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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
46529
|
Blending eggs for omelette?
When I was preparing eggs at my uncle's house, since he was a techie, he insisted on blending the eggs in a miniature food processor as opposed to, say, beating them. Is there any advantage to this practice besides looking sophisticated?
Using a food-processor to beat scrambled eggs is going to over-beat them. Over-beaten eggs will turn rubbery.
The American Egg Board describes well-beaten eggs as "frothy and evenly colored." This generally takes about 20 to 35 seconds of beating - do not over beat. You want to get them to a uniform color and texture with minimal amounts egg white showing. A fork works as well as a wire whisk but requires a slight bit more time and more energy. Use a bowl that is deep enough to support vigorous whisking.
- What's Cooking America
To make the perfect French omelet, America's Test Kitchen counts (yes, at that even I rolled my eyes) precisely 80 turns of the whisk. The object being to thoroughly mix the eggs while allowing the curds to be creamy when formed. Over-mixing the eggs makes the curds dry and rubbery.
Tell your uncle that sophisticated cooks use a whisk or a fork. Once the eggs are in the pan, you can look really sophisticated by stirring with chopsticks.
Or don't tell your uncle anything and just make a mental not to not pick up his habits. :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.233245
| 2014-08-19T21:25:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46529",
"authors": [
"Beverly Roach",
"Bobbi Hedrick",
"Elena Wolos",
"Holly Self",
"Preston",
"William H.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41789
|
Removing Salsa flavor from vegetable soup
I was making homemade vegetable soup. I had used 2 pint jars of home-canned tomatoes then accidentally added a jar of home made salsa. My daughter hates salsa so what can I do to take away some of the salsa taste. I don't like how it tastes right now either and it also has too much salt. Any idea what I can do now to fix my mistake?
Without knowing the contents of the homemade salsa, as well as what else you had put into the soup. it is hard to help you. Seeing as you yourself do not like the flavor, I would suggest that you may be best off cutting your losses and dumping the soup.
First off, you may want to consider starting over. You have 2 big problems, and you could end up spending a great deal of time (and ingredients) trying to fix it and end up with something twice as big and just as unpalatable.
If you really want to do it the salsa part is easy: cook it. What many people don't like about salsa is raw flavors, they will mellow quite a bit with the application of heat. If you don't tell your daughter then chances are she won't even know!
The real problem is the salt, once you add it there's no sure-fire way to get it out. If something is very salty the only thing you can do is add ingredients that aren't salty in order to even out the salty flavor. You could make another vegetable soup with no salt and then mix the two, or add some water to your soup and see if that fixes it.
If it isn't too salty I have had some success using potato to absorb some of the salt. Potatoes are good at soaking up salt flavors, you can add some cup up potatoes in and once they are cooked take them out and some of the salt comes with them. Or if you find that the combination works leave them in.
So what I would do is if it's not too far gone would be to add some unsalted stock or water, and then some cut up potatoes. Cook it until the potatoes are tender, then taste. If it's acceptable then serve it with a smile, if not throw it away and chalk it up to experience.
I am going to get told off for this answer because I have no references for it and being on my phone it will take me a while to find a reliable source but here goes.
To take away the salty taste just add sugar. This isn't just a 'salty and sweet flavours are opposite' reasoning but there is science behind it. The salt and sugar binds together to form different taste molecules which reduces the salty flavour. Like I said, I don't have a link to evidence this but it is something I have been doing for years and have been told by a reliable source that this is the why it works.
The problem with your answer is that it only addresses the saltyness, not the (for lack of a better word) salsaness, of the soup.
The other problem is that it doesn't address the saltiness. A mixture of sugar and salt doesn't stop tasting salty, it tastes sweet and salty at the same time, which is worse than just oversalted.
I didn't answer that part because I don't have an answer for it, I thought it best not to guess. I am going to disagree with you rumtscho, this is not the case at all. The sugar reacts with the salt to reduce the saltyness, it won't just add a sugary taste.
Unbelievable someone would come up with this answer.
Please lay out your rebuttal of this answer Blessed Geek.
The OP might be objecting to the amount of salt in the soup for health reasons---adding sugar won't help with that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.233406
| 2014-02-05T19:16:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41789",
"authors": [
"Amber Woolsey",
"Cynthia",
"JJ Sloto",
"Sous Chef",
"TXchef",
"gatsunime spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97523",
"jiffy206",
"kavigun",
"mmw",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"user7829",
"user97520"
],
"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
}
|
27408
|
What are some good reasons for why people make homemade pasta?
What are some good reasons for people to make their own pasta? Does it make it cheaper? Does it taste any better?
Please don't mark the correct answer so quickly. It discourages other people from offering their experiences. Wait a day or too and your may get better answers
Pros
Any colour you like (even black). With some machines you can make rainbow stripes just like toothpaste tubes do
Any consistency you like, and more or less eggs, or just egg yolks. Add baking soda or Kansui to make stronger, more shape-able pasta (not more than 0.5% or it tastes soapy in a sauce)
Any flavour you like (herbs, spices, extracts, extra egg'y ...)
Any flour you like (wholemeal and buckwheat is my favourite)
Any shape you like, make lasagne sheets to fit your favourite lasagne pan, or make your own extruder dies (not trivial, but possible)
Easier and quicker to cook
Extruder machines give your arms a great work out
Fun to do with children, and educational
You control what ingredients go into it (more and more commercial pasta are including 'weird' ingredients for no reason I know of?)
The extruder you want :-)
Cons
Expensive to make if you account for your time (you should)
Flour is flour. The base tastes more or less the same
Large amount of time to make decent pasta, especially in tricky shapes
Pasta machines can be hard to clean
Special hardware (roller, drying racks, extruder etc.) required for anything but the basic flat noodles
Great answer – and damn I want that extruder! – but you don't mention taste. I usually make my pasta with eggs (mostly yolks) only and the taste has so much more body; it actually tastes of eggs and in the beginning when I started making pasta, I wasn't sure if I liked that or not, cause I wasn't used to it, but now I find it delicious. The consistency is also much more complex in a way, I think.
Also, when you're making lasagna, it's great that you can have the pasta layers fit the dish perfectly.
@citizen Taste is highly subjective. To me, even large amounts of eggs doesn't really change the flour taste (which I like). Making paste to shape we do too, will add that thanks!
Searching online I can't seem to find any products that match the old-fashioned extruder you show. Can you link to some product pages?
@Thomas G. Mayfield It's a Bigolaro
You should only account for your time if you consider it a chore. If it's an intrinsically rewarding act to make your own food (which for many people it is) then your own time is donated, not spent. :)
One of the best reasons to make fresh pasta is to make your own tortellini and ravioli. It is simply impossible with dried pasta, since dried pasta no longer sticks to itself. There are more variations of fillings than the standard "cheese" or "meat" that are otherwise unavailable if you only buy filled pasta at a grocery store.
The only 'real' reason to do it IMHO.
+1 Good suggestion. Ravioli can be made by hand from dried flat lasagne sheets that have been soaked in warm water for few minutes. It works fine. But much easier with fresh pasta
There are some of us that do this as part of a slow food / living simply / homesteading type thing.
Some of the main reasons for doing this:
Reduced packaging (eggs from the chooks, buy flour in bulk)
Reduced food miles
Focus on whole foods and reduced additives
The enjoyment of producing something with your own hands and involving your family in production
Ability to make things in larger quantities at a reduced or comparable price (I get my flour for free from a friend in exchange for the occasional pizza night)
Ability to home-make things which can be shared for free or exchanged for free with neighbours
Minimal or zero waste (flour bags can be re-used or composted), left over dough scraps and flour can be fed to livestock
Cheaper, customizable flavor (spinach, tomato, squash, etc), and in my opinion, far more delicious (ie fresh, different mouthfeel, and also because you control the ingredients you can use your favorite spices or veggies) than store bought. Only downside is the effort.
Could you elaborate on "more delicious"? I think there are some specific differences between fresh homemade pasta and storebought dried pasta.
@Jefromi, thx, I elaborated a bit.
With homemade pasta, you don't need any preservatives, and have complete control over what ingredients (quality, variety) are used. You can add elements for a specific flavor (spinach is common, beet is something I'd like to try, I could see basil, and now @lemontwist has me curious about squash...), or substitute ingredients for specific dietary or health reasons. I know several people who make their own pasta so they can make sure no salt is involved.
Fresh pasta is easier to cook, and doesn't require additional pantry space. You likely have all the ingredients on-hand.
Preservatives are not a very typical ingredient in dried pasta...
It's better for sure, it tastes great and you can choose better raw ingredients and quality flour. Moreover you can add veggies, spices, eggs and customize pasta in many ways. You can also choose the best shape that suits your condiments.
I wouldn't say "better". Certainly different. It depends of the application.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.233743
| 2012-09-26T19:39:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27408",
"authors": [
"BraunCat",
"Cascabel",
"E Morgan",
"Erik",
"Frank Joseph Delouya",
"Ganoderma",
"JRG",
"Jacob Butcher",
"Judy",
"Linda T",
"Lola Jean Fullmer",
"Marlene Dietrich",
"Rio Rio",
"Rosie",
"TFD",
"Tom Mayfield",
"citizen",
"ge0m3try",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61775",
"lemontwist",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"user61742",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47198
|
How can I make my sourdough crust chewier?
I'm making sourdough bread and am pleased with the results except that the crust is too hard and crunchy. Inside it's great, moist and a good even crumb. It makes great toast too, but I would sometimes like a chewier crust. Could the oven be too hot? I'm baking at 200 C Fan (the recipes usually suggest 220 C but that burnt my loaf! I think my oven might run hot.
General tip: Many receipes suggest baking temperatures for electric ovens. The baking temperatures for fan ovens are often 20°C lower.
If you suspect your oven temp is running hot, grab yourself an independent and trustworthy thermometer to get some proof.
All you need to do is wrap your bread in a tea towel after you bake it, that will soften the crust and make it chewier. Some good information in this question here even though it is asking the opposite of what you are:
How do I get crispy but thin bread crust?
Adding steam to the oven will actually make your bread more crisp.
"Adding steam makes it more crisp": While technically correct, the role of steam is that it delays crust formation. So I find the crust to be thicker on steamed loaves. Not sure I'd call it "crunchy". Denser, perhaps.
How do you store your bread after baking and cooling it? Because I live in a desert climate, I can't keep it uncovered or in a bread box, so I put it in a big Ziplock bag. This tends to soften the crust into a chewier texture for me when I go to slice it the next day.
Do you steam it in the oven? Many recipes call for a small pot or tray of water in the oven, or spritzing the oven walls themselves to increase the baking moisture. This is especially important for sourdough breads for the very reason that you mention.
Are you using a convection or a standard oven?
(1) The best way to insure a softer crust - at least softer on the surfaces that are exposed in the oven - is to brush the dough with milk before baking it. For sourdough bread, I would recommend using buttermilk if you have it (every bit of tang helps).
You might also consider replacing some of the liquid in your bread dough with milk - that will contribute to a softer crumb and to a softer crust overall.
If you choose to try using some milk in your dough, scald it first and allow it to cool to room temperature or whatever temperature your recipe calls for - or use milk made from instant (w/o scalding). For a milk wash - just use your milk "as-is."
But back to my original point - milk washes soften crust.
For what it's worth - egg washes promote color and shine on crust but don't soften it.
Finally - water washes and steam in the oven generate a crust the is MORE crispy (professional bread ovens often have steam injection to promote a thick crisp crust that is all the rage in "Artisan" breads).
(2) As far as the temperature of your oven is concerned, you might also consider starting your bread at 220 C - then reducing the temperature to 190 C after 20 - 30 minutes. The higher temperature at the start helps promote "oven spring" (the initial pronounced rise) - the lower temperature that follows helps bake the bread through w/o torching the crust.
(3) If you really want to control the baking of your bread, I would recommend using an instant-read thermometer to determine when your bread is done - look for an internal temperature of around 95 C.
You could also opt for a higher protein flour which yields a chewier bread, overall.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.234207
| 2014-09-17T09:23:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47198",
"authors": [
"Bernadene Gerber",
"Ching Chong",
"David Wright",
"Grey Dog",
"Kelley Russell",
"Lauren Ek",
"Melina Loubser",
"Murray Carpenter",
"Neil Hunter",
"Shalini Poonal",
"christine braboy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62503
|
What is the difference between sautéing and stir frying?
I put 1 tablespoon of oil in an iron Kadhai. Then after it gets a bit heated, I put a chopped onion in it, and start moving it with spatula so that it doesn't get burnt and gets cooked evenly.
So, what am I doing, stir frying or Sautéing?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/125/67
It mostly depends on the heat used. If you are cooking at a high enough heat that vegetables and thinly-sliced meats (if using) are cooked through in only a few minutes then it matches with the term generally used as "stir-frying". In this heat, if you stop stirring even for a moment, pretty much, the food at the hottest part of the pan (at the base, near the flame) will start to burn. It needs to be in motion constantly.
That's the stir part of the stir-fry -- constant motion up the curved sides where it is cooler and letting other parts of the food go to the bottom to the heat and around and around. A full dish of meat, veg, noodles, etc can be completely cooked start to finish in just about 5 minutes.
This recipe demonstrates stir-frying baby bok choy in 2 1/2 minutes of cooking time for the veg, this one for 2 minutes, and an outlier at 3-5 minutes.
Sautéing should also be at a fairly high heat and generally with less oil (although stir-frying doesn't use a lot of oil either, usually). The heat is lower than what is implied by stir-fry. With sautéing you are still generally keeping things moving, but it doesn't need to be quite as frantic. You can let things stop a moment, and it can help to let them start to brown and caramelize.
To demonstrate, this recipe for sautéed baby bok choy cooks them for 7 minutes, this one for 9-11 minutes, this one is another outlier cooking it for 4 minutes. The fastest of these is twice as slow as most of the the stir-fry or about the same as the slowest stir-fry. The slowest of these sauté recipes is nearly 3-5 times as slow as the stir-fry with fairly similar ingredients, especially similar to the slowest of the stir-fry recipes.
But to be fair, in my comment on the other post I was, strictly speaking, abusing the term sautéing by conflating it with even more moderate temperatures (which are more properly simply called "pan frying").
