steel). So yes, manufacturers do coat the newly-cast pans in wax, because the pans would sell on their way from the plant to the customer. Second, seasoning has many reasons, and one of them is exactly that an unseasoned pan will rust after some time sitting undisturbed in a kitchen cabinet. The non-stick surface is a nice side effect of seasoning, making it a second reason, but not the only one.
I got this set few days ago, and it has protective coating, so I suppose answer is yes
It may be the case for some pans, but it isn't the case for all pans. The key is to understand what you've purchased and whether or not it has any required first-use instructions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.228146
| 2012-12-31T14:12:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29608",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Purpleangel",
"Rachel",
"STW",
"Sharon",
"cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/926",
"joe_n",
"jrichview",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10315
|
How can I ensure food safety if my cooking utensils have touched raw meat?
Twice in the past week or so, I've wondered whether my cooking utensil was still clean enough to cook / serve with. Here were the situations:
Cooking ground sausage (no casing). While breaking the sausage up, raw sausage clearly got on the back of the spoon. Over the course of cooking the sausage and later adding veggies, all visible traces of the raw meat disappeared. I finished up cooking, used the spoon to stir in some penne, and then served.
Candying some bacon. Put some bacon in the oven with some brown sugar on it. Used a fork to flip the bacon half way through. Then used the same fork to take the cooked bacon out of the pan and on to a rack.
Is this safe? When do I need to worry about contamination on my cooking utensils? What is sufficient to make the utensil safe again?
Could someone edit the spelling of "meatt" in the title?
Sentence construction pedant answer: I'm pretty sure it's impossible to cook utensils with raw meat, safely or otherwise.
To the "never ever let any raw meat utensil touch a cooked meat utensil" crowd answering, I have a serious question: Let's say you're making ground beef. You put the raw beef in the pan and stir it with a spatula. Two minutes later you stir it again. Then again, repeating until it's cooked. Each step of the way the meat is progressively less raw, but it isn't until the final stir that it's fully cooked and "safe". I'm curious, do you use a new spoon each time? It sounds like that's what most of the answers are saying, and that seems over the top to me.
FWIW, I'm careful about raw meat vs cooked, don't get me wrong. I'm just asking how people deal with the in between stage.
@bikerboy, HA! cooking is an adjective modifying utensils, not a verb!
Yossarian: Good questions but you really need to work on your titles!
@yossarian: I found becoming vegan totally solved this problem. ;-)
Incidentally, "candied bacon"! I have a few English friends living in the US and they moan most about bacon, it is such a savoury thing here. To the point a friend of mine who was coming back for Christmas had the following sequence of status updates: "... has 48 hours to bacon."; "... should probably start packing for his trip to have bacon."; "... has checked in for his bacon expedition."... LOL
I use one utensil to place the meat in its raw form. Then The cleaned utensil will be used for the turning of the meat, yes it is the same one, not cleaned throughout the process. I only use it for the meat. When I am done it is cleaned again. Just on habit I will clean it during the cooking, but more out of habit than because I worried about anything.
@Aaronut, I'd been drinking heavily when I asked these.
@Orbling. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your solution is worse than my problem! And I'm English, living in the US. Your friends are crazy. English bacon has nothing, NOTHING, on American bacon. Period.
@yossarian: Everyone I know disagrees, bacon is savoury, not sweet. lol
@orbling, my bacon normally is savory. Maybe they should stop buying the maple bacon and get some more up brand stuff, like Boar's Head or, even better, mail order some Benton's. I hate English bacon. It's a floppy, fatty mess. Gross.
@yossarian: Ah, well there in lies the issue - you do not like bacon. ;-)
@orbling. Here I am, sucked in to a conversation about meat with a vegan. Again! You'd think I'd learn. ;o)
@yossarian: Well I'm a reformed carnivore, I ate so much of the stuff in the past I figured I was up to quota. ;-)
Ah, you guys talk about bacon all you want, but there ain't no bacon like Canadian bacon.
@Renshia That's ham.
It depends on where you live. Each country has different meat diseases and bacterium that you have to be careful about
Traditionally in many western countries most meats are relatively safe raw though poultry is often not. But the definition of safe is not universal. Fresh chicken may have some salmonella etc, but unless this is allowed to grow to large numbers of spore it will not be dangerous. There are some bacteria that are dangerous in even minute amounts, but these should be vary rare, and even the cleanest cook will probably still transfer them
So to answer question, when cooking meat (or anything for that matter), you have to consider the amount of food adhering to the utensil, and the time it is exposed to a temperature in which bacteria can grow etc
If there was a formulae it would be something like
food type (risk of bacteria) * temperature * time
In general ground meat has been processed but not overly preserved, so time starts becoming a factor. How long has it been in a warm environment? Bacon is heavily preserved and not a great bacteria home, so you have more time before it becomes a risk. I small smear of bacon juice on a fork is not going to create a dangerous level of bacteria in the 20 minutes it takes you to cook the dish. But I wouldn't risk it for Chicken (in my country due to campylobacter still being a problem)
In the home environment I give anything that has touched raw food a quick rinse under the tap (Which just happens to be collected rain water and therefore full of bird poo :-) ) and sometimes a mechanical scrub with the dishes brush before using it again in the cooking process
There are lots of old wives tales on kitchen cleanliness, but the end result is that bacteria needs water, food, and temperature to grow. If you remove most of these they can't multiple to dangerous levels
From my experience in food technology laboratories, the often overlooked problem is surface oil and fat. These trap water, food and bacteria (the perfect storm). Simple mechanical scrubbing will remove vast amounts of these for short term (period of cooking) cleanliness
This of course does not apply to food that must be cooked for non bacterial reasons, and food known to be unclean. Chicken again is typical of this, and I would hot water scrub everything used with raw or partially cooked chicken
Commercial kitchens use one set for raw and one for cooked.
You pick up the raw with one set and you'll move it around the pan but once it hits the oven you don't touch it again until it's 3/4 done and by that time you should be using the cooked meat tongs.
With a stir fry, you'd toss items in using raw food utensils and maybe move it around slightly but then once the meat is cooked you'll mess around with a different utensil again. Usually a broad metal spatula.
At home I have one set of tongs. I pick up meat with them and put it in the pan with them. I'll flip the meat over and then toss the pan in the oven. Once the meat hits the oven I wash the tongs with a spray bottle of bleach and soap and pack away all cutting boards that had any raw meat on them. After that my work area is a raw meat free zone.
I think I'm being overly cautious but it's a good habit I got myself into and it'll save me one day an I won't even know it.
Does that help?
Answer comes from the merged question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22249/do-i-need-to-wash-my-tongs-between-handling-raw-meat-in-pan; I thought this info on commercial kitchens fits here, even though there are so many answers already.
I my self do it the same as you. I cook up some ground meat in a pan, add sauce to it when it is cooked and use the same utensil the whole time. I've never gotten sick from doing it this way. But I do like to cook the meat at least 5 minutes after it is fully cooked, just to make sure. I figure the extra time, with the hot heat on the utensil is enough to make sure that the juices on the the utensil are heated up enough to kill everything off.
That was always my feeling as well.
I use two sets of tongs on the barbecue. One has a blue rubber grip, and the other has a red grip. Blue and raw meat go on the left side of the BBQ, and red and cooked meat go on the right. I'm pretty diligent about the raw-left cooked-right transition.
I'll use the blue tongs until the meat is seared on both sides, and then switch to the red.
When cooking on the stove, I find it easier just to wash my utensil when the food hits the crossover point.
After cooking raw meat, I tend to bleach the utensils before cleaning them twice with soap and hot water.
A rule of thumb for myself, is a utensil that touches raw meat should never touch anything else until cleaned. This prevents cross contamination. It just creeps me out not too.
I'm always really bad about remembering which spoon was used when in the cooking process. I went out and got a lot of wooden spoons (hey their cheap) and keep them in a crock by the stove. When ever I use one I chuck it in the sink so I don't have to remember if it was used on raw meat or cooked meat. There are times where I'll use 8 or more but I have more than a dozen, and they are easy to clean.
The bacon is no big deal, because it is cured. However, the spoon used to cook the sausage could/will be carrying some really nasty stuff until it is either cleaned, or the material on the spoon is suffieciently heated to kill those nasties. Best to cook the sausage, remove, then add it to the veggies at the end of the cook cycle for the veggies, then finish with the penne.
Any time you cook meat from raw, always clean the utensil, and do not continue to use it until it is cleaned.
I'm pretty sure a lot of bacon isn't really cured, just flavored.
The key is that you want to kill any possible pathogens that may have existed on the raw food, and been transferred to your utensils.
If your tongs come in contact with raw food, and continually stir the food until it's cooked, most likely any pathogens on the utensil will not have been heated enough to kill them, simply by stirring. Unless you're cooking in boiling water (or deep frying), such that any surface on your utensils that came in contact with raw food has been heated above ~165°F, there's still a chance that pathogens may exist on your utensils, and be transferred back to your cooked food.
So to be safe, use separate utensils, or wash thoroughly to avoid cross-contamination.
Of course, the real danger depends on the source of your raw food, and whether it is actually contaminated, etc... Thus most food safety practices are just to be safe. Much raw food is perfectly safe to eat--it's just impossible to tell which is, and which isn't, by looking.
If you're stirring the food continuously (or nearly so), at what point should you switch utensils? Too early would mean that the new ones will come into contact with nearly-uncooked meat, and pick up any pathogens; too late would mean that the old ones would have been harbouring any pathogens for most of the cooking time. Or should you switch multiple times?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.228513
| 2010-12-19T23:24:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10315",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Daniel Cheung",
"David Ly",
"Diana",
"Faliming",
"JWiley",
"Kyle Hayes",
"Lan Quil",
"Lancer",
"LuPete",
"MarianMelch",
"Neeka",
"Orbling",
"Pavel 'Strajk' Dolecek",
"Renshia",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"dpendolino",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"kim",
"rumtscho",
"sangesi",
"stephennmcdonald",
"wonglkd",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77078
|
Do I need to wash the flax and sesame seeds before grinding them?
I have a bag of flax seeds and a bag of sesame seeds from Food to Live at Amazon. I want to grind them in a coffee grinder, and eat their powder.
For food safety and health consideration and best absorption,
are the seeds ready to eat from the bag?
Do I need to wash them before or after grinding them? If yes, how?
Do I need to cook them before or after grinding them? If yes, how?
Thanks.
Yes, they're all ready to eat.
Washing them is just going to get them wet, and it'll be difficult to impossible (especially for the flax) to get them dry enough to grind to a powder.
People do sometimes soak flax seeds, or mix ground flax seeds with water, in order to get something to use as a vegan egg substitute, but I don't think that's what you're going for.
thanks. After grinding the seeds and pour the powder out, there is still a lot of powder stick to the inner face of the grinder, and I don't have a tool to empty. Is it acceptable to unplug the grinder, pour some drinking water inside the grinder and then let the water and powder flow out together, and then I drink it?
I don't know whether your grinder is okay to pour water in. But I'd try to scrape out by hand or with a spoon before I'd try water; that's just going to make it even more of a mess. The powder isn't going to dissolve, it'll likely clump and stick to the grinder.
I keep an inch-wide paintbrush within easy reach of my spice grinder to clean it out. If stuff is really sticking to the side, you can scrape them down with a butter knife or a spoon, run a tablespoon of salt through the grinder, dump it out, brush it out, and repeat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.229395
| 2017-01-03T22:08:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77078",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Tim",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1483
|
What do I do with a kohlrabi?