A kadai is a good implement to use for stir-frying, but a kadai can also be used for cooking at a slightly lower temperature. Simply using a kadai does not 100% determine the end result will be either a stir-fry or a sauté or a gentle fry, or even deep-frying. It's a versatile vessel. :-)
Stir frying is cooking with oil and steam at extreme heat. Watch a professional wok chef, they add liquid (stock) regularly, and flip and mound the contents of the wok to be in the steam zone. Sautéing is medium heat cooking in oil
The (unsupported) assertion you quoted is a bit extreme. Stir frying and sauteing are roughly analogous - both involve cooking in a pan over a high heat with a small amount of oil by constantly moving the food. The only real difference is that stir frying usually involves a wok, and higher heat. Sauteing is usually done in a saute pan and the heat is usually less fierce. But they are basically two sides of the same coin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.234520
| 2015-10-13T08:10:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62503",
"authors": [
"Ashley Saber",
"Carole Circosta",
"Donald Lopez",
"Eddie Hinson",
"Joe",
"Julie Thomas",
"Kathy Thile",
"TFD",
"anthony stull",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"julie cooper",
"robert riches"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14724
|
Can you make cheese curds with pasteurized milk?
I have this recipe for cheese curds that I want to try: http://www.ehow.com/how_5106352_make-cheese-curds-poutine.html, but it specifically calls for raw milk which is near to impossible to get here. I make yogurt with pasteurized milk and it works no problem, but does cheese somehow work differently?
Apparently pasteurization is not an issue - just made the yummiest tasting ricotta - which should be curds by tomorrow. And ehow may not be a "source of reliable information" TFD, but it's the best recipe I found, and it tastes great!
recipe could be fine, plenty on ehow is. It just how they get that information, and supporting it with links. Enjoy
ehow is not a source of reliable information. It is a content farm, and therefore most of it's articles are effectively screen scraped (either by hand or using 'bots). People get paid to make content, but there is no peer review process
There are plenty of other sources on the web including this site :-) that explain the cheese curd (paneer) process, and that you can use pasteurized or even milk powder with perfect results
Raw milk is NOT a requirement to make curds, and in a blind test is not identifiable. The taste is affected by the fat content and the cows diet. How well you extract just the whey will also affect texture and taste
How do you make paneer?
Search SA for Paneer
This is true. Pasteurization does not harm cheese making. Homogenization does make a difference and sometimes calcium chloride is added to homogenized milk to strengthen the structure or the curd.
While I agree with most of this, pasteurization does change the milk, and will have an affect on the resultant cheese. I'll believe if all you're after is curd the results could be hard to distinguish, but in a full-grown, aged cheese, the differences are quite apparent.
@Scivitri this post is all about cheese curds, not matured cheese. Anyway, I live in a country where we have real milk (free range grass chomping cows) and pasteurized and unpasteurized cheeses, there is NO observable difference other than marketing and price, how typical :-). Cheese usually tastes better when correctly aged, it's as simple as that
As do I. I grew up working on dairy farms, and have worked in cheese production. As I said, I agree with most of your points; and I understand this question is principally about curd. I simply wanted to correct an impression your answer could give about aged cheese. The nature of the milk used has a distinct effect on the result. But you can look at http://www.worldchampioncheese.org/_apps/contest_results/ if you want; Baby Swiss is specificially swiss made from pasteurized milk, and types which are broken up by mold are dependent on the milk. If professional judges care, it matters.
What they probably meant to say is not to use ultra-pasteurized milk (aka UHT). UHT milk won't form proper curds, they come out small, grainy and unpleasant. I learned of this when I bought a cheesemaking kit, and actually experienced it by mistake in my excitement to try a new toy.
I have found that pasteurized milk will make excellent curds as long as the milk is not ultra-pasteurized (UHT). I use non-homogenized whole milk that has only been Vat or Batch pasteurized.That pasteurization process does not kill the bacteria necessary for proper curdling or coagulation of the milk. This type of milk produces the same quality of curds as does using raw milk. This type of milk can be purchased at any health foods store.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.234925
| 2011-05-12T02:24:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14724",
"authors": [
"Arpan24x7",
"Joseph Lippens",
"Nathan",
"Scivitri",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"aenw",
"dewdle",
"filR",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5781",
"lorraine",
"smci"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1679
|
Tiramisu tips tricks and variants
Tiramisu is a well-known dessert based on mascarpone and coffee, and I love it :)
What are tips to have a compact mousse instead of a soft/liquid cream?
Do you have any special derivative from tiramisu that you experimented?
I tried a tiramisu with a forest fruit mix instead of coffee/cacao and that was delicious.
Any other variant?
Different alcohol?
Maybe even different biscuits?
In the US, traditional Tiramisu needs to be made at home because it uses raw eggs and it would be too risky for a restaurant or bakery to sell.
For years I have been making the Williams Sonoma recipe. To get the tiramisu to come out firm I had to:
Soak the lady fingers just so. Pour a thin layer of coffee onto a plate. Practice rolling the lady fingers by rolling one in the coffee as fast as you can, another for little slower, and one two seconds on each side. Let them sit for half an hour and cut them in half. The coffee should have made it half way to the core of the biscuit and should not be mushy.
When recipes call for eggs, they mean large eggs, not extra large or jumbo. Larger eggs have more water.
The mascarpone should be at room temperature. Before you mix it in with the other ingredients, whip it in a separate bowl with a whisk.
Add some cream of tartar to the eggs whites. Make sure you whip them to stiff peaks.
If it still comes runny after those adjustments, lower the amount of cream and coffee you add to the dish.
Ever since I learned to bake a Genoise (French sponge) cake, I use it instead of the lady fingers. It took me several attempts to master the Genoise, but it makes a prettier tiramisu.
For flavor variants, the next most popular combination must be limoncello (a popular Italian liqueur) with lemon zest. I have also used left over poached spiced pears in a tiramisu.
thanks for the tips to make it firm :)
Gonna apply these right now. I'll give a try with a genoise the next time
You don't need to "soak" the lady-finger. A quick dip is all that's needed.
You can put some amaretto in it as well :)
(before you add the whipped egg white)
Just a small glass will do.
You can also dip the biscuits in sweet marsala wine or dark rum.
Usually the cream is very soft just after preparation. Keeping in the fridge for at least 3 hours helps to make it a more like a "mousse".
I have made it with a coconut rum and found it to be delightful. Really it was impressive that I didn't eat all the custard before it made it in the the tiramisu. I think that that time I was following the Richard Sax recipe in Classic Home Desserts
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.235219
| 2010-07-18T08:00:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1679",
"authors": [
"Annette Vander Klippe",
"Aparna",
"Srikar Appalaraju",
"Stephane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/715",
"jsanc623",
"postnasal taster",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11873
|
Automatic dicer
I love cooking, but I hate dicing! I have a food processor that can slice really well, but it doesn't have any ability to do dicing.
Does a device that can automatically dice various produce (peppers, potatoes, carrots, that sort of thing) exist?
Honestly, dicing is very quick and easy if you use a good sharp knife and the proper technique. I strongly suggest having a look through our knife-skills questions and in particular ones like How to dice tomatoes?. I guarantee that with a little practice, you'll get better, more consistent results than any overpriced kitchen gadget. A good chef's knife is the better investment.
Nevertheless, on the days that I am feeling incredibly lazy or am running particularly short on time, I'll sometimes resort to using my Progressive Onion Chopper. Note that I'm on my 3rd one now; they're made of plastic and tend to break easily if you apply too much pressure (which you sometimes can't avoid doing if you want to actually make a clean cut). I really do not recommend these for heavy-duty or prolonged use; as I said above, they're useful for the occasional bout of extreme laziness.
I completely agree with Aaronut about getting better with knife skills as the best option, but for lazy night I have a device similar to the onion chopper he mentioned as well. It does its job, but most of the time I find that it's easier to use my knife than it is to clean it.
If you're looking for something heavy duty and have money to burn, there is a series of devices that I've seen in the back of house at plenty of restaurants, for example the Nemco Easy Chopper (Video of it in action). They're going to set you back anywhere from $150-$200 though.
On this page you can search by what you want to cut and what type of cut you want to make to find something that suits your needs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.235451
| 2011-02-06T23:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11873",
"authors": [
"HBG",
"Jess Balint",
"Larry Culpepper",
"Stan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24468",
"sker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6314
|
Are there any substitutes for honey when trying to activate yeast?
Are there any substitutes for honey when trying to activate yeast? I have a bottle of corn syrup and was wondering if I could just use that.
Yes you can use 3/4 cup (180 ml) of light/dark corn syrup:
You can use any of the following substitutions:
1 cup of honey
3/4 cup (180 ml) maple syrup plus 1/2 cup (100 grams) granulated white sugar
3/4 cup (180 ml) light or dark corn syrup plus 1/2 cup (100 grams) granulated white sugar
3/4 cup (180 ml) light molasses plus 1/2 cup (100 grams) granulated white sugar
1 1/4 cups (250 grams - 265 grams) granulated white or brown sugar plus 1/4 cup (60 ml) additional liquid in recipe plus 1/2 teaspoon cream of tartar
Courtesy of Joy Of Baking
I prefer the last method, as it is the best substitute IMHO
These are substitutions for honey in general. Activating yeast is much simpler if you don't need to replicate the flavor of honey. You just need something for the yeast to munch on. Any kind of sugar or milled starch will work nicely.
Well, what about good old white or brown sugar? Yeast needs just warm + sweet + wet place to live.
Anything sweet works. Maple syrup, molasses, sugar....
Splenda, Honey, Molasses, Granulated or white sugar, Maple syrup, agave syrup and corn syrup all work with yeast. I've done a science fair project testing which sugar substitutes activate yeast, and these were my results:)
Splenda? Somehow, I severely doubt that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.235633
| 2010-08-29T22:38:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6314",
"authors": [
"D. Edwards",
"Elias Zamaria",
"Marti",
"Nate",
"Rachel",
"Sobachatina",
"cc4re",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"user12581"
],
"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
}
|
23779
|
My soup tastes tart... Is it safe to eat?
My soup tastes almost like someone poured some lemon juice into it. It smells fine, and other than being a little lemony, tastes OK. When I put it in the fridge a week ago, it didn't have that tart flavor.
What would cause this to happen? Is it safe to eat?
The soup was made from:
Chicken broth
Ground turkey
Ham
Broccoli
Green beans
Onion
I think keeping soup for longer then a couple of days in the fridge is not a good idea, why not freeze it when you are not going to eat it soon? I don't know what causes the change in flavor, but I wouldn't eat 'old' food which flavor changed, just to be safe.
If you check http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer you'll see its 3 days for a soup...
I would not eat any soup containing meat more than a day or two after it was cooked, and certainly not if it smelled suspicious. The logic with this kind of thing is simple. If you have any doubts, chuck it out. Not getting food poisoning is worth losing a little soup over.
"When in doubt, throw it out."
I frequently eat things that are beginning to go a little tart, I like the flavor. The food is beginning to turn, but is probably not going to hurt you (the germs that cause illness don't add flavor to food). If the flavor is a little off, but the food is still palatable, I would have no problem eating it.
Do you have a source for your assertion that 'the germs that cause illness don't add flavour to food'?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.235777
| 2012-05-16T01:28:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23779",
"authors": [
"Cheryl J. Hemphill",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jessica Paul",
"Joan Veron",
"Kathleen Weessies",
"Lefty G Balogh",
"Lotte Laat",
"NEELESH",
"Sue Barrett",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"paulywill",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5036
|
How to make Pumpkin Fries
Sweet potato fries are one of my favorite sides. I also love the taste of pumpkin, and thought it would be good to replace the sweet potato in sweet potato fries with pumpkin. I am looking to make something very similar to sweet potato fries, but I am curious on a few things.
I would love for them to be crispy on the outside and soft on the inside. Should I fry them or bake them? Other than salt and pepper, what spices would bring out the flavor of the pumpkin or pair well with it; would spices be necessary to make them tasty?
Posts from the French Culinary Institute's blog may help you as you think about how to make fries. It's about regular fries, but delves into the science aspect: http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/05/12/the-quest-for-french-fry-supremacy-2-blanching-armageddon/
This just got bumped. How did this turn out? I have several kilos of kabocha (japanese pumpkin) and planned to roast but fries would be nice.
We made 2 batches, one thick sliced and one thin sliced. The thin sliced ones got nice and crispy and tasted great with tons of salt. The thick ones I didn't like as much.
For maximum crispiness, you will want to fry, not bake. I've never tried this with pumpkin but I think it will be an interesting experiment. As far as spices go, I would highly recommend smoked paprika (pimenton de la vera or pimenton dulce). Another option would be some of the flavors from Thai curries, such ground coriander seed, black pepper, and red chili powder. Please let us know how these turn out!
You could also go another route and make them sweet with cinnamon and sugar (and nutmeg and/or ginger if you like them).
Edited to add: cumin is also good with sweet potato fries, so it'd probably be good with pumpkin fries.
I doubt that baking will give you what you want. Pumpkin is really a squash, and when I bake slices of butternut squash with spices I get something quite nice, but I wouldn't say its close to a french fry.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone deep frying slices of squash.
Sure, you can deep fry pumpkin or squash. I've had it as tempura many times.
You might even want to double fry them - that is, fry them quickly for a minute or two, take them out and then right before you're going to serve them, fry them to get them very crispy.
Also, you might want to consider sugaring them after they come out of the fryer/oil. It would pair nicely with the paprika/thai/pepper Micheal recommends and with a salty flavor as well.
Blanch first, pat dry with paper towel, and then fry. Use combination oil, should be mostly vegetable oil with some peanut oil to balance the saturation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.235959
| 2010-08-12T18:04:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5036",
"authors": [
"B R",
"J. Win.",
"Lil Bil",
"Michael Natkin",
"N.N.",
"Nick Larsen",
"blues66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9745",
"justkt",
"luv2draw"
],
"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
}
|
5996
|
How to truss a chicken?
I have seen many videos online and by chefs on tv, showing how to truss a chicken. What is your way of trussing a chicken? They all seem to have a different technique, and I am interested in a possible easier method.
I am not very good at interpreting written instructions into something visual... so in case there's anyone else out there like me, here's a video:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/videos/how-to-truss-a-turkey/27751.html
This video is Alton Brown's method, as shown on the Food Network. It's a method that has worked fine for me.
Thomas Keller's Ad Hoc Cookbook (one of the best cookbooks I've seen) recommends the following:
Place the chicken with the legs towards you. Tuck the wing tips under the bird. Cut a piece of chicken twine about 3 feet long and center it under the neck of the breast. Pull the twine up over the breast towards you.
Knot the twine, pulling it tight to plump the breast.