I've recieved several kohlrabi from my CSA, and I have no idea what to do with them. I found a recipe for a curry using kohlrabi, but it wasn't great.
Does anyone have suggestions on how to get the best out of it? Any favorite recipes?
I think this is one of the best reasons to join a CSA: it forces you to learn new recipes!
@Adam Oops - wonder why the search didn't pick that up?
@Rowland Show: because "kohlrabi" is 1 word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlrabi
@Dinah Not according to http://www.riverford.co.uk/sacrewell/shop/vegetables/
@Rowland Shaw: I stand corrected. That's still why the search didn't pick it up. The other question like this one spells with without a space.
It is actually one word. From the OED: kohlrabi [kəʊl'rɑːbi] (kohlrabies) a cabbage of a variety with an edible turnip-like swollen stem...
For the record: I made a simple stir-fry with the kohlrabi, and it turned out great. It maintained a kind of crispness like water chestnuts, and had a nice mild flavor (as many have pointed out, like broccoli stems).
@Pulse or two if you believe the seed sellers: http://search.thompson-morgan.com/search?w=kohl+rabi&asug=
@Adam Shiemke: You are reporting that this question is a duplicate of itself. :-)
(Storage note: do not wash the bulbs before storing them; place in plastic bag in the refrigerator. Wash just before using.)
Young kohlrabi is great raw. Peel first, then
add to salads (sliced or grated)
serve as part of a veggie platter w/ dip
grate it and add to slaw (but after grating it, put some salt on it & let it sit, then squeeze the water out of it)
puree it - here's someone who really loves it pureed: http://foodiefarmgirl.blogspot.com/2007/11/recipe-what-to-do-with-kohlrabi-puree.html
Cooked kohlrabi can be steamed or boiled. Remove the skin after cooking.
You can eat the leaves, if they are still firm and green; use them within a couple of days.
Wash the leaves & remove the tough stem parts (ribs). Blanch in boiling water for a couple of minutes, drain, chop, and serve with a bit of butter, salt, and pepper. A little vinegar or lemon juice is good on them, too.
Raw is great. Peel and slice, A few grains of salt and then eat. Real simple, real tasty.
I used to eat them like apples when I was a child, I still like the raw kohlrabi in salads. Basically, it's a sweet'ish/spicy turnip/cabbage/raddish so you can do with it, more or less anything you can do with those three vegetables.
As I said. it's great in salads, it can be steamed or added to stews, deep fried etc. The leaves are also excellent in salads and can also be cooked like spinach.
It's a very versatile and tasty vegetable.
I found one recipe that called for it to be cubed, salt to taste, and drizzled with olive oil and baked until tender. That's the only way I've prepared it and I thought it was great. Go to the recipes section of Doe Run Farm (the CSA we get our veggie box from), and you'll find the Kohl Rabi recipe.
Most people don't realize that Kohlrabi and Broccoli are in fact different cultivars of the same species of plant (along with cabbage, cauliflower, kale and a bunch of other plants). So it's not just like a broccoli stem - it is a broccoli stem :)
I have two favorite uses for Kohlrabi - sliced thinly and used in asian-style wok dishes in a creme soup - just sautee some garlic and leek in butter and olive oil, add chopped Kohlrabi, some white wine, 1 liter of stock and cook until tender, then puree.
You can peel it and slice it, add some lemon and salt and eat it raw as a fresh salad. It goes very well with fresh green apple, lettuce and a cold potato salad. It's highly recommended to eat fresh and not cooked. You need to make sure you peel it properly first though.
We sliced it into about 1 inch square pieces (like a french fry but bigger) and then just lightly browned them in a bit of olive oil over high heat.
It's a lot like a broccoli stem or a cauliflower. Steam, Saute, or Braise.
Besides the allready mentioned possibility of eating it raw, I like to make a Kohlrabi sauce to go along with pasta.
Peel and slice the Kohlrabi into slivers. Saute it with a little oil. Spice with salt and pepper. Add fresh small cut dill. Finish off with cream.
Aside from the other excellent answers (basically, use it like broccoli stems :)), it's excellent braised.
I grow kohlrabi and beets, use the kohlrabi instead of cabbage in borsht, yum. Also eat it raw a lot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.229592
| 2010-07-17T17:04:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1483",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Andrea Scarcella",
"Arafangion",
"Brennan",
"Daniel C.",
"Dinah",
"Hortitude",
"JW.",
"Jeff Hall",
"John Dyer",
"Jonathan Tran",
"KjSATX",
"OrionDarkwood",
"Pulse",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Sue Pierce",
"Swanand",
"Timothy Lin",
"avpaderno",
"cdwilson",
"cubap",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"kevins",
"kim",
"nettle",
"nuc",
"rageear",
"scottishpink",
"tushAR"
],
"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
}
|
18037
|
How to cook a tender quail?
I've had various successes (but mostly failures) with the little birds. I'd like your advise on making it tender as can be.
My technique is mostly to sear the outside and then cook for about 20' in a flavor full broth (onions, wine, other vegetables & spices).
Am I cooking it too long (or short)?
Three potential methods or changes you can try:
soak the quail in brine for 2-3 hours before searing. You can do this in a large zip-lock sack or in a covered bowl. Make sure to store the quail/brine combo in your refrigerator during the soaking.
Let quail reach room temperature before cooking.
Pan-searing the quail might dry out the smaller pieces, i.e. the bony wings or legs. Try your 20-minutes cooking in a very hot oven, making sure not to burn or sear the quail too much. Similar to cooking a turkey, cover the thinner pieces with foil so they dry out more slowly.