Bring the ends of the twine around the ends of the drumsticks and straight up.
Tie as before to pull the ends of the drumsticks together and form a compatct bird. Then tie again to secure the knot.
I like this one:
http://ruhlman.com/2010/07/how-to-truss-a-chicken.html
It's simple... and entertaining.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.236188
| 2010-08-25T23:06:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5996",
"authors": [
"Cayen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14270"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5258
|
What to do about beetle infestation of wheat products? How do we prevent reinfestation?
Today my wife went to make some bread. She noticed some very small insects in the whole wheat and regular flour. Upon further inspection, many of our wheat based products were infested with these critters. The worst infestation was in some buckwheat noodles that looked like swiss cheese.
The bug looks like a dark, barely visible beetle. Maybe about half a centimeter in length. They seem to be depositing a powder everywhere. Maybe this is just flour they've carried around.
What are these guys? How do we get rid of them? How do we prevent them from coming back?
Link to picture:
http://web18.twitpic.com/img/146355240-133d33091a2b839fc9d4fb35402c0cea.4c686a68-scaled.jpg
the image link appears to no longer be working.
Ugh, I feel for you! Just based on the description, it's probably some type of flour beetle (normally either red flour beetle or confused flour beetle -- but check on wikipedia for pictures). I'm no exterminator, but I've dealt with infestations of both in my pantry.
The only thing that I've found that works is to go through all food stored in the pantry (including that in sealed packages) and make sure that you throw out anything that is infested. I'm not sure how you feel about chemicals, but at this point, I bug-bombed the house.
After you're sure that you no longer have an infested food, seal everything in plastic food storage containers. In theory, that should contain any further infestations to a maximum of one container.
The other thing that I've done is to store as much of my dry goods as possible in the fridge/freezer... so stuff like flour is now stored in a sealed container in the back of the fridge.
My exterminator has said that a lot of times the beetles come in a package from the grocery store (a couple beetles in a box of pasta, for example) and they just overrun/overpopulate as much as they can.
Thanks, It sounds like even if I bug bombed, they can still come back. My research seems to show that most wheat products can contain these guys. And when summer rolls around--they might just get the right humidity to hatch.
My mom had a similar infestation -- got into the flour and pasta pretty bad, we never did concretely track down the source of the infestation, but the pasta seemed to be the worse off; we had to start keeping everything in the pantry (well, shelves in the garage) in plastic storage containers, other than canned and jarred items, as we couldn't be sure we wouldn't get a re-infestation.
Hermetically sealed containers will prevent spread. After you toss everything, invest in some good containers. The bugs can come in on any grain or grain like substance.If you don't keep everything sealed up, they will propagate to new containers. the containers do not have to be expensive. I have some cheap, tight fitting plastic containers from WalMart. They've kept the bugs at bay for over a decade. Of course, every once in a while, that new batch of corn meal you bought will come pre-infested. Good containers will keep the problem inside the container it started in.
We do a lot of shopping in the bulk section, and keep everything in repurposed, cleaned, pickle jars. In the 9+ years I have shopped like this, I have had beetles two or maybe three times, but they never break out of their individual jar. (To be honest, when I had them in beans once, I put the jar in the freezer, then separated the beans from the bugs after two days. It was college, I was poor.). Other storage types, like plastic bags, cardboard boxes, etc, will not be sufficient to contain the little critters. Once they are in your cupboards, they will be difficult to evict.
I recently had a minor infestation of these beetles. After inspecting various pantry items, it appeared they arrived in a box of Cheerios. I have found them in other food items in the grocery store: pasta, poppadoms and paprika.
I have learned to put these groceries in the freezer for 3 days before I put them in my pantry. This should kill any eggs, and prevent a new infestation.
The powder the beetles leave behind is what they excrete after eating.
In college I lived in a large house with 4-6 irresponsible co-ed residents at any given time. Cleanliness was not only next to godliness; it was next to impossible. The kitchen was the worst. The best thing you can do beyond the obvious cleaning is to make sure they don't have access to more food. In my situation, the way I kept weird bugs out of my food was by keeping things stored in the microwave, refrigerator, freezer, or in air-tight containers like large Tupperware tubs. Extermination is a lot more difficult when they have the means to continue growth and reproduction.
A preventative, and possibly a short-term cure, can be found in the prepper community. They like to store large quantities of bulk food in 5-gallon buckets (with lids). One of the methods they use to preserve bulk wheat is to store the grains in the bucket, place a chunk or two of dry ice in the grain, and place (not seal) the lid on top. The ice will sublimate, and slowly fill the bucket with CO2, forcing the lighter O2 out of the top. Eventually, the bucket will be full of non-oxygenated air, and the beetles will have a hard time propagating inside your food stores. After a period of time, press down on the lid to seal it tight.
Combine this with the poor-college student's post about sorting out the wheat from the asphyxiated bugs, and you should have some critter-free storage. This does not help too much with eggs, until they hatch - and definitely does not do anything about their droppings. But between the sealed bucket, and lack of O2 inside - this should limit further infestation with bugs.
While this can work, 5-gallon buckets have been shown to have unreliable seals. You need to keep the oxygen out for 12 days to kill all the bugs. http://ndfs.byu.edu/portals/7/docs/research/long/disinfestation%20in%20HDPE%205g%20buckets.091810.pdf You may consider using a different container, such as used soda bottles. https://ndfs.byu.edu/portals/7/docs/research/long/PETE%20bottles%20paper.091910.pdf
I work around a flour mill, and I take home bags of flour and keep it for an extended period of time in my kitchen. The beetles don't hatch out in any of my flour because I keep my home air conditioned and it keeps the beetles from hatching!
I have kept bags for up to three years this way and never a problem. Heat and moisture are what they need to hatch and if you follow the age old way of "keep in a cool and dry place" you should not have a problem with these critters! Remember that large amounts of flour or grain naturally start the decay process in which gives off heat and moisture, so store in smaller quantities and keep cool.
Insects have survived for millions of years. They have adapted to changing environment. This is the reason why we still have insect pests in our food product.
It is not possible to totally eliminate these pests. In spite of all your efforts to remove these pests, they can still bounce back. It may be easier to remove the grown insect from an infested product but is next to impossible to remove the invisible eggs, these little rascals leave behind. The eggs can very well be inside the food grains or on thier surface awaiting a conducive environment to grow further.
By routine inspection of storage areas and stored products you can minimise loss of food products. Infested products must be destroyed immediately on notice without spilling them on to good products or the containers. Containers that contained the infested product must be sterlized and cleaned before re use .
There are a number of herbal remedies that control insect infestation of food grains. Most common one is placing dried neem leaves( make sure you select those leaves that are with out any blemish),place them in the containers along with grains. Some people in south india use red chillies in place of neem leaves.
Talk to elderly people in your village or twon- they will have home remedies for pests. This way we can preserve the knowledge these people have for future research and possibbly use.
The best thing to do is throw away any food that is infested and put ant powder around and inside the cupboards, being careful that it does not mix with any food or food containers. I had the same problem since last year and couldn't get rid of them, despite trying many things like cleaning with bleach, vinegar, etc. Nothing helped, so I thought maybe I should try ant powder, as it kills any creepy crawlies, and it worked for me.
try with uncrushed solid salt balls in grains . we want to preserve wheatfloor
Perhaps you could expand this with a more complete description; right now, it is fairly incomprehensible.
@SAJ14SAJ While I agree we should preserve wheatfloor, I'm not sure about the intended purpose of the salt balls
@mfg Not my assertion....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.236585
| 2010-08-15T22:12:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5258",
"authors": [
"Bala",
"Ben Amir",
"Dheeraj Chakravarthi",
"Dinah",
"Doug T.",
"EddyR",
"Iva Nova",
"Joe",
"Karen Farrell",
"Mary",
"Michael F. Martin",
"Ozgur Ozturk",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Severo Raz",
"Sven",
"Vees",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81911",
"mfg",
"mrog",
"rcaval"
],
"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
}
|
254
|
How can I tell if a fish can safely be prepared "crudo"?
Is there something you can look for? Am I left to the seller's word and my own discernment?
"Crudo"? You mean raw fish like sashimi?
Sort of - crudo is uncooked but often seasoned with oil and spices and usually "cooked" with the addition of vinegar and/or citrus juice (lemon/lime).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceviche
General food safety guidelines give you four hours of time between 40F and 140F; more than that, and unsavory bacteria exceed nominally safe limits.
So, there's your safety limit. Total time counts, that is, in a bag back from the grocer for 2 hours, then in the fridge and back down to 34F and then out for 1 hour on the counter = 1 hour left until it needs to go over 140 for ten minutes (or 165 for 1 minute) or into your mouth.
And of course, there's the amount of time it was left on the dock, etc. etc.
That said, if you left fish in the fridge for a week, it would be mushy and bad tasting raw -- so you also must use your tastebuds and nose to see if you want to eat it raw; food safety isn't the only concern.
Update: in the US, FDA requires freezing for a short period (depending on temperature) to kill parasites in order to receive a 'sushi grade' designation. This would probably be a good idea if you're extra concerned about being safe.
It never hurts to bring a cooler with a couple ice packs to the grocery/fish monger. Especially if you live a decent distance away.
Well, your discernment is indeed what you are looking for. You want really fresh fish. The usual advice for detecting really fresh fish apply. It can't hurt to have a fish source that you have good reason to trust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.237368
| 2010-07-09T21:52:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/254",
"authors": [
"BLeB",
"Greg B",
"Ian",
"Matt",
"Peter V",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"Wizard79",
"cbp",
"cremes",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"jeff",
"jfrobishow",
"tugga"
],
"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
}
|
352
|
Does it take a special type of blender to make smoothies?
Or am I just doing it wrong? I have what I consider a typical blender that you might find in any American kitchen. It's a glass container with a cross shaped blade. The problem I have is that pieces often get underneath the blade and don't get blended at all. With smoothies in particular as well, if it's too thick the blade tends to spin too fast and keep everything pushed out to the sides and not actually blend. This is mostly a problem if trying to make a thick milkshake.
I have tried adding in thing like fruit while the blender is going in hopes that it wouldn't make it to the bottom without being blended but that doesn't seem to work really well. I've been reduced to blending multiple times (starting with a small amount of well blended material and slowly adding in the "chunks" from the previous attempt while the blender is running), but that is fairly time consuming.
Ahh, the complexities of blending. Have you tried pulsing the smoothie? Short bursts tend to stir up some of the stuff that sneaks below the blades.
This sometimes helps but is far from foolproof. Probably the best answer out there though.
I find that I can great smoothies with a small stick mixer as it gives me better control. If you don't have one you also try pulsing to mix things up
+1 for stick blender. I gave up on a regular blender long ago.
Definitely stick mixer. Blenders are a massive pain and just don't work that well for anything. I bought a Bamix immersion blender years ago and that thing is a fearsome kitchen weapon - curries, soups, stews, smoothies, whipped cream, vinaigrettes, it's an absolute tank and cleans up in seconds. Anything stiff like pastes, or whatever else, gets done in a food processor and the blender went into the garbage, never to return.
I make a smoothie every morning for myself and my wife to take on the drive to work, and I've yet to have anything get caught under my blades - so although I don't have a specific answer to your question, I'll relay my process and see if it helps :)
Night: Take out 20oz fruit and put in fridge. Generally, 2 fresh bananas and a couple large handfuls of pre-bagged frozen fruit from our local warehouse store. Allow to defrost overnight.
Morning: Put 10oz vanilla soy milk, 3oz yogurt, 3oz greek yogurt into blender. Pour defrosted fruit on top. Blend on lowest setting for about 15 seconds, then increase speed every 5 seconds until I'm at the top speed. It takes me about 3 minutes to get my dogs' food ready, so I just let it run the whole time I'm doing that. Pour, enjoy!
I forget our exact blender model, but I know that it's slightly squared off, not completely rounded, and it also came with a food processor attachment so it's decent with a relatively strong motor, but far from professional or Blendtec-quality.
Even though I'm not working with frozen fruit, the smoothie is plenty cold between the dairy ingredients and the refrigerated defrosted fruit. But, if I want a thicker/colder smoothie sometimes I'll throw a little ice in as well.
I had the same problem, and found that if you freeze the fruit beforehand it doesn't mush itself under the blades as much. I also generally start blending on high and, as the smoothie gets more blended, work down to lower and lower speeds.
I have an Oster blender, and bought a special ice crushing blade for making smoothies. Stuff seems much less likely to get caught; the blade that came with it was almost useless as it would just cavitate under the food and spin uselessly.
Yeah, I've noticed that sometimes the food doesn't have enough weight to push itself down onto the blades if it isn't wet enough.
Maybe you need to invest in one of these: Blendtec :)
I have a Kenwood Smoothie 2GO. It's pretty effective and I don't find ingredients getting stuck under the blades. Make sure you get one that has one of the blades that points down, this catches ingredients that sit below the blade quite well.
I've thought about it. I actually work very close to their offices. Right now I have some regular cheapo blender. I'd love a Blendtec once I can afford that much for a blender.
Power of the blender engine made all the difference for me.
@Ryan, I have a Vita-Mix (same class as the Blendtec) and it's totally bad ass. I've never had an issue with smoothies. Or making peanut butter. Or anything else for that matter. We hardly ever used our blender because it sucked. We use the vita-mix all the time.
+1 on the Vita-mix. Unfortunately, it's our $400 smoothie machine
@yossarian/@ray - i'd love to blow a few $$$ on a blendtec or vita-mix but.....for a sub $30 mixer the kenwood does a pretty reasonable job for the occasional smoothie/cocktail.
It's best to add the juice before the frozen parts so that you prevent that the bottom gets icy, cold and sticky.
I tip the blender over at an angle and shake vigorously giving a pulse of power when stuff has moved around enough. It works well. I should probably add that I am using a stick type with a bowl attachment but I would do the same with a table top blender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.237577
| 2010-07-10T00:49:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/352",
"authors": [
"Ar3s",
"Brendon-Van-Heyzen",
"Cathy",
"Divide",
"J...",
"Joseph Kingry",
"Kara Marfia",
"Kev",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Rebekah",
"Ryan Elkins",
"ceo",
"dreynold",
"dylan murphy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/954",
"tzenes",
"valerie Lowman",
"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
}
|
9655
|
Ultimate Grilled Cheese : Keeping it together
Maybe it's called something else, but to me a grilled cheese sandwich with extra stuff in it is an "ultimate". The extra stuff I'm referring to is generally tomato, onion (thin sliced raw or grilled) and bacon (already cooked).
The problem I'd like to correct is that often the cheese has difficulty fusing the sandwich together because it doesn't stick well to the other ingredients. I've tried a few different placements of the ingredients but they all usually end with on slice of bread not really "attached" the way a proper grilled cheese should be. For example: Bread, Cheese, Other, More Cheese, Bread : this tend to give me two separate slices of bread with cheese and some ingredients in the cheese.
Is there any special technique to keeping this thing together as one piece?
In my book, it's not a grilled cheese sandwich if it has tomato, onion, and bacon in it. That makes it a grilled tomato, onion, bacon, and cheese sandwich.
I'm with @Bob: a grilled cheese sandwich consists of bread, cheese, and butter, period. An ultimate grilled cheese sandwich consists of the same ingredients, just with more cheese. :)
You're all wrong. An ultimate grilled cheese sandwich is bread, butter, cheese, and bacon.
@Aaronut: nope, that's a bacon melt. Or a BLT with cheese, hold the LT. :P
@Marti: Sure, and for my next meal I'll be having a bacon double cheeseburger, hold the bacon, patties, cheese, and bun. I reject your strange and frightening definition of a bacon melt, a dish which God has commanded is to be made with a foundational layer of deli meat, mayonnaise, and either Swiss or American cheese.
Grilled cheese should always have raw onions in it. Having said that, try this - salami, mozzarella and spread one interior with garlic puree the other with tomato paste, bit of oregano.
@Orb: That is so far away from being grilled cheese that it makes me want to swim in a big vat of melted cheddar just to forget that I ever heard about it.
@Aaronut: I did not refer to it as grilled cheese, just something to try. ;-)
This reminds me of Terry Pratchett and his talk of the BACON,lettuce and tomato sandwich vs. the LETTUCE TOMATO and bacon sandwich his wife has approved.
Ignore the purists. If it's got cheese in it, and you're grilling it, it's grilled cheese.
The problem is this: your cold ingredients are keeping the cheese from properly melting through. The cheese is what binds the whole thing together. If there is not enough cheese, or if the cheese hasn't transitioned completely to gooey deliciousness, the sandwich is going to fall apart.
The solution is to heat your cold ingredients (at least to near room temp), and to cook the grilled cheese longer, at a lower temperature, so the heat has time to penetrate before the bread gets overcooked.
I prefer this definition of grilled cheese, but somehow I think this could become a holy war if it is all about the definition.
@justkt: That's cool. God is on my side in this.
This analysis makes sense to me; as I mentioned in another thread about grilled cheese I might also try heating the inside of the bread in the pan first to help facilitate the cheese melting. But I would think heating the other ingredients should do it - the times I add tomato, I also add bacon (which is of course quite hot), so I haven't encountered this issue too often.
Holy war schmoly war, if you put tomato in my grilled cheese sandwich, I'm gonna hurt you. Ruining a perfectly good sandwich that way ought to be illegal. ]:)
What if you grate the cheese and mix the (chopped) bacon and onions into it before putting it on the bread? Then you would have melted cheese with little pockets of deliciousness.
There is this place in my town that does a fried pimento cheese and bacon sammich that reminds me a little of this. It's deadly.
@Satanicpuppy: Deadly good or deadly deadly? Because it sounds deadly good to me...
Deadly good. They make their own bread, own cheese, own pimento's for all I know. It's obscenely rich.
With marmite underneath the cheese. Pepper and a smear of humous added post grilling.
BLASPHEME! HEATHEN!
Change up your approach to the grilling: get a hobo iron and make your grilled cheese that way. With a hearty bread bread, you'll be able to put anything you want in there and with enough spinning it will all settles into a beautiful nest of cheesy goodness.
These things are awesome, but how do you heat one inside?
@justkt unscrew the poles, drop the cast iron part into the oven on broil, or maybe just 550? I am guessing with the oven temp, since a campfire is around 1000 degrees F; but direct heat from the broiler might help speed up the cooking.
I'm surprised this did not come up more readily. In the UK, a grilled (or we would say toasted) cheese sandwich is almost always sealed, made in a special "toastie" maker. Like the above, but electrically heated like the grills you get.
I've never heard of one of those. We have Forman and panini grills, but these cast iron sealed griddles are typically used over a campfire and filled with anything a good 'toastie' could hold. I'd love to find an electric one if it had similar functionality.
they used to be popular in the 90's in the US, before the Foreman Grill hit the market. They were usually sold as a sandiwch maker (linked for the example, not because I know that one's a particularly good model)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.238002
| 2010-12-01T14:14:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9655",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Daniël W. Crompton",
"Gabe",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Orbling",
"Satanicpuppy",
"The Wonderer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user185402"
],
"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
}
|
1007
|
How do I remove bitter flavor from lime rind in soup?
I just made a large pot of soup. It's a Mexican Caldo de Res. I added a bunch of lime juice, and thought, hey, maybe i'll throw the lime rinds in there too for a bit. This was a huge mistake. Now the whole thing has a really bitter flavor. I've removed the rinds, are there any suggestions on how to save this?
Anyone have a copy of "How to Repair Food"? I've just scoured by bookshelves, and I've misplaced my copy.
While things like sugar and milk helped - none of them helped enough before the additive started having adverse effects (like making it too sweet). I ended up dumping the broth (which is not very strong to begin with), adding hot water and rebuilding it. Didn't remove it completely, but definitely had the best overall effect.
Yea, that sucks. For future reference the white part of any citrus peel/rind is nasty and bitter. Next time you make it, try zesting the lime peel into it. That will give you the extra lime punch you were trying to get, without the bitterness.
Salt blocks your taste buds from detecting bitterness. Instead it allows you to taste the other notes (like the sweetness of the peppers) instead. I imagine that's why your method worked.
You could try blanching the rind first. Put your limes (whole or just the rind, it's your choice) in a pot with water and bring to a boil. Reduce the heat and let it simmer for around 10 minutes. Drain the water and repeat multiple times to reduce the bitter taste even more. Blanching does not completely remove the bitterness, but helps to reduce it to acceptable levels.
You might be able to counter-balance it with other flavors (salt, sour, sweet, hot), but you're likely still going to have some bitter notes come through, it's just a question if it's tolerable or not, and some people dislike bitter more than others. (I can't understand how people can drink beers other than lambics)
In looking at a similar thread on Chowhound, one of the recommendations is a bit of milk or cream. If you're not lactose intollerant, it might be worth a try.
This could also be a chance for an experiment -- ladle it into a bunch of glasses, try some different things (sugar, vinegar, soy, hot sauce, milk, worcestershire, combinations of them, etc), and report back to us with what you think worked best.
Anonymous comment: "I just tried pumpkin pureé to save my regular vegetable greens soup and it worked like a miracle! I added lemon skins. It was impossible to eat. Pumpkin pureé rocks!"
Not a fix, but a footnote - next time only use the zest and not the light-coloured part of the rind - that is where there the bitterness lies.It is called the "pith", and is the white lining between the peel and the fruit.
This isn't a direct answer, but rather an anecdote from personal experience.
One time I made garlic parmesan mashed potatoes for a company thanksgiving pot-luck lunch. I've made this recipe a few dozen times before. However, this time I decided to get creative and go with parmesan, asiago, and romano cheeses instead of just parmesan. I also committed the cardinal sin of not tasting as I went. Well, I didn't realize how much more salty asiago and romano cheeses were than parmesan. Needless to say when I finished and tasted it, it was almost inedibly salty. Salt being a hard thing to counteract, and me being reluctant to throw out 5 lbs of mashed potatoes, I decided to try dilution.
I made about 7 lbs more of potatoes, omitted all the salt, and used only parmesan. Surprisingly it worked rather well. They were still a bit on the salty side of things, but delicious.
In short, maybe try doubling or diluting your recipe next time you make a mistake. That in combination with some of the milk/cream methods suggested by others could save your dish.
Would have considered it - but this was made in my largest stock pot (it was ALOT of soup - which is why I was really so upset about it).
About the only thing I can think of us adding a little sugar to the pot, but don't add a lot all at once. Just add a little and taste...
Sugar or honey works wonders against the bitter flavor. I had an inedible endive and lo and behold, with a honey dressing it was OK.
I hope this helps, try chopping up a whole bunch of celery, It seems to absorb the bitter and nutralize the taste, It worked for me when I made a base for rice with way to much menthi Indian spice and the bitterness was unbearable, It worked for me and I hope this helps you to!
I also added a little vinagar and sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.238462
| 2010-07-15T02:18:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1007",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Jay _silly_evarlast_ Wren",
"Joe",
"JoeT",
"Nicholas Obert",
"Paul W",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Steve Chambers",
"Yogi Yang 007",
"fergycool",
"flybywire",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90526",
"javelinBCD",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
20645
|
What is the best cut of beef to use for stews?
What cut of beef should I use for a beef stew? I heard that you want a little bit of fat in the meat, but what part the animal is best to use?
What are you going for with your stew? Do you want something slow-cooked and falling apart? Or something more quickly cooked, with chunks of beef that stay together and give you something to chew on?
I ended up getting 1.75 lbs of some cut about 5 inches in diameter. It was wrapped in butcher's twine and had spikes of some hard fat tied to it. I used about a cup and a half of a young bordeaux that had some bite to it. I imagine that it will taste like crap unless I take my sweet time with it
hmm interesting, but you don't know the cut?
Assuming a long, cooked stew. I cut up a well marbled chuck steak usually and chuck is what I'd recommend. You want enough fat that as the stew cooks long, the fat will render and leave nice, tender meat. Too lean and you're left with boiled shoe leather.
If you want a quicker stew, use a leaner cut of meat like sirloin. It will have a lot of flavor but you shouldn't cook it long at all. A fatty cut in a short stew will end up very fatty and often tough (with a cheaper cut like chuck).
Sorry to jump on this old question, but what is considered a long vs short cook?
Stew is a dish which is actually well suited for inferior cuts of beef. The 'quality' of superior cut is easily lost in a stew. The typical butcher's case will offer a collection of "stew meat" which is the fattier trimmings from various cuts. Marinade it in beer and then slow cook it and the meat will deliver great flavor for you.
Stew beef from many major groceries chains isn't necessarily fatty trimmings and often makes terrible, TERRIBLE stew. Much more consistent to get something you see whole and cut it up yourself.
@rfusca, good point, I don't include 'discount groceries' when I say the "typical butcher's case". I should clarify that I do mean in a quality meat market. When I take cattle to my butcher those trimmings is what ends up in the stew meat that I get.
All meat from "major groceries chains" is terrible, if not in the quality, in the entire process they use. Support a local butcher than slaughters their own beasts
Unfortunately many small town butchers are no longer there. Pretty much can only find butchers in the big cities these days. Sad but true.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.238868
| 2012-01-21T00:53:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20645",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Dandan",
"It Grunt",
"Keith Hall",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71317",
"morxa",
"nhaarman",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
15270
|
Can the broth from a low country boil be used for anything else?
For those who might not know what a low country boil is; it's basically potatoes, corn, sausage, shrimp (and crab or lobster) boiled all together with seasonings (usually seafood boil packets, lemons, and old bay).
Most recipes I've seen have you just dump the "broth" into the sink. Is it possible to save the broth and use it for anything else later?
Your instincts are good; throwing tasty broth away is a criminal waste! I have a couple ideas that are worth a shot.
Risotto: use it for the broth or stock. You may wish to add some more sausage and seasfood bits in for extra tastiness.
Rice/pilaf: use the broth in place of water for cooking the rice. It'll give a richer flavor to the result.
Bisque: Reduce broth, salt it, season, and mix with cream and maybe a little roux to thicken it.
Pan sauce: Throw broth in a saucepan, reduce it by up to half, and stir in cold roux to thicken, then season with salt, paprika, pepper, herbs (thyme, parsley, rosemary), and maybe a splash of white wine. It should produce an excellent savory sauce, akin to a veloute.
Bread: Replace some or all of the water in bread you bake with the broth, to give the bread part of the flavor. Since I don't know how much of each ingredient the boil has, I can't say if this will come out tasty or not, but it's worth a shot.
The other 4 items are pretty safe bets, as long as the broth is fairly tasty. If you reduce and thicken the broth with roux, cornstarch, cream, or cheese, you'll probably be able to turn it into something tasty to dip bread into. In a pinch, it could also become a soup.
One note: you may wish to simmer the broth down until reduced by half to get a stronger flavor for use in other dishes; however, taste it periodically to make sure it's not becoming too overpowering in flavor. If the boil is already fully salted, you will need to adjust salt accordingly when using the broth in cooking. Reduce salt in dishes prepared from it, avoid reducing down the broth to prevent it becoming too salty, and maybe even dilute it down with water.
+1 good answer. To boil the advice down, you've made broth, use it as such. ;o) The one thing to consider is that it may be a bit starchy from the potatoes and corn. Probably doesn't make a huge difference, but keep it in mind.
I can see you're really taken stock of my answer.
@ yossarian - I usually boil the potatoes whole or cut into halves. The corn is only boiled for the last 10 minutes (it usually goes in 4 or 5 minutes before crab legs, and about 7 minutes before the shrimp. After the shrimp have boiled for 2-3 minutes, I kill the heat and drain the broth.
I'm glad that you guys were able to REDUCE the possibilities for me
+1 I don't know which I liked better, the excellent answer or the clever comments.
For #3 -- taste before you add more salt; most boils will have a fair amount of salt to start with. I have no idea what's in the 'seafood boil packets', but old bay does have salt in it (160mg per 1/4tsp)
The starchiness in the broth will cause rice grains to clump. Personally I would not use this broth for pilaf or any Indian-style rice dish, where grains of rice are supposed to be separate rather than stick together. For steamed rice to accompany dishes from any cuisine where chopsticks are the tool of choice, the broth would work great.
I make a bisque. I scrape the corn from the cob and puree the vegis, add some whipping cream, and salt to taste after reducing your stock. It is the best part of the meal. If there are a lot of potatoes left I will use some in the bisque and then make some potato cakes to serve with the bisque.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.239106
| 2011-06-06T04:50:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15270",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"It Grunt",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michelle Alcaraz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"verbose",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9775
|
How to mix pasta and sauce evenly?