Ultimate method: use a "Sous Vide" method - you basically seal the quail and your flavorful broth in a vacuum seal bag, making sure to get as much air out as possible before sealing. Then you slow-cook the bag+contents in a Sous Vide hot-water bath. Instead of buying an expensive/French Sous Vide cooker, just follow these steps for very similar results: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/cook-your-meat-in-a-beer-cooler-the-worlds-best-sous-vide-hack.html
Note: to get a good finish, after cooking the quail to tender in a Sous Vide bath, you can sear the quail a little bit with a cook's blow-torch (for good presentation) or just pan sear it quickly in a hot pan.
Sous-vide which temperature?
The above methods will work, but are slightly flawed. You can sous vide a whole quail, but it is inherently wrong to do so. The white (breast) meat is inherently more tender and requires less heat than the tougher legs and wings. Separating the breasts and wings/legs into two sous vide bags works the best.
I like to cook the breasts at 130°F (55°C) (hold for ~2.5 hours for food safety reasons) and the legs/wings at 140°F (60°C) for 12 hours. The latter process helps break down the tougher tissue in the leg and wing meat, providing a seriously tender piece of quail. Filling each bag with a good flavorful broth or stock such as duck broth will make the quails even better. Make sure to remove the skin prior to cooking the meat. Finish the meat off on a smoking hot griddle for a moment to crisp it up.
Sans sous vide, I would prefer to simply glaze and char-grill the quail. Braising is a great technique, but in my experience is better suited for less-flavorful cuts of meat. Braising is probably going to extract much of the flavor out of the quail (and make a delicious jus...). And it sounds like you're braising it too long if it's dry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.230361
| 2011-09-27T14:11:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18037",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"J Martin",
"Sasha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user22038"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14200
|
Mousseline sauce, use the white or the yolk of the egg?
I always used the yolk of the egg for preparing mousseline sauce, but sometimes I see recipes on the web where they use the white of the egg.
Like in the definition on this site epicurious
mousseline
[moos-LEEN]
1. Any sauce to which whipped cream or beaten egg whites have been added just prior to serving to give it a light, airy consistency.
So what's the 'orthodox' way of making mousseline sauce?
And what difference would it make to use the whites instead of the yolks?
I guess, I will have to try it one of these days, but was wondering about.
It should* be made (classically) with egg whites. It is supposed to be a light hollandaise based sauce. Obviously the white is lighter. All the fat from in the mousseline should come from the butter, not yolk.
I find this answer confusing. If it is a hollandaise, how can it be made without yolk? Where do the emulsifiers come from? Could you maybe explain a bit more how it is made?
Apologies. Start by making a hollandaise. A mousseline is a hollandaise based sauce (just like a bearnaise). It is what happens after that makes it into a mousseline. Use whites, not yolks. That's all I meant. Hope this clears up any confusion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.230613
| 2011-04-21T11:42:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14200",
"authors": [
"Cirdec",
"Graeme",
"Huangism",
"Pikamander2",
"Reluctant_Linux_User",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18746
|
What is the purpose of nutritional yeast?
I have several recipes for seitan which call for nutritional yeast. I've never used it before and am curious about its purpose.
Is it for flavor, texture, nutritional value?
This product is new to me, but it looks interesting.
The flavour of nutritional yeast is described in Wikipedia:
Nutritional yeast has a strong flavor that is described as nutty,
cheesy, or creamy, which makes it popular as an ingredient in cheese
substitutes. It is often used by vegans in place of parmesan cheese.
Nutritional yeast is a so called complete protein.
A complete protein (or whole protein) is a source of protein that
contains an adequate proportion of all nine of the essential amino
acids necessary for the dietary needs of humans or other animals.
This also explains why it is popular among vegans, that needs to
replace the amino acids in meat with alternative food sources.
To be a little more precise, the flavor has a lot of umami, which is useful not just for cheese substitutes but also meat substitutes. (Of course, seitan needn't try to taste like meat, and adding umami doesn't necessarily mean you want it to taste like meat, but I expect that's one of the reasons.)
I use nutritional yeast for the taste. I think comparing it to a milder form of Marmite flavour, or even miso is apropos - it has a similar tanginess - in my opinion. When I choose something low caloric for a good flavour enhancer, this is a good thing to keep around.
A good introduction for you to try nutritional yeast might be to sprinkle it on popcorn, or add it to a tomato sauce, or even on buttery toast. Use it like a flaky spice.
It's a flavour booster like Marmite (or Vegimite if you are an Ozzie)
Not to everyone likes, but it sure does has an interesting taste
Usually made from fermented barley
hmm... so I could theoretically save my trub from my batch of beer and just eat that? It's basically fermented barley (and should taste like a belgian tripel) =D
Yeah go for it! Brewers yeast is another one of those interesting tastes, more similar to Marmite and probably better tasting than traditional "nutritional yeast"
Nutritional yeast is a valuable source of B vitamins, especially B12, for vegans. Recently it's had an image makeover, with cutesy names like 'nooch'
It's commonly described as having a "cheesey, nutty" flavor; more technically, it's a vegan source of umami, the glutamic acid flavor associated with rich protein sources. (Umami alone apparently generates a lot of discussion; see Delish Knowledge, LifeHacker, Swirled...)
Me, I'm not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, but I like to sprinkle it on baked potatoes and roasted onions, or add a spoonful into a hearty pot of soup.
Serious Eats talks about using nutritional yeast to make a vegan mac-n-cheese clone, sprinkling it on popcorn, and even as a dough conditioner for noodles.
let's not forget the masses of B vitamins it contains too.