When I make pasta I usually try to finish it by mixing the freshly drained pasta with sauce in my saucepan, adjusting the thickness a little bit with pasta water etc. The problem is with pasta sauces that have larger chunks of something - be it meatballs, shrimps or pieces of sausage. No matter how hard I mix the pasta with the sauce they usually don't distribute evenly and make it difficult to plate uniform portions. I suppose I could take the shrimps or whatever out and top the plates with it when finishing, but that seems like too much of a hassle. Is there a better way of doing it?
Don't put the shrimp etc in the sauce in the first place and cook it separately, that way you don't have to take it out. Then just top your pasta with it and if say you are cooking meatballs and want a little sauce on them mix a little sauce in with your meatballs and then put them on top. If you want that mixed in with the pasta look then do the same thing I said above and mix the pasta in your individual serving bowls or plates if you are using one after you have dressed your pasta.
Your just not going to get an even distribution with random variables, all you can do is pick and count if you want everything evens.
I agree. Large chunky ingredients do not lend themselves to even mixing. Sorry!
Here's a nice bit about the physics behind that effect: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/29/brazil-nut-effect-wh.html
It's going to be hard to evenly serve the food but if you're just trying to mix the whole thing thoroughly maybe try two pans - put everything in one, mix about a bit, then tip it into the other and mix about a bit. This method has the advantage of mixing in the bits at the bottom with those at the top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.239537
| 2010-12-04T17:04:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9775",
"authors": [
"Bharatkmr",
"BillDarcy",
"Jon",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"user55825"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13710
|
Why is my corned beef overly salty?
I cured my own corned beef recently, and cooked it sous vide (a la J. Kenji Lopez Alt). The result was superior to the pre-cured joints I've boiled to oblivion in the past to be sure, but it was unpalatable salty.
I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong and how to correct it, and I'm going in a couple of main directions.
Too much cure. The recipe had kosher salt and pink salt. I substituted tender quick for pink salt. Perhaps the concentrations are different? Perhaps I don't need both kosher and TQ? I also noticed some of the salt took almost a week to dissolve. Maybe that points to an excessive amount of cure.
Salt couldn't escape. I suppose one downside of cooking sous vide in this case is that the salt can't really dissipate as it might otherwise. I did rinse the beef thoroughly before cooking it, but perhaps instead it should be soaked for a while (a few hours perhaps?) in cold water before getting vacpacked and cooked.
After a few experiments, I found the lessening the concentration of the cure left the meat undercured and still salty, whereas a soak eased out the excess salt of the already-cured beef.
I think 2. is the most likely. Remember the beef has been brining for ages, a rinse will just remove the salt from the outside, and even then it won't do much.
Personally I wouldn't bother with the sous vide. 'Proper' corned beef should be gently simmered in a covered pot for about 2.5 hours. It doesn't need 'boiling' per se, and certainly not to oblivion!
All salted meet should be rinsed and brought to simmer in using cold Water then rinse and start with cold water again to remove as much of the salt as possible,
then add some spices and flavourings to disguise the saltiness e.g.small amount of vinegar lemon or lime or orange cut in half and added to liquid tbl spoon brown sugar or small amount of honey all of these will help to reduce the saltiness
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.239712
| 2011-04-04T11:40:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13710",
"authors": [
"FrankZappa",
"Gank",
"Stuart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28812",
"madl"
],
"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
}
|
18656
|
Are heads of porgies poisonous?
I found on the Wikipedia article for porgies, there is a quote
from a reference saying that:
Johnson, G.D. & Gill, A.C. (1998). Paxton, J.R. & Eschmeyer, W.N.. ed. Encyclopedia of Fishes. San Diego: Academic Press. p. 184. ISBN
0-12-547665-5. Eating the head is known to cause hallucinations,
lasting many days.
I was wondering if their heads contains some poison or other bad
things, and thereforeare not eatable and must be removed before
cooking?
All fishes are caught in Maryland.
This is really three distinct questions. Please break it up. Thanks.
I would simply remove it to be on the safe side. Anyways, this sounds as if it could be dangerous to test, so do you think you should take the word (i.e. answer) from some random person for it?
There are better references in Wikipedia, to be sure.
Apparently, the Romans ate the Sarpa Salpa, a type of bream, for it's hallucinatory effects. These hallucinations are caused by a toxin called ichthyoallyeinotoxism, present in the plankton and algae the fish eats.
It's best to avoid these toxins as the hallucinations are said not to be pleasant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.239893
| 2011-10-30T04:15:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18656",
"authors": [
"Matt Casto",
"Newatthis",
"agold",
"bitmask",
"blueseal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7017",
"jer",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19387
|
Is it possible to steam steak?
Steaming seems like an ideal cooking method; I've seen it used for mostly vegetables, sometimes fish (salmon).
Is it possible to steam a steak? Does it cook well? (I assume the target is medium doneness.)
What are the limitations of steaming steak? For example, I usually marinate mine in some oil, soy sauce, salt, black pepper, and garlic; I assume if I steam it, I would put the soy sauce in the steaming liquid.
You could do it, and it would certianly cause the meat to be cooked. However, I suspect it would lead to a less-than-tasty result.
There are two potential issues here that I can see:
If you're steaming, the temperature maxes out at 100 degrees Centigrade. This leads to longer cooking time, and a "washed" look. Think of how the chicken meat looks in chicken soup.
You'll be losing the Maillard reaction, which is what gives that lovely outside texture to anything fried. This is because of the relatively low temperature of steaming, and the lack of liquid (oil) to react with.
The Maillard reaction also contributes a lot of flavour.
The oil has nothing to do with promoting the Maillard reaction; its only function is to more effectively conduct the heat from the pan into the steak.
As Sean already says, yes you can. The result will be different than cooking on a high heat. So, if you are going to steam, think about:
Sous-vide (like) bags to prevent watering down the steak and losing flavor.
Low heat for some time (50ºC) for the enzymes to tenderize the meat (adjust time according to meat tenderness).
A bit higher heat (54ºC) for doneness (adjust according to meat/preference).
Let the meat rest until 50ºC, then sear very high heat, very short on both sides.
Look at Cooking Issues for more and better info.
This nice chart will give you the minimum temperature and time needed to fully pasteurize the food.
Source, again Cooking Issues.
Hmmm, 50°C is well within the danger zone, and you haven't had the sear to kill everything on the outside. So you're probably going to want to limit cooking time to two hours, max. Use a thin steak, I guess.
@derobert, I just added a safety chart from Cooking Issues.
Well I steam steak quite often, My mother in law is from Holland, and has this wonderful way to do it, AND so so tasty !!!
You will need the following.
4 cloves of garlic - sliced thinly
a bunch of parsley - chopped fine
1 jar of bonox
around a 1/2 a cup of butter.
Now find a Pyrex dish that will fit in side your pot, use that pot lid to cover the pyrex dish.
Slice the steak into thin slices, then hammer / pound each slice until all is flattened. Once this is done, smear butter or Margarine all over the walls and the bottom of the dish, lay the steak in a single layer, enough to cover the bottom of the dish. add a few slices of garlic, and sprinkle over some parsley, place a few dollops of bonox around the steak and some knobs of butter. Continue this in layers until all the meat is in the pyrex dish.
Now boil the kettle, place all the boiled water in the bottom of the pot, place the pyrex dish over the steaming water, and place the lid on the top of the pyrex dish. Cooking time is around 2 to 3 hours depending on the volume of meat you are cooking, the steam / heat from the water melts the bonox and the butter, combined with the juice from the steak makes a very VERY tasty sauce.
I check the meat after the first hour, stir it around so it does not dry out, and all the meat is coated, as the heat in the pyrex dish builds up and the meat is getting hot, check every 15 to 30 minutes,AND don't forget to keep an eye on the water level in the pot, keep adding boilt water from the kettle. I serve this up with HOT chips from the fish and chip shop and a warm vienna loaf of bread to mop up the sauce at the end. I had also served mash potato in stead of chips.
Its a family favorite and have been asked by many how to cook it, as the flavor is out of this world. So try it, and enjoy it !!!
For any confused folks, Bonox appears to be a brand name prepared beef stock/extract manufactured by Kraft. The dish sounds quite tasty!
@Preston -- thanks for the clarification; I tried to search for "bonox" and got "Bono, Sonny".
I don't see any reason that you couldn't steam a steak. It would provide a gentle cooking environment to get your cut of meat to a desired level of doneness, so you would be hedging against the drying effect that flareups can have. And you are going to heat the outside surface quickly enough to overcome any objections to having meat in the danger zone for too long.
As far as limitations go, I don't know that there would be any from a cooking perspective, but it may alter the flavor profile (maybe for better, possibly for worse), and you're going to get a sickly looking piece of beef with uninteresting texture. Maybe you get around that by searing it at the end, after you've reached your desired internal temperature.
The only way you'll find out if this is a winner or not is through experimentation. Get two cheap steaks, both of the same cut and roughly equivalent size, and cook one the way you normally would, and the other with your steam method.
Yeah, searing is definitely not something you want to skip, even if you steam it. It seems like the main advantage would be a more even cooking.
Steamed steak can be seasoned after cooking and added to salads. Very delicious and easy. Cooks a lot of fat away as well.
Better to use off cuts form your leftover roast beef for this.
Steaming is actually very similar to sous vide. There are ovens called combi ovens where you control both temperature and humidity. First you steam until it has reached the appropriate internal temperature and then you sear it in a hot dry oven or hot pan to give it a nice crust. Here is a webpage of someone that has done it.
http://jetcitygastrophysics.com/2011/03/21/modernist-cuisine-at-home-combi-oven-rib-eye/
Take aways from the answers:
Steaming it in a dish with seasonings and flavorings allow you to cook the beef in this and its own flavorful juices.
You need to finish this steak for the browning or the Maillard reaction. I suggest finishing on a lump charcoal chimney for a smoky grilled flavor. Chimney will get very hot (hotter than an ordinary grill) and will enable you to sear the surface very quickly without overcooking the inside meat, much like a torch will do.
So in a way this is a lot like reverse searing your steak.
I would recommend a baste of an emulsion mixture prior to grilling. Mayonnaise, butter and soy sauce or tamari. Mayo is the emulsifier, butter for the flavor, tamari or soy for the umami and saltiness. And mayo helps the surface brown well.
It's possible to steam a steak. You will cook it and you will remove all the flavour.
@BaffledCook is giving you good advice with the sous-vide route, but it requires specialist kit to do, which even a lot of professional kitchens don't have. You can glad wrap or bag your steak before steaming - highly recomended since it with retain all the flavour of both the steak and the marinade. But to get that lovely finish, brown surface (the Maillard reaction mentioned by @Carmi) you're going to have to drop it onto some hot iron! A Skillet, pan, what ever you want to call it!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that steaming a steak is disrespecting the animal it came from. Bring your steak and marinade up to room temp or a little warmer and sear it on a smoking hot skillet. Enjoy.
PS putting soy in the water will have very little effect since the mineral element will not evaporate in a manner that will season your meat, and any of the more volatile compounds that might add the light, more fragrant seasoning notes, will have evaporated in the first couple of minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.240055
| 2011-12-05T04:17:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19387",
"authors": [
"Abdull",
"AtlanticFlier",
"BaffledCook",
"Benjamin Gray",
"Carole Wilkins",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fran McCarty",
"Jazmin Bueno",
"Pat",
"Pete Becker",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Smi",
"ashes999",
"clueless",
"derobert",
"ferdiesfoodlab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74197",
"user204296",
"Алексей Слаква"
],
"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
}
|
21014
|
How can I make my baked tortilla chips crispier?
We make our own tortilla chips by sectioning up tortillas and baking them in a bit of oil and seasoning at about 375˚ F for 12 minutes. The outsides get nice and crispy but the insides of the thicker chips stay fairly soft.
I'm wondering if it would be wisest to try to increase the temperature and decrease the time or vice versa. I suppose I'm essentially dehydrating the chips so my instinct is to decrease temperature and increase time.
Thoughts?
I would try baking them at a lower temperature without the oil some first, to get them partially dried out, before adding the oil and seasoning and crisping them. If the oil's on them the whole time, it'll slowly soak into the chips, instead of staying more on the outside where you want it, and depending on how much you're using, it might also be making it a little harder for water to escape.
The other main option would be to use thinner tortillas, but unless you're making them yourself, that might not be possible!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.240697
| 2012-02-02T11:39:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21014",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22707
|
What is the ideal grind for making espresso?
I know that there is no "ideal" grind for making espresso (or rather, like most things, it depends on the machine and the tastes of the drinker), but I am looking for guidelines as to how different grinding levels effects the end product, so I know what to look/taste for.
In particular, is there any clear indication that the grind is too fine?
I use a Capresso conical burr grinder and a Delonghi EC155 pump espresso machine, and usually either Metropolis or Intelligentsia espresso beans (my local brands), in case this level of detail helps!
Grinding coffee for espresso is probably the most difficult to get right. The coffee grind needs to be fine enough to increase the pressure required to push the water through the filter and create a good crema. But if the grind is too fine, the ground coffee can block the coffee filter. Generally, espresso coffee grind resembles a mixture of powdered sugar and fine beach sand. Since each espresso machine is a bit different, you may have to experiment to get the coffee grind just right (Allmann Bros Coffee).
Brewing espresso is particularly susceptible to problems relating to an inconsistent grind. I am not familiar with a burr mill specifically, however burr mills are generally recommended for espresso grinds as they tend to provide consistency. Bear in mind that the grind can either be too coarse and the water will run through without much extraction due to the pressure and space between the grinds, or it can be too fine and allow for a backup of water and espresso water and grinds all over your counter.
NOTE: The pressure with which you pack/tamp the puck (the grinds when pressed in the brewing basket form a puck) will also play an important role in the extraction process and the crema formation. You can get a feel for how hard to tamp the puck by getting a scale and pressing down until you hit about 30 pounds of pressure; you want to pack the puck at that pressure of tamp.
Thanks for the answer. I'll break out the scale and check my pressure. I've worked down to the second-finest grinder setting, and there hasn't been any sort of malfunction yet, so maybe I'll see how fine the finest setting is once I get a chance to do a thorough cleaning. Might I ask how you decided on your grind (assuming you have)?
@BR It was due in large part to trial and error as gauged by quality of Crema (indicates sufficient resistance) and not plugging up (not too finely ground). However, it is situational per the machine. I have used a cheapo Mr. Coffee, a mid-range pump machine, and a few other home units. It has generally been useful to follow the description above (sorry citation wasn't there yesterday), though the Mr Coffee needed to be a bit more coarse (low PSI), and the mid-range was better off more fine (higher PSI).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.240807
| 2012-04-02T02:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22707",
"authors": [
"B R",
"Christopher Frazier",
"Frozn",
"Jennifer Penland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9740",
"jrh",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54796
|
How much is a sleeve of celery?