A paste applied to the cheeks will result in a flush due to the B rush. Not that I recommend trying it (old beauty tip from a health mag)
Salads use a sprinkle of flakes instead of nuts: lower in Cals
For the tine amount you use per serving, I suspect that there are not masses of B vitamins. Many commercial yeast preparations are fortified, so maybe they are then considered good sources of B vitamins
Fortified or not, nutritional yeast is often consumed by vegans and lactose intolerant folks for its B vitamin content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.230763
| 2011-11-03T18:09:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18746",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joshua",
"Rube",
"STW",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"codigoyarte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/926",
"user40620",
"user84205"
],
"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
}
|
20133
|
Is wheat gluten (wheat protein) an acceptible cooking substitute for soy protein powder or rice protein powder?
I'm trying a handful of vegan dishes, and have found a broth recipe which requires a small amount of soy or rice protein powder (1Tbsp). This eventually makes 30 cups of broth, so overall is a very small component.
I have wheat gluten available, and am wondering if it would be an acceptible substitute; or if I would be better off leaving it out altogether, or with another substitute (presuming the protein is used to slightly thicken the broth, would corn starch be a 1:1 substitution)?
Full recipe here
Vital wheat gluten will not dissolve as those two isolates will. Vital what gluten would likelier clot. Here its a description of the difference between soy flour and soy protein isolate; although VWG is basically a protein isolate (it is the leftover from washing away the starch in wheat), like those powders, the other two are gluten free. However, like with any flour, you can use it as a slurry to avoid this problem
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.231040
| 2012-01-03T02:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20133",
"authors": [
"Davidmh",
"Dexter",
"Shane",
"aqwert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44053",
"user9869932"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6202
|
Dutch Oven alternative for campfire?
I am going camping shortly. I have done some dutch oven cooking before, and there is one recipe that I want to make that uses one. However, I do not have a dutch oven...
I am thinking of using two aluminum pans (the cheap foil ones) and aluminum on the top (several layers) to make a sort of dutch oven alternative.
Has anyone tried that? Does it work?
I am also thinking of putting some sand or water between the two pans to make it hold and transfer the heat a little more evenly. Anyone know if this will work?
I don't have an alternative, but I definitely wouldn't recommend using aluminum pans. Aluminum has a relatively low melting temperature and even though it'll survive a 350° oven, it probably would not survive an open flame.
ooh, I had not thought of that. Hmm. Maybe I will just have to get a dutch oven. I also thought of using a steel cake pan, with a cookie sheet lid, but the foil pans were 50 cents each. A cake pan and cookie sheet was 5 dollars. The cheapest dutch oven was $39...
What is the recipe you want to make?
It is a peach cobbler: peaches with cake mix and butter on top, closed up and set on the coals for about 40 minutes...
If you had a cast iron skillet, I feel like this is something you could use that for, if you could find a way to close it up. Maybe one on top of another, if you have two of the same size.
The melting point of aluminum is 1220 degree F (660 C). If you melt aluminum on a cooking fire you have bigger problems than what happens to your pot. Indeed, they sell (or used to sell) aluminum dutch ovens for backpacking. Not that I'd have carried one as they still weigh a lot. And I knew some folks who cracked their in half while trying to burn out something cook onto the inside. Thermal stress I guess.
While you can easily melt a foil pan over a hot campfire, yours will be filled with juicy peaches - so assuming you don't over-cook it, you should be safe. 40 minutes directly on the coals might be pushing it though - consider using a gridiron to control the heat by elevating the pan slightly, and stick around to keep an eye on things... Remember, dutch ovens are thick, heavy, and slow to transmit heat, and the recipes reflect this.
I would avoid doubling either the pan or the foil: you'll end up with an air gap between the two layers, which will likely just end up ruining the outer pan. Pay a little extra for the thicker "heavy-duty" foil and you should be fine.
Wet sand between two pans is an interesting idea... If you try it, report back!
My biggest worry here would be burning the peaches before they have a chance to release their juices (no slow warm-up with aluminum - you'll essentially be frying them). If you can elevate the pan, you should be fine; otherwise, consider macerating them first (if you have very ripe, juicy peaches, count your blessings and ignore this suggestion).
Finally, consider that Harbor Freight sells cast-iron dutch ovens for $25. The quality isn't stellar, and it's extra weight to lug around, but you'll probably end up with better food all the same.
I ended up calling around until I could find a dutch oven from a friend. I may still try this someday. Or, if anyone else does let me know how it works.
Another alternative is:
Dig a hole the size of a dutch oven
Fold a liner for the hole out of several layers of foil
Remove the foil liner
Put hot coals in the bottom of the hole
Put the foil liner over the coals
Add the food
Cover the food with foil
Add more coals on top if you need them
The earth around the foil liner holds heat much like the dutch oven pot would. Re-fill the hole when you are done, taking care to put the sod back intact, and the environmental impact is minimal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.231157
| 2010-08-27T17:03:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6202",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Centcom Unit",
"JustRightMenus",
"Ruz",
"alfred allen samala",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/944",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1461
|
Gnocchi - best fluffy technique
What is the best way to ensure prepared gnocchi is light and fluffy, not lumpy and soggy? I've seen tips saying to use more flour, to use less, to add ricotta cheese, to air dry...
This post has been out there for a while - but I found that first parboiling the potatoes (about 10 minutes); then baking them, skins ON in a low-medium temperature oven, until cooked; then cooling slightly and scooping out the flesh; made for much fluffier and generally lighter gnocchi.
Of course, you still need to mash the flesh well, but having it pre-cooked and almost dried out, means that mashing/handling the dough is minimised.
As a bonus, you get to season and eat the delicious potato skins.
What kind of potatoes did you use?
Nothing special, that's for sure. It's been a few months since I made the gnocchi like this, but I'm almost certain that I just used the regular unwashed potatoes available as the cheap option in supermarkets in Australia. I assume they're Sebago. Desiree would be the only other type I could have possibly used.
Probably the most important considerations is using the correct variety of potato. You need to use a variety that's good for mashing such as Maris Piper or King Edward (uk) or Idaho and russet (US)
It's also very important to make sure you mash the potatoes well. If you can't get a smooth texture by hand mashing, use a mouli or even a food processor.