I was reading a recipe for Slow Cooker Rosemary Garlic Beef Stew and noticed that one of the ingredients called for a "sleeve" of celery. I've heard of a stalk of celery, but I've never heard of a sleeve. Here is the list of ingredients:
Ingredients
½ lb. (4 medium) carrots $0.55
½ sleeve celery $0.65
1 medium onion $0.36
2 lbs. red potatoes $1.00
2 Tbsp olive oil $0.32
4 cloves garlic, minced $0.32
1½ lbs. beef stew meat $9.06
Salt and pepper $0.05
¼ cup all-purpose flour $0.04
2 cups beef broth $0.30
2 Tbsp Dijon mustard $0.24
1 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce $0.06
1 Tbsp soy sauce $0.10
½ Tbsp brown sugar $0.02
½ Tbsp dried rosemary $0.15
½ tsp thyme $0.05
How much celery do I need to add to the recipe?
Perhaps they're referring to the bag that a whole celery heart comes in? Half a celery heart (about 6-8 stalks?) seems to be on par with the volume of 4 medium carrots.
I think you're right @Erica. "Sleeve" seems to be a common word for that style of celery packaging. Though the actual amount of celery in such a pack can vary, so it's not a great measurement for a recipe. Convenient, though, and forgiving in something like a stew. I'd say go ahead and make that an answer.
I agree it sounds like the package, but that's a very high celery to beef ratio! I'd add 2-3 stalks myself.
This question is actually answered in a comment to the recipe you linked:
kimberly says:
Sorry for silly question, but the ingredient list says ” ½ sleeve
celery $0.65 “. do you mean 1/2 of a stalk or 1/2 of a bunch of
celery? [...]
Beth M says:
Yes, I meant a half bunch. Sorry about the confusion! :) I used about 4 stalks or so.
They cook down quite a bit.
Also there's a picture of the ingredients used:
So 4-5 stalks appears to be intended amount of celery. A recipe like this though is going to pretty flexible so if that seems like too much or too little it shouldn't be a problem if you go outside that range.
My best guess is that the recipe is referring to the bag ("sleeve") that a whole celery heart comes in.
Half a celery heart (about 6-8 stalks?) seems to be on par with the volume of 4 medium carrots.
Here's a Save-A-Lot grocery store listing for "sleeve celery", and the picture is of a celery heart.
I was looking at the same recipe and googled "what is a sleeve of celery?" and found your question. Then I realized that on the version I'm looking at, when I scrolled down, the author had shown pictures of the ingredients. 4 carrots, 1 onion, and..... 5 CELERY STALKS. So, that's what I'm going with. I also like the answer of eye-balling it according to how much celery you want in proportion to the beef and carrots. I don't like celery that well, but I'm going to use 5 stalks and hope it comes out okay.
The top answer here says exactly that - it even includes the picture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.241062
| 2015-02-16T15:46:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54796",
"authors": [
"Carie Beckett",
"Cascabel",
"Elizabeth Ramsay",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Gunvor Mikaelsson",
"Jessica Lim",
"Preston",
"Romana Hájková",
"Royal Auto Service LLC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36450
|
Is there a term for the differentiating effects on loaves of bread?
Say you make several loaves of bread which look very similar. You can put oatmeal on the white whole wheat, sesame seeds on plain white, poppy seeds on gluten free and cross hatches on rye. Is there a special term for the differentiating effects used when several varieties of bread are presented at one time?
In general, I would call it 'distinguishing features', but there might be a specific term as it's ones you intentionally add. It might be worth looking into the world of chocolates, as they have a system of marking & differentiation as well. (and will typically have a key when they sell an assorted box)
The pattern of cuts on a loaf's crust is usually referred to as "slashing" or "scoring". I've never heard the seeds referred to as anything other than the bread being "seeded". I don't think that there would be a term for differentiating between breads using these techniques, as at most bakeries, differentiation is almost the entire purpose of using these techniques.
The only term that I can think of that one might use would be hallmark, but that is by no means a commonly used term to describe differentiating toppings or scoring. Historically the score patterns, distinctive toppings, and also loaf shapes were used to distinguish loaves belonging to individual makers or households when baking was done in communal ovens. As your question suggests, modern bakeries sometimes use these techniques to distinguish specific types of bread that might otherwise be mistaken one for the other due to their appearance. Since most toppings add distinct flavor or texture elements, it is relatively uncommon, in my experience, for a bakery to top all of it's breads but instead opt for distinctive scoring or using a stencil to dust on flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.241328
| 2013-08-31T06:17:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36450",
"authors": [
"Allan Hortle",
"Brema",
"Devin",
"Joe",
"Stephanie",
"careoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85683",
"umn",
"user112503",
"user3281410"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54738
|
What is the best way to find a reliable pepper mill?
After someone posted a link to a hand-turned coffee grinder, I was reminded that I needed to replace my pepper mill. My third one in about seven years.
After reading the 1 through 4 star (and skimmed 5 star) reviews of mills from $12-45, they often come down to the grinding mechanism wearing out quickly, the plastic around it somehow messing up, or something falling off while reading more pepper and rendering it nearly inoperable (which is my current predicament: some ring fell off during a refill, and now the knob that holds the top in place ends up dictating the grind coarseness loosens itself after 2-3 uses, and if you over-tighten it, you get no pepper).
What properties should I be looking for in a pepper mill, and why are my pepper mills failing so quickly?
I have never had any trouble with my cheap wooden pepper mill that I bought in a set at Bed, Bath and Beyond many years ago. I can't imagine I paid more than $10 for the set. Its capacity is a bit on the small side though.
Sorry, but recommending products is off topic on the whole network, see stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/. We do accept questions of the type "what to look for in X", and expect answers of the style TFD wrote, without suggesting specific products. I thought of rewording your question to fit this type, but 1) it seems that this is not what you need, you are asking straight for models, and 2) TFD already wrote a decent answer you can refer to even after the question is closed. If you want to, you can reword and we can reopen, it's up to you - do it if you think it will help.
@rumtscho: Page not found. but the information given in this thread was definitely helpful. i'm not yet even to the point (usually) of discerning more than a couple kinds of grind (if that's what you're getting at).
also, i'm a computer nerd, so models are often changing (there's probably 50 models in one line of motherboards) and no longer available soon after, so i wasn't sure how many features were new/changing as different models/brands of mills seemed to have different features. it ended up being more overwhelming and almost unhelpful simply reading reviews without a broader context.
I've had mostly good luck with ones of older manufacture (some were my grandfather's, some from estate auctions and yard sales). The only 'bad' ones still grinds pepper fine, but there's a salt shaker on top of it that's a press fit against plastic, and sometimes when using it for salt without gripping both parts, it'll break apart spraying peppercorns everywhere)
Most basic mills with steel grinders will be OK
What breaks them are
Overly aggressive grinding; just grind gently and your mill will last much longer
Keep them dry; do not use a pepper grinder over a steaming pot. Grind pepper into a bowl or plate, and then pour into pot
Old peppercorns; as they age and dry, they get tougher to grind, and wear most mills out pretty fast. Store peppercorns in very air tight containers, so they can't dry out more than they are meant to be dried
Avoid those coloured peppercorn mixes; whatever makes the light colours, are also very tough. Stick with plain black pepper
Contaminants; pour your peppercorns onto a white plate and check for small stones or twigs before loading into grinder. Also check for "insect parts", most local food laws allow some of these, but who wants them!
I have gone through a variety of grinders over the years. Some expensive, some cheap. Price was not a factor, usage and care seem to have been
Acrylic grinders generally die quickly, as the acrylic cracks as it ages. Solid metal or wooden bodies are better as they last longer in general, and keep the pepper in a light proof container (which all food should be stored in, or in a light proof cupboard)
Do you suggest steel over ceramic?
I haven't had any more problems with ceramic over steel, but most good grinders (wood or metal body) seem to have steel grinders?
I think the point was not to use plastic grinders, which break quickly. I bought some when I was younger because they were cheap and basically ground plastic into my food because they were breaking.
@Jemmeh Most plastic grinders are Acrylic, which can be a very strong material. It is just the mix of steel parts and Acrylic which is where it generally makes stress fractures, and finally breaks. Window sections of Acrylic in a stainless steel grinder should not be a major weak point, but they will mostly likely be the first thing to go!
I had to Google to figure out Acrylic is a specific type of plastic. Just to clarify, are you talking about the actual grinding mechanism being acrylic? I've picked up some cheap grinders from the dollar tree that appeared to be glass containers with a plastic grinding mechanism. I had picked up a handful because of the price and the grinding mechanism essentially crumbled over time on all of them. I don't think I'd ever buy a plastic grinding mechanism again.
I think I've seen the kind with the clear see through window sections you're talking about though and that makes sense.
Americas Test Kitchen (sorry, paywalled) has thoroughly tested pepper mills. If you can come up $5, you can get the winner from Amazon.
The big winner winner is:
The Amazon page is here
The highest rated mill under $35 is this one:
That Amazon page is here.
I suspect the OP may actually have seen those, and discounted them because of the negative reviews saying they didn't last. It's kind of hard to tell whether that means they're not as durable as ATK thought or people are just getting unlucky.
@Jefromi I looked at the reviews, and they are overwhelmingly positive, but the negative reviews are all negative in the same way. It's weird.
Yeah, it's consistent with there being a relatively rare defect... or with most people not using it heavily enough to break it, or a small number of people somehow using it wrong... or if the negative reviews are concentrated in time, a change in manufacturing... hard to say.
For completion's sake, the "Unicorn Magnum Plus" also got "recommended" from ATK. I was looking mainly at that one, but may reconsider either the Derwent or a wood-body one. Both high AND low-rated reviews (as well as ATK I just now noticed) mention it opening and spilling peppercorns.
I have this one and I love it.
The issue with the review is that it covers operation over a short period, not long-term longevity. Likewise, positive Amazon reviews typically come from folks immediately enchanted with their purchase, rather than long-term follow-ups. The negative reviews will give you a clear idea of potential long-term issues with the product.
I realise that this doesn't directly answer your question, but perhaps you could also consider using a mortar and pestle? While this may be less convenient, they're much harder to break than any pepper mill.
Sadly, I'm not experienced enough (yet) to be comfortable with mortar and pestle. As a result, I suspect my consistency would lead to undesirable results. I might consider it if and when I a) have room for one (I'm currently sharing a house with many roommates) and b) have been able to use it with other, softer spices more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.241626
| 2015-02-14T18:14:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54738",
"authors": [
"Adam Moen",
"Asmamaw Ketemaw",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Denice Prudhomme",
"Eva Lenzini",
"Georgiana Hulings",
"Ian Blackburn",
"Jemmeh",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy Johns",
"Neck Pain Doctor Manhattan",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Rashmi Dharshan",
"Robert Delaune",
"Sahithi",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"fluffy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"plonk420",
"richard marsicek",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34877
|
Barbecue on wood fire
Normally we use charcoal in the BBQ
I want to use wood for BBQ and this may generate a lot of smoke. One way to handle it, is to first make charcoal from wood, and then use this charcoal to BBQ.
But is there any design for a BBQ that removes the smoke, so we can BBQ while burning wood?
Is your goal actually to barbecue food (long slow cooking method) or are you trying to grill? If its the former then you are looking for a low and steady heat source and this can be obtained (avoiding copious smoke) by burning wood at a smoulder. If its the latter, then I would say your best option for smoke control would be to just cook outside and let it happen.
Coal? Do you mean charcoal, partially burnt wood? Coal smoke can often by toxic. Charcoal is safe for cooking on, if not a little boring
You cannot just use any piece of wood. Some wood gives off toxic smoke. Just be careful not too use any kind of wood.
@Neil Meyer - What wood would that be?
Rhododendron is toxic
I've never used wood myself, but I found this link that seems pretty good. It describes the different types of woods and how much smoke they produce or what flavour they add to the meats.
The best BBQ's are wood fired, you get real wood smoke flavour. Anything else is just a just outside hotplate/grill, and might as well be electric
Using charcoal is easy and safe. A simple hack is to use some small pieces of strong smoke flavour generating wood on top of your charcoal when you are actually cooking
Smoke is all part of the BBQ experience, and after a little practice at fire lighting techniques, shouldn't become a big issue. Join the local Scout group as leader, and they will teach you how to make good cooking fires :-)
Yes you are right.
It is even more easy if you use firelighters
@Neil Meyer - no way, who want petro-chemical smells in their BBQ?
Interesting question. I recently converted an old propane barbeque to a wood fire one. After removing the propane burners, etc. I cut a hole in the center big enough to fit the chimney of a rocket stove (home made) and attached it underneath. It easily reaches temperatures of 550 F and did splendid on the steak & potato test as well.
The stove's chimney is clean (no smoke) and only used a couple of handfuls of kindling size spruce to complete the task. Have made refinements and now have maxed about 750 F.
The only fly in the ointment is a fairly constant attention to the fire, not a bother if you are sitting nearby with an appropriate beverage :)
Rocket stove chimney straight to grill, or are you hitting a "pizza stone" or the old LP grill lava rocks before the grill surface?
I use a Webber kettle for both grilling and barbecue. I use lump charcoal (not briquetes, but it also personal preference). When I want to add smoke to the barbecue, I'll buy shredded wood chips in whatever flavor/species is necessary. Soak the chips for a good half hour before lighting the fire, fill the "fire basket" half-way with coals and light it up. When it is ready to cook, I pull the fire basket all the way to one side of the kettle, put the meat on the far side of the grate. I also mostly close the air-holes. This causes the oxygen in the grill to lower a bit so the fire burns slower. The last thing I do when putting down the meat is that I add a handful of charcoal to the fire basket and a handful of the soaked chips.
I then check the meat every half-hour and add a handful of both charcoal and chips until the meat is finished. If it is a large cut of meat like a pork shoulder or beef roast, I also use a mop sauce to keep the meat moist and to build up a layer of bark on the outside of the roast.
"Layer of bark"?
@TFD, good question, edited.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.242234
| 2013-06-23T10:50:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34877",
"authors": [
"Ami",
"Cookie Lady",
"DataMiner",
"Ecnerwal",
"Edwin Poh",
"Karen Taylor",
"Kaushik",
"Kaya",
"Neil Meyer",
"PIssedoffmycologist",
"Pulsehead",
"TFD",
"donald lang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81513",
"lucht hancock",
"old-monk",
"snOm3ad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38262
|
Can I make a good pizza in a home portable oven?