For flour, use around 225g/8oz of sifted plain flour, for about 450g/1lb of potatoes. When you cook the gnocchi, cook them in small batches. never overload the pot or they will not cook correctly.
What you want is a mealy potato, not a waxy one. The correct kind will generally have a rough skin, not a smooth one. In most cases, it'll also be brown, not red or yellow (or purple).
To me the key is to work in as little flour as possible. And that means that the potato should be as dry as possible.
That is why I say just bake the potato with the skins wrapped in tinfoil with some water and a little salt (you aren't tightly wrapping each potato, but rather wrapping 2-3 of them together loosely).
Also mash then with a ricer, you can easily spread the potato out to cool and dry further.
Use all purpose flour or better yet a low protein soft wheat flower. Add the flour in stages, and don't over knead it. Once it just gets to the point of being workable to where you can shape it you are there.
You will need an egg, as even if you use a high protein flour you shouldn't be kneading it enough to develop the gluten's that would hold it together (that would cause it to be chewy). You will probably loose a good amount of gnocchi the first couple times due to it falling apart in your water. But once you do it a couple a times you'll get the hang of how it should feel.
I don't really want to tell you a certain amount flour as it depends so much on humidity and other things, you really are just going to gave to try it a few times and get a feel for it.
I hope this helps you and good luck.
The amount of flour to add depends on how much water is in the potatoes after cooking.
If you add too much flour, the texture will suffer. If you add too little flour, the gnocchi will disintegrate in the water.
The best thing to do is add flour a little bit at a time, and boil one test gnocchi after each addition until you reach the desired texture.
Also, I use semolina flour, but most recipes call for all purpose flour. I would think that A-P flour would make them somewhat fluffier than semolina because A-P has less protein.
Some recipes call for an egg, which I don't recommend, as this makes the gnocchi go from dense to denser--you should have no problem getting the gnocchi to stay together with just flour.
My Italian professor comes from Napoli or Naples in English said you should boil until fork tender and add one part of flour for four parts mashed warm potato add reconstituted porch ini mushrooms or sun dried tomatoes chopped fine and kneaded into a dough before rolling out and cutting. Rook the gnocchi over the teeth of a fork so sauce can hold on before boiling. Then boil until they float then remove and toss with a sage butter sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.231461
| 2010-07-17T16:30:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1461",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Jeffrey Wiberg",
"KimbaF",
"Marti",
"NPC",
"Terrence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39966",
"rcollyer",
"rib3ye",
"sharon",
"user2658"
],
"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
}
|
2935
|
What are ways to extract the juice from a pomegranate?
Is there an efficient way to extract the juice from a fresh pomegranate?
Luckily you asked for an efficient way and not a clean way!
My brother in California has numerous mature pomegranate trees on his property and squeezes the majority of the fruit each year to use for jelly. He uses a manual Hamilton Beach Orange juicer which he says does the best job of anything he's tried. He usually has between 16-20 gallons of juice a year so he has definitely put it to the test. His local restaurant supply wanted around $250 for one but he got his on ebay for $150.
To minimize the mess he does it on an old table outside and covers himself with a large garbage bag by cutting a hole in the bottom for his head and the sides for his arms.
In my area of the world, you get street vendors with all sorts of fresh fruit and one of these manual juicers. Pick any fruit you want and they'll juice it into a cup for you, pomegranates included.
It seems to work quite well, and I don't recall seeing any red-stained vendors.
The easiest way I've come across is to separate the jewels, wrap them up in cheesecloth, and twist the cheesecloth slowly so that the juice is pressed out into a waiting bowl.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.231800
| 2010-07-23T02:01:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2935",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Kevin",
"Konstantin Tenzin",
"Lanbo",
"Scott Mayfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"ogerard",
"pdeva",
"tequilatango"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1355
|
Nonstick cookware or not?
I am looking to replace my >10 year old Calphalon nonstick cookware. I can see the nonstick surface coming off the pans, and am starting to worry about how much of that is getting into our food.
I love the ease of cleaning nonstick cookware, but am wary of buying it again. Should I opt for nonstick or not?
I'm with @Ward -- I like being able to scour my pans for those times when even deglazing doesn't work. (although, I've found that if you ever forget about the stock that you're trying to reduce ... burning chicken bones is a nasty smell and will stain even stainless steel).
I do have some non-stick, and even a non-stick flat-bottomed wok (from circulon, but then, I'm also using electric, so it's possible I don't get enough heat to ruin it; I also never pre-heat it without oil in it, as you should never heat a dry nonstick vessel).
I'd say to look at replacing your set bit by bit -- which items do you cook that really need non-stick, and what pan do you cook it in? Maybe replace your more beat-up items with something not non-stick, try cooking with it, and see how well you like cooking with them -- it's possible that you won't like it, and it'd be better to be out the cost of only a piece or two than a whole set. You could even try out a few different materials -- cast iron, stainless, anodized aluminum, etc.
It also might take a little time to get used to cooking with out the non-stick. One mistake I've seen people make is not giving their pans enough time to pre-heat. (I think it was the Frugal Gourmet who'd say "Hot pan, cold food, food won't stick" ... which isn't entirely true, but you'll have much less problems with a hot pan).
"Hot pan, ... food won't stick" is due to Leidenfrost Effect
I'm not going to get into the arguments back and forth about Teflon and its associated chemicals and whether you get them in your body from cookware or not. I think there might be some risk, so just like I don't use aluminum pots (like my family had when I was a kid), I don't use teflon cookware.
I use stainless cookware because I like to be able to scour it clean, because there's tons of affordable stainless cookware with good thick bases to distribute heat evenly, and because if you use oil like grapeseed oil, you can heat it up enough that the stainless is essentially non-stick. Also, you can use any sort of utensil with it, doesn't have to be silicon or wood, or a plastic spatula that might or might not melt.
Sometimes, when I'm doing an omelette I wish I had a nice teflon pan, but that's about the only time I miss it. I think the only teflon I have left is in a George Forman-type grill that I use for bacon.
well said..teflon or any other chemical is dangerous as it leaches into foods and we will only know it after lot of research studies come out..better to be safe than sorry..stainless steel is the best..+1
Is it worth mentioning anodized aluminum as an alternative here? Not as toxic as Teflon, but still is "stick-resistant".
Another "stick resistant" option is from a company called Sitram. They make some really nice stainless cookware with an alloy coating called (seriously) "Cybernox". Goofy name but it's great stuff, really durable (like, harder than the steel), and it does what they say. Pans are very well-designed too.
I actually have a few Cybernox pans, though I haven't seen them readily available here in the US in the past few years. They are very nice pans, but also very expensive. They are, yes, "stick resistant", and not "non-stick". Many things will stick to them, but they're very easy to clean up, and they develop a beautiful fond. Unless you want to really sear the food over high heat, they are not great for cooking many of the things you traditionally want a non-stick pan for to avoid having to use a lot of butter - eggs, fish, pancakes, breaded meats, etc...
@CodeToGlory - stainless steel is also a chemical. Specifically the chromium that makes it stainless is highly toxic.
@mgb, Chromium is only toxic in large amounts. Small amounts are dietetically necessary. Stainless steel, cast iron, and ceramic enamelled cookware are almost surely completely safe.
The right tool for the right job. Non-stick is great for pancakes, eggs, or grilled cheese sandwiches, steel is great for searing meat and being able blend something right in the pan, cast iron is great for slow cooking and frying.
I think a very minimum solution set is a cast iron skillet and a large stainless steel frying pan and steel sauce pan. Adding a non-stick griddle/square pan and medium frying pan helps round out a set.
I don't see a problem with non-stick as long as you replace it when necessary. The only exception to this being woks which (I think) tend to get destroyed easily if they are non-stick.
Don't buy a large set of ANY kind of cookware, buy cookware to match the tasks you need it for! For most of these tasks, nonstick surfaces cannot handle the high heat you want, and will wear out and become super-stick. Since you can't properly scour them, once the coating degrades, nonstick pans are actually harder to clean.
So, you want nonstick only where you absolutely need it, which is for eggs, crepes, delicate fish, and starchy stuff that dries onto metal surfaces and is a pain to scrub off. At most you need a nonstick saute pan, and a nonstick saucepan.
I think the ideal cookware for a kitchen is:
One nonstick TEFLON slope-sided saute pan for cooking eggs, crepes, and delicate fish, because the slipperiest surface really is best here. It should be thick-gauge aluminum for even heating, but fairly cheap, because it will wear out and need regular replacement.
Main saucepans should be stainless stainless-clad aluminum. This gives even heating, usability with metal whisks, and the ability to scour off anything burnt on.
An all-metal, workhorse frying pan: cast-iron, stainless-clad aluminum, or thick cast-aluminum from a restaurant supply store. This pan will be used for searing and sauteing, and may go from the range to the oven, where the handle needs to take high temperatures. If you get stainless-clad, buy a nice, heavy one that you'll be happy to keep for a lifetime.
Optional: an enameled cast-iron dutch oven. While I'm not a big fan of these, some people swear by them.
Optional: one thick, hard-anodized aluminum nonstick saucepan for starchy stuff that will dry onto stainless surfaces. Hard-anodized aluminum is considered a "next generation" nonstick material. The surface presents a happy intermediate between teflon and stainless, where it is hard, durable, and transfers heat well, but reduces sticking.
Optional: one stockpot, NEVER EVER EVER nonstick. This will be your most expensive single item, and your wallet will cry if you have to replace a worn nonstick stockpot. If you buy nonstick, it WILL get damaged, because stocks leave a nasty, gummy residue when reducing, and this residue demands vigorous scrubbing.
I have a single hard-anodized pan that I got as a gift two years ago, and it's the best cooking-related present I've ever gotten. If you have the money to invest, definitely go with hard-anodized over regular non-stick cookware.
I would definitely go for a cast iron skillet. After reading this blog post on Salt and Fat - http://saltandfat.com/post/535900861/the-cast-iron-skillet I decided to give it a go.
I picked one up from my local camping store for about (AU)$20. Once properly seasoned it is surprisingly non-stick.
I've been using it now for the last couple of months and have cooked everything from pancakes, chili, curry, sausages and chicken all without any issues.
The only downside so far is that it can take a while to heat up and if it gets too hot it tends to smoke out the whole house.
Awhile ago we've faced similar problems and gave a chance to old-style cast iron pans. I must say that every [artificial] nonstick surface is only trying to compete natural properties of cast iron (tempered with salt) + thin oil film surface. It's already three years since we're using cast iron pans without any problems. However, they're rather gentle (not stainless) - you have to keep them dry and without food left inside while not cooking.
There are some new generation non-stick surfaces appeared on the market during the last 3-5 years. Manufactures claim these coatings to be PTFE-free, high temperature resistant (up to 450°C/850°F) hard ceramic.
I had to replace my old teflon-coated pan several months ago and opted for a Green-Pan with Thermolon coating. The first impressions after several months use: the coating is fine and non-stick enough to cook eggs even without any oil (some articles state that these ceramic coatings are more sticky then regular old PTFE-based coatings). If you definitely want a non-stick pan, I would try one of these with next generation coatings.
When frying very delicate food - most notably, fish - you can't beat a nonstick pan. For everything else though, stainless steel is best because you can heat it so much higher and don't have to worry about scraping it.
I've owned nonstick saucepans and casseroles in the past but as they've deteriorated, I've replaced them with stainless steel since I couldn't recall any times I'd been glad they were nonstick.