I have a portable small oven with a max temperature of 250°C.
There are two hot bars, one at the top and the other at the bottom.
First of all, I'm not sure that I can get good pizza in that.
My crust never gets heated much, it looks like the base is not heated when it's on the plate.
So I want to ask if it's possible to get a good pizza at 250°C.
Could you possibly show us a picture of the oven? Dimensions could be helpful too. I'm thinking a pizza stone could help you a lot, but I can't imagine your oven. 250C is not much below the max temp of many full sized ovens.
@Jolenealaska I think OP is describing what I'd call a toaster oven. Those most of those have more than two elements.
What kind or style of pizza do you perceive is good? I don't know that I've ever made a pizza that cooks at 250° C. and I really liked a lot of the pizza we've made. What kind of crust do you have? How much sauce? Do you cook it on the rack or another surface? How many toppings? Do you like brick oven types?
Sure, you can make it in there, it tends to be a bit of a cramped environment though. Now for baking, though, that oven might be the wrong choice.
It depends on what you call "good".
On the one end of the scale, you have people who don't go to pizzerias with an electric or gas commercial oven and insist on wooden fired ovens which get the pizza ready in 90 seconds. On the other end, there are people who will be happy with anything flat with a covering of tomato sauce hot enough to sear the roof of the mouth. Without knowing where you fall on the scale, I don't know if pizzas from this oven will reach your threshold of "good".
But I will encourage you to make pizza in it. I have been using nothing but a toaster oven myself for the last 10 years, and it works well for me for all the usual purposes. It is better for pizza than the usual big home ovens, because its higher ratio of radiation vs convection heating is more similar to a fire oven than that of the usual electric home ovens. (Not everything is rosy though - this same quality makes it inferior for cakes and oven roasts).
So, go ahead and make your pizza.
There are a large variety of pizza types and styles, with different doughs, crusts, and toppings.
While it is difficult to make a VPN napolotana style pizza without a wood fired oven, there are a myriad other types of pizza.
Many of these in fact work quite well in home style ovens, and even toaster or portable ovens.
See the Food Lab's article on Three Doughs To Know, which describes three different types of pizza dough (from the many). The Sicilian style pizza works extremely well in a toaster oven.
Although you can just as easily change the type of crust (eg, my mom made english muffin pizzas in a toaster oven growing up, and I still do the same with naan or other flatbreads), if you're set on making your own crust, I'd recommend par-baking the crust before adding toppings.
Place the crust in the oven, and give it a chance to bake until it's gotten a chance to crust up a bit. Then pull it, (possibly flip it, depending on how even the baking it in your oven), add your toppings, and return it to the oven to heat the toppings and melt the cheese.
Joe, I think you are assuming a specific type of crust here, like a new york style or a napolitan style... might want to make that clear.
@SAJ14SAJ : My only assumption is that there's a crust that's not cooking completely with the current methods being used, and that they want that type of crust. Therefore, pre-baking, the same that you'd do if you have an under-powered full size oven.
I use the type of oven pictured here http://www.sunflame.com/oven_toster_griller_large.php?id=3 to bake pizza. I turn the heat all the way up with both heating coils turned on, I invert the cookie sheet (tray) and put it on the top shelf. After it heats up, I wait for the thermostat light to turn back on, and then I slide my pizza in on top of it from a wooden board. It bakes in less than five minutes, and makes decent pizza.
You don't need to par-cook your crust for this.
Get toaster oven heated to 425F. Then roll dough (after rise), then cut carefully with sharp knife (to fit pan size). Coat toaster oven pan lightly with oil. Fit dough in pan. Put in toaster oven.
Look through glass occasionally for browning on top, then when browning just starts, take out and turn over. Put back in for a few minutes then take out again. If it feels or looks at least half cooked put sauce down, sprinkle oregano on it and toppings. Put back in oven for about 12 minutes or till cheese melts.
Note: I can't judge cooking raw sausage or any other meats less they're cooked first! Use trial and error. Experiment with different combos.
Note 2: This is with store made dough.
A few rules here - we don't talk bad about other posters (if you disagree, you can downvote once you have enough rep points), posts with "note: I didn't try this" with comparatvely simple things don't inspire trust in me and finally, spellchecking and a few blanks greatly improve readability. I recommend you take the [tour], visit our [help] and consider [edit] your post a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.242846
| 2013-11-08T04:07:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38262",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Omaralys Crespo",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sanch",
"Stephie",
"Stilian Theodhosi",
"Vegan IP Love",
"bridgesgijsbers",
"derobert",
"evanda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91282",
"rackandboneman",
"rosh3000",
"user90145"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29127
|
Slow Cooker & Fat - Blend it back in?
I have a layer of grease on the top of my slow cooker. The recipie is a sausage & bean hotpot with smoked paprika and red wine. My issue is that I added a little too much liquid and now the fat has separated and risen to the top. As any good cook knows, much of the flavour is in the fat, plus the fat absorbs a lot of the spices.
I'm a believer in healthy food, but don't believe that all food should be healthy. As such, I'd like to blend everything back together and see how it goes. My thinking at this point is along two avenues:
Add something starchy (Cornstarch, Lentils, Mashed Potato...) to allow the oil and water to bond.
Add an emulsifier (Mustard, Egg Yolk, etc)
Separate the liquids from the solids, transfer the liquids to a pan, and reduce. This should concentrate the flavour while allowing the solids already in the sauce to do technique #1 for me.
Right now I'm leaning towards egg yolks, a few lentils certainly wouldn't harm the flavour I'm going for either. Has anyone tried the above techniques, specifically with regards to a slow cooker? How did it turn out?
If you wish to continue down the road of a singular dish I would recommend the emulsifier. Incorporating the fat through blending it with some of the liquid in a side pan or pot with ground mustard would be easiest and most complete. You should be able to continue cooking without further separation.
However, if you are cooking the dish too hot you may be forcing some of the fat from the meat or otherwise loosing it from too much agitation and you will want to make any adjustments necessary.
Thanks, I'll give this a try. I think the issue was that I used cheap sausages and tried to sear them before putting them into the slow cooker. The skins split instantly and by the time there was any colour on them the sausages were cooked and fat was being released.
Also, thanks for responding to my first question, unfortunately I don't have enough reputation to vote your answer up.
@Li1t Hmmm, if it took that long to sear the sausages, are you sure (a) your pan was hot enough; (b) your sausages were dry?
Hi Derobert, the sausages were straight from the packet. Thanks for your input, I'll attempt to make extra sure that my sausages are dry next time, and consider using a higher heat. One of my issues may have been attempting to sear too many sausages simultaneously in the pan - I think I turned the heat down so i could keep the sausages from sticking. A better solution would probably to sear fewer sausages simultaneously and keep them moving so there's no chance of sticking. Also, I intend to get sausages with thicker skins...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.243297
| 2012-12-13T03:32:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29127",
"authors": [
"Catherine M.Holsted",
"Li1t",
"Martin Melka",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67555",
"johnk",
"user3799154",
"user67555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27461
|
Sous-vide without a pump using convection?
I'm currently planning on creating a sous-vide setup using an induction cooktop and a PID controller. I will be an Arduino micro-controller setup similar to this openschemes.com-manual control of induction cooktop
Most sous-vide setups use circulators that circulate and mix the water in the bath to keep uniform temperatures throughout the bath. I was wondering if a pump is required if I'll be using a pot on top of an induction cooktop. Since the heat source is at the bottom, won't the water rise naturally through convection and keep a constant temperature throughout the bath?
Wait, you found an induction cooktop which can be turned on and off by just giving it current? The only models I have seen require somebody to touch the "power" button and then set the temperature dial, this is why most such setups use a different method of heating.
@rumtscho so I left out a few details. I'll be opening it up and hooking up an Arduino to the control wires of the cooktop. It'll always be on and I'm going to try just lowering and raising the voltage as needed. But your right, I also couldn't really find a cheap alternative with an analog control. Here is a link to the induction hack: http://openschemes.com/2011/04/28/manual-control-of-the-1-8kw-induction-cooktop/
Well, it can be done, the Sous Vide Supreme manages it, though from reading their blog, they are fairly sophisticated, with multiple heating elements and thermometers (as I recall, it's been some time).
I made my own Sous Vide, Arduino based. After a few tries with a submerged heater + agitator, I opted for a enameled cast iron pot over an electric plate. Temp gradient is less than 1°C. I've been using it for years.
What you will be dealing with is called stratification. Given a reasonable volume of water the difference can be quite remarkable. A one metre height of water can stratify water from 20°C to 95°C as long as the water is not disturbed and heated gently, even if heated from the bottom
The simple solution is to regularly stir the water, say once every five minutes. This would be OK for items only requiring an hour in sous-vide, but for much longer this can get rather tedious
If you are targeting temperatures in the 40°C to 65°C range a small aquarium pump would suffice to stir the water. Arrange the intake tube nearly floating on top, and the output tube weighted on to the bottom. At a pinch an aquarium bubbler would help significantly too. Both these devices will cool the water somewhat, but a stove top heater should be able to keep up
Example: Using a small bubbler in a large, well-insulated chest (Rubbermaid cooler, Esky, chilly bin etc.) with around 10 l of water at 60°C, keeps the temperature within 1°C from top to bottom. Heat loss is around 1°C per 30 minutes. By adding about 0.5 l of 95°C water every 30 minutes it keeps the temperature constant over a few hours
To get precise temperature control within ±0.5°C which some sous-vide recipes recommend, you will need a PID controller. For general home use with temperature control or ±3°C you could get away with a stove top heater, with accurate power control and a thermometer control system. PID is not that hard, so you might as well add that to your controller too
Would an induction cooktop be considered heated gently? I tested out the cooktop last night and it was able to boil about half a liter of water in 2 minutes or so. I know something like a slow cooker would count as a gentle heating, but what effect does the fast heating of an induction cooktop have on stratification?
@Tomek The Arduino controller hack is using fully proportion control (PWM), so it should be able to go from 1% to 100% power without issue?
I made a sous-vide setup that uses a slow cooker and no pump.
I was able to observe as much as a 5 degree temperature gradient from the bottom to the top of the cooker. A big part of the problem was that my target food almost fills the cooker and impedes convection. I didn't measure the temperature gradient with an empty bath.
My setup worked passably well as long as my food was small and my thermometer was positioned at the same depth. I didn't enjoy the precision that commercial products have.
Obviously your setup will have a lot more power than mine. If your bath is much bigger than your target food you would have less of a temperature gradient than I did.
If your bath is much larger than your target food then convection will give you enough water circulation. Even a 5 degree drift will let you do some interesting things, however, It is one more variable to keep track of.
I was not satisfied with my setup and my next attempt will have a stronger heater as well as a circulation pump. Water pumps are cheap.
Thanks! I also have a 3 quart slow cooker that I was planning on experimenting with. What did your process look like? Would you heat the slow-cooker to the desired temp and then drop in the food? After dropping in the food, did you do anything after that or just wait? From my understanding the plate for a slow cooker is on the bottom, but the stoneware still creates a bit of space in between the cooker and itself and so the air around the stoneware is also warm? Not as warm as the bottom but I would imagine it still provides heat not only from the bottom but form the sides as well.
The slow cooker was slow enough that I would preheat the cooker and the water before placing the food into it. It would take a bit of time for the food to come to temperature. The sides do provide heat. I haven't measured their temp compared to the bottom. That would be interesting.
Incidentally- it is usually considered good form to wait a day or two before accepting an answer. @rfusca might chime in here with a brilliant answer about his setup.
I use a hidden element deep fryer plugged into a $7 temperature controller. Initially, I also used an aquarium water circulator pump but after burning two of them out I now just rely on convection and that works perfectly for me once equilibrim is reached. Heat sensor needs to be very close to element.
Cheers, James
Qualified Chef (Apprenticeship+College)
Scientist BSc(UWA)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.243560
| 2012-09-28T19:59:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27461",
"authors": [
"ANGELINA KIRK",
"B. Forrester",
"Candid Moe",
"Michael Stachowsky",
"Ronald Pottol",
"Sharon",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Tomek",
"cardiff space man",
"h0adp0re",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"ram",
"reve_etrange",
"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
}
|
23253
|
How do I make a flaky croissant?
I found this nice vegan croissant recipe: http://www.sabjimatablog.com/2011/05/17/recipe-vegan-croissants/ I am quite happy with the end result, but I wish I can bake a flakier pastry.
I have a feeling that I didn't get the folding quite right. I used kremelta vegetable shortening that made from coconut oil and soya lecithin. I rolled kremelta into a thin-dough like, and fold it inside the dough. The shortening blend in quite well into the dough after 3 folds, although I can small lumps of kremelta in my dough. I put it inside a 200 degree oven, bake it for 15 minutes. I notice that I had a lot of oil on my baking pan. I suspect that all that oil came from the Kremelta.
Is this normal? I suspect that this why my dough didn't turn up into a flaky croissant dough. Does anyone have any tips on how to make a flaky croissant dough ?
Flakiness in pastry is usually achieved by careful incorporation of butter at the correct temperature. Cold cubes of butter are cut into the flour, cold water (or milk) is added, and then the pastry is rolled out, flattening the butter pieces. These pieces act to separate layers of the flour and liquid mixture.
The butter then melts during cooking, 'setting' these layers in the dough. The outer surface of the dough dries out, which means the layers don't stick together, and so it becomes flaky.
If the butter becomes warm and soft during rolling or cutting in, it blends with the flour and liquid and so doesn't promote layer formation.
In my experience, even refrigerated shortening is usually quite soft, and may well be simply absorbing into the rest of the dough when you roll it in. You might try freezing the shortening until it reaches the same consistency as refrigerated butter and working from there. I would also use ice cold water rather than warm water as the recipe suggests.
I agree. Ice-cold water does make a difference.
It's the cardinal rule of pastry making - everything has to be cold. Cold water, cold fat, cold hands, cold counter, cold rolling pin, everything.
Puff pastry is hard to master, and temperature control is ever so important. The butter (kremelta) should be manageable, but not liquid to start with. You fold it into the dough, close the envelope, flatten it and fold it once. Then, it should go into the fridge for half an hour or so.
Every two folds, you should put it in the fridge again for half an hour.
With six three-part folds you'll get 729 sheets (3^6=729). So, three folds just isn't enough for your purpose.