A full set of nonstick cookware is probably overkill. For the bulk of our recipes, we use either a large, semi-deep nonstick pan, or a deeper steel-clad aluminum pan. The biggest reason to choose one over the other for a given recipe is shape, but certain recipes benefit from the higher temperatures and extra browning power of the steel-clad pan, while others are sticky enough to work better with the nonstick surface.
The only other nonstick cookware we use is a very shallow square pan, almost a griddle, for pancakes. However, it's showing its age, and should perhaps be replaced. The nonstick coating on that one has been a minor bonus, allowing us to use less oil, but I wouldn't consider it essential.
For cooking anything with plenty of liquid, the nonstick coating is completely useless, so anything with really high sides should be uncoated metal. A minor bonus of pure-metal cookware, without even any plastic on the handles, is the ability to use it in the oven, in case that factors into your decision.
Cast iron is the best cookware you can get. Go in to any serious French kitchen and it's cast iron all the way. One of the best things I ever did was buying a Le Creuset casserole dish, food tastes amazing and its so easy to clean.
It's expensive, but cast iron cookware will last you a lifetime and you'll love using it.
That's not really true - in addition to cast iron, domestic French kitchens also have carbon steel pans and possibly copper. Cast iron is really not appropriate for a variety of typically French recipes involving reductions of acidic liquids.
@Pointy : LeCreuset is enamalized cast iron, which is what many other countries (eg, France) think of when they hear "cast iron"
I have two pieces of Le Creuset -- are you sure the casserole dish is cast iron? Mine's enamelized, but it's ceramic, not iron.
Ah ok well I agree that those are different, but because (at least here in the US) plain cast iron is extremely common that's what I assumed was being discussed.
@Pointy Ok, not everything is cast iron :-)
@Joe Yup, it's WAY too heavy to be anything other than iron...
http://www.lecreuset.co.uk/Product-Range-uk/Cast-Iron-Cookware/Casseroles/Oval-Casserole-35cm/
@Pointy - good point on the carbon steel. After a few uses it will develop a seasoning which becomes non-stick so you can fry an egg. Also the carbon steel can go directly in the oven which is good for making frittata.
Hands down, the Cuisinart Green Gourmet ceramic line is the best non-stick cooking surface I've ever used. It works well over high or low heat, it is very non-stick, it has no teflon, the shapes are extremely well designed, and they're pretty affordably priced. I particularly like the two-burner griddle, which has an aluminum base to conduct heat evenly, and is the perfect size and shape for making lots of breakfast foods. It also has a notched corner for pouring off the excess grease.
Some of mine have after a year or so built up a residue (I think this depends on what kinds of fats you use for cooking - I avoid cooking spray at all costs, but even other fats will eventually build up), but the pan surface is extremely hard, and I was able to get them back to prime condition in a few minutes with a little barkeeper's friend and a nylon SOS pad. Unlike with teflon pans, you can really scrub them without damaging the pan.
Personally I would opt for heavy stainless steel pots and pans, the kind you see in professional kitchens, because they will last a long time, you can scrub them with a scourer to clean them if you have something burned on and they clean up fairly easily even if you've been making toffee or some other sugar work.
Aside from that Le Crueset stuff is great.
I've worked in couple professional kitchen, and all I see are cheap encapsulated-disk-bottom saucepans/saute pans and thick aluminum stockpots and saute pans. Tell me, which kitchen should I be working in?
Some people do have reactions to non stick cookware especially if nothing is put in the pan and it is heated up. Also parrots and birds can die off of the fumes of an empty non stick pan. There are options now that use different coatings and are usually categorized under "green cooking pans".
I saw a lot of dead birds in my pans before, and there were no fumes. So, I think, fumes and dead birds an unrelated. Never experimented with parrots, though.
Does "choking, hacking misery" count as a reaction to burnt nonstick cookware?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.231983
| 2010-07-17T06:03:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1355",
"authors": [
"Avalanchis",
"Black",
"BobMcGee",
"Chloe",
"Christopher Cashell",
"CodeToGlory",
"Diego",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Joe",
"Lore",
"Marco Ceppi",
"Martin Beckett",
"Neil G",
"NevilleDNZ",
"Paxenos",
"Peter Turner",
"Pointy",
"Rachel",
"Ryan Anderson",
"Steve Townsend",
"akashic",
"awshepard",
"fields",
"gMale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"mdegges",
"probably at the beach"
],
"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
}
|
26135
|
How to use stock from tablet
So, sometimes I am a lazy cook. And this is a question for the very lazy days.
Sometimes I use stock from a tablet.
I was wondering: If a recipe calls for 'adding stock', is it important that you first make stock from the tablet and then add it to the recipe. Or can you just put in the right amount of (hot) water and the tablet?
I can imagine it does matter in some kind of dishes. But when does is, and when not? And why?
And I was thinking theres an iPad app to make stock
I guess I can not make stock from Apples.
there's a place called NASDAQ that sells Apple stock.
It depends on the kind of stock cube. Drier, powdery stock cubes can be crushed and sprinkled in and the appropriate amount of liquid added.
Paste cubes should be broken up (I often chop them with my knife so as not to get sticky stock paste on my fingers) and placed in hot water before adding to the dish, because they don't dissolve as readily as the powdery cubes.
But that doesn't really answer my question: Does it matter for the dish whether you do this or not? Or you say: It matters but not if it dissolved quick enough?
@LotteLaat: Well, if you drop the cube in and it doesn't dissolve until you're nearly done cooking, but something in there was supposed to absorb flavor from the broth, that's obviously bad. Otherwise as long as it's dissolved completely, and all that matters is that the flavor be in the liquid, should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.233099
| 2012-09-12T17:38:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26135",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Lotte Laat",
"Midhat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.