Lastly, before baking, the puff pastry should be very cool, and the oven very hot. That way, the pastry really puffs :-) The sheets get baked before the oil is melted into them, which is what creates the flaky effect.
Edit: The wrap in your linked recipe is four fold. You should aim at 4 or 5 folds (256 or 1024 folds).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.244165
| 2012-04-22T05:19:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23253",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Flynn Daly",
"GotYaNumba",
"Kevin Schellenberg",
"Rockhorse Park",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"kelly london",
"kfmfe04",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32405
|
Why does commercial brown (whole wheat) bread taste bitter?
I use this flour for making parathas: Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta (whole wheat flour)
This is whole wheat flour. The parathas never tasted bitter.
Is the commercial whole wheat bread made of this kind of flour?
I have found the commercial whole wheat bread to be bitter. What's the reason?
If I make the brown bread with this flour only, will that be bitter too?
It happens the same where I live. Industrial brown bead has an odd taste. But when I made myself (whole) brown bread for the very first time, noticed just the oposite: a sweet taste.
My guess (in my country) is that they added that strange taste because "whole bread is healthier" and "healthy food tastes like medicine".
@J.A.I.L. "My guess (in my country) is that they added that strange taste because "whole bread is healthier" and "healthy food tastes like medicine"." -- You indeed have a great sense of humor!
I believe commercial bread normally contains burned malt used for colouring (real bread is never as dark as most commercial breads).
i am not sure but they might be adding some kinda preservative, as expiry period of brown bread is more than that of normal(maida) bread. That preservative or baking powder must be reason behind bitterness.
In the part of the United States I am originally from brown bread is a steamed quick bread like this: http://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/2012/11/boston-brown-bread. I've suggested an edit to the title of your question to make it clear you are talking about 'whole wheat bread.'
Whereas in many parts of the world the term 'whole wheat bread' isn't used at all...
@Cerberus It's true commercial brown bread is usually added non-diastatic malt for colouring. And yes: the odd taste in those breads resembles a lot to that burnt malt. I think this might be the reason.
@J.A.I.L.: Right, it is the reason why I never buy the very dark kinds of bread: they taste weird to me. As to "regular" commercial bread, I am undecided what the exact reasons are why I dislike it.
BTW, tried making normal bread from (wholewheat) chapati flour once... rather dense but tastes great (moist, very sweet and aromatic without needing to add much sugar).
Much of the bitterness in breads made from whole wheat is caused by the phenolic acid and tannins in the bran layer of the wheat. Different varieties of wheat have different levels of those compounds and produce breads with different levels of bitterness. "Traditional" varieties of wheat, such as red wheat, contain high levels of tannins, while hard white spring wheat contains relatively low levels of tannins.
Here is what bakingbusiness.com has to say about this subject:
With whole wheat, taste differences boil down to the tannin content of
the bran. These red pigments in hard red wheat carry a bitter flavor.
“... Whiter whole-grain varieties typically contain fewer tannins, which
results in a less bitter taste,” said Brook Carson, technical product
manager, ADM Milling, Shawnee Mission, Kansas. "Differences in taste can
also be overcome with added sweetness or with a masking agent."
Based on your question, it sounds likely the Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta whole wheat flour you use for making parathas is milled from either hard white spring wheat or a blend of the white wheat with a more traditional variety of wheat resulting in a non-bitter end product.
There is another possible source of bitterness in bread made from whole wheat flour, although it shouldn’t really affect commercially made bread. When whole wheat flour is milled, it includes the oil containing wheat germ, which is different than refined white flour where the wheat germ is removed prior to milling. This oil in the whole wheat flour results in it having a much shorter shelf life than white flour and makes it susceptible to rancidity if not stored properly. Commercial bakeries go through (literally) tons of flour, so their whole wheat flour shouldn't be sitting around long enough to go bad.
I can tell you from first-hand experience, one of the signs whole wheat flour has started to go rancid is an increase in bitterness.
What is your opinion on the non diastatic malt possibility commented in the question?
If the bread contains a dark non-diastatic malt (or for that matter a dark diastatic malt) the malt could also contribute a slight bitterness to the bread.
I highly suspect dough conditioners change the flavor. I only taste this odd bitterness in factory bread. ie dough processed at high RPMs that would 'burn' without the conditioners
American bread is more bitter than Japanese bread. I think this is caused by the use of baking power or baking soda.
While there are some types of bread that use baking powder or baking soda as a leavening agent (quick breads), it is far more likely that the OP came across a yeast leavened bread. Chemical leavening agents can leave odd and unpleasant flavors if used incorrectly but this is also unlikely to be the case for a commercial product.
@ChrisSteinbach I dunno, commercial products are by no means perfect, and if it's easier/cheaper to use chemical leaveners they may prioritize it over ideal flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.244428
| 2013-03-04T04:53:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32405",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Chris Steinbach",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Esther Peters",
"Glenn Stevens",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Monica Wild",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75802",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23769
|
How quickly do I have to use my thawed pizza dough?
I have never used frozen pizza dough before so I didn't know how long it would take for it to thaw out. I plan on using it tonight for dinner (in about 7-8 hours) and I thought it would take much longer for the rock hard dough to thaw out. I have had it covered and sitting on the kitchen counter and it's almost completely thawed out!
So once it's thawed can I keep it in the fridge until I'm ready to use it?
thawed means unfrozen (melted). de thawed would mean refrozen.
The short answer is yes, you can keep it in the fridge until you're ready to use it, up to 4-5 hours I would think. It will be too cold to over-ferment. It's better to defrost it in the fridge to avoid it getting too warm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.244855
| 2012-05-15T14:50:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23769",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dale Lake",
"Dane Morgan",
"Elaine Phornpatsorn Shiu",
"KHALIDz M",
"RainierMallol",
"Reine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76374
|
Why do so many things cook at 180C/350F
It seems that many, if not most recipes, that involve cooking something in an Oven specify a temperature of 180 Celsius or 350 Fahrenheit (if using a Fan oven, 20/70 more if not). This also seems to be true for the instructions on prepared foods. My question is why is this the case? Does it reflect something fundamental about the cooking process, historical accident, etc.?
I'm also keen to know whether this advice should be adjusted given the capabilities of modern ovens/thermometers.
This is as hot as you can get without quickly burning any sugars or cooking fats on the surface of the food, so it is typical for enriched breads, cookies or cakes (which have plenty of sugar and fats); note that doughs containing not much sugar (bread, pizza, savoury pie crust) are sometimes baked at substantially higher temperatures.
Non-pastry/bread dishes are often kept at 180°C or below because the above is also true for vegetables and fruit naturally containing sugars, resulting in much accelerated charring if going above that temperature range.
The difference in browning in a rich dough (eg streusel) between 160°C and 180°C and 200°C is drastic.
A still oven that is truly at 180°C (by oven thermometer) can already be literal few degrees too hot for recipes calling for 180°C; an oven that is out of calibration even 10°C hotter can cause a lot of recipe failures.
There seems to be a general consensus that non-still (fan assisted/convection/..) ovens should be set 20°C lower (if the fan/convection is used) than you would set a still oven. This is commonly found in recipes and manuals.
Wonderfully complete answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.244956
| 2016-12-12T09:06:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76374",
"authors": [
"dothyphendot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22361"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35300
|
Roasting an eggplant for "Neapolitan Eggplant Parmesan"
I found this Neapolitan Eggplant Parmesan recipe, which lists roasted eggplant slices as an ingredient. I'm guessing that I wouldn't want to roast it so that it is all mushy as one might do for other dishes (e.g. baba ghanoush).
Does anybody have a roasting technique they would suggest here?
As a side note/question, it appears with the classic Eggplant Parmesan recipe (like this one here), you would fry the eggplant, which starts with thin slices being salted and drained. I'm guessing such treatment isn't necessary for roasting in an oven?
For a recipe like this, that uses roasted eggplant slices, that you then top with some extra stuff, does not require much additional preparation. If you do it like the recipe you link to, you can just:
slice the eggplant 1/2-1 inch thick, place it on oiled baking sheet (you can brush the slices with some oil on top too, sprinkle with some sea salt - ifyou haven't salted them earlier - and add some finely chopped garlic if you want)
put in the 400 F preheated oven for 10 - 15 minutes or until they start slightly change color (thicker sclicew will take a bit longer) - you definitely want to preserve the texture (as you already guess you don't want them to turn mushy, but rather a bit crispy - so a broiler is a good way to go)
then top with the stuff from recipe and bake for another 5-10 mins
Note: The texture of the cooked eggplant also depends on the variety - many Asian varieties tend to get softer and creamy, where most European varieties stay firmer and meaty (McGee, Food&Cooking).
For my eggplant parmigiana I usually flour and panfry the eggplant with a tiny amount of olive oil until golden on both sides, top with tomato sauce and cheese and broil for 5 minutes, sprinkle with fresh parmigiano and serve.
Salting and draining/washing usually helps getting rid of some bitterness. However, I have grilled and baked eggplants for years without doing that and it never tasted bitter ... I think many modern varieties are already way less bitter than eggplants used to be decades ago. But that might also be a matter of taste. So this procedure is always optional and mostly depends on the bitterness of the variety.
Bon appetit!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.245112
| 2013-07-14T17:03:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35300",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4952
|
When Making A Pie With Graham Cracker Crust, How Can I Get The Crust Just Moist Enough?
I love making key lime pie. I've made it a few times this summer with this very simple and delicious recipe:
1 Container Cool Whip
1 Can Sweetened Condensed Milk
1/2 (or 1/3) C. Lime Juice
1 Graham Cracker Crust
Mix first 3 ingredients, pour into crust and refrigerate at least a few hours before eating.
The first time I made it, I used 1/2 C. lime juice (following the original recipe). I found it a bit too acidic, so I lowered the amount to 1/3 C. the next time and I enjoyed it much better. The first pie's crust got a little too wet after a few days of being refrigerated, but the second pie's crust didn't really get moist at all. I would like the crust to be somewhere in between, but I would like to maintain the amount of lime juice at 1/3 C.
Is there someway I can control how moist the crust gets over a few days of being in the fridge without changing the ingredient amounts/proportions or the fridge's temperature? For instance, something I can do before I pour the mixture into the crust or the temperature of the ingredients?
Nice simple recipe. I'd call that just a lime pie though. :)
Lol, true true. How many people - at home - get key limes to make "Key Lime Pie", though?
I certainly do, whenever I see them on sale at the store!
You can add some baking soda to the original recipe (1/2 c. juice or slightly less). Baking soda is alkaline (or a base if you're a chemist). It will neutralize the acid (source of tartness sensation). THOROUGHLY stir in less than 1/8 teaspoon at a time until the tartness is reduced to the level you wish. Be careful as too much will remove all the tartness and therefore the taste sensation the lime juice adds.
That sounds like a great idea! I would probably use some amount of lime juice between 1/3 C. and 1/2 C. Will the baking soda affect the texture of the filling or it's ability to gel as it cools?
I've found by asking that most people don't bake the graham cracker crust before filling it. This is especially true if we're talking about a pre-made grocery store graham cracker crust.
It needs to be baked and "sealed" in the process and it will stay much firmer and hold up against the moisture longer.
I brush graham cracker crusts with an egg wash and bake for a few minutes until it toasts up a darker brown. The egg wash, when baked on, helps form a decent barrier against the moisture of the pie contents. This has the added benefit of a much better tasting graham cracker crust.
If you aren't used to doing this baking step, you'll probably be surprised how much better the pie turns out. You'll also start noticing how many unbaked graham cracker crusts show up at gatherings as it's immediately obvious the difference once you've seen both.
I love this idea too and I'll give it a try!
forget texture - baking makes them taste better! FWIW: if you're making the crust from scratch, don't skimp on the butter - not only will it improve the flavor, make it easier to work, and brown nicely while baking, but the sogginess will decrease as well...
Here's a thought. What about brushing the crust with melted, clarified butter and chilling it for a few minutes first? That might provide a moisture barrier that would prevent it from absorbing so much water from the filling.
Can I ask why the need for clarified butter? In any case, I like your idea as well! Thanks.
Ah, good question. I suggested clarifying the butter because it will drive the water out of the butter itself, which might otherwise might contribute to sogging the crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.245311
| 2010-08-12T03:18:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4952",
"authors": [
"Amy Verheyden",
"Carter Tazio Schonwald",
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Dan",
"Jeremy Best",
"Magne",
"Michael Natkin",
"Shog9",
"adyusuf",
"charles.p.nystrom",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9716",
"quietmint",
"senthil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6672
|
Why is my mac 'n' cheese grainy?
I need to make a large batch (to serve 30) of mac 'n' cheese, and rather than bothering with my standard roux - cheese sauce, I thought maybe I could cheat with a short cut.
I dug up an old recipe for crock pot mac 'n' cheese. I have used it with great success many times over, and never had it fail. I thought I'd do a small "trial run" of it since it's been a while since I used it. Failure. I have a few theories on what may have gone wrong, but I'd love input from impartial cooks.
For what it's worth, the recipe calls for 4 cups cheddar, 1 cup jack, 2 cups milk, 2 cups cream, salt, pepper, dry mustard, few dashes hot sauce (optional), a pound of macaroni and a half cup of sour cream. Throw everything except macaroni and sour cream in crock, cover and cook on low for 1 hour. Stir in mac and sour cream, cover and cook for another hour to an hour and fifteen.
When I stirred in the macaroni, the sauce did look a bit "gloopy" but it wasn't really very warm yet, and If I recall correctly, that is how it always looks at this point.
I did use all milk instead of part milk/part cream, as I didn't have any cream on hand.
I hope I'm answering the right question. Your title says "grainy" but then the rest of the question talks about "gloopy". If the problem really is grainy, I think the issue may be that you are using better cheese than in the past. Well aged cheeses tend to get a little bit drier and crystalline, and then they don't seem to melt as well. I've had grainy in that case too. Sometimes I'm happy to live with a little bit of the graininess to get the better flavor.
The problem is your putting all your cheese in at once. These cheese is going to settle on the bottom which would cause to clump up and be gloopy.
you need to stir small portions of the cheese at a time until it is melted. rinse, repeat and continue.
of course this is a crock pot recipe....
your probably best to make the cheese sauce portion on the stove first, then combine in a crock pot after.
This may sound counterintuitive, but adding flour prior to adding the cheese can smoothen the process of adding cheese. If you look to one of the old Betty Crocker's (or the website under "Classic") you will see that it was a part of the base of the sauce. I typically add it by pinches rather than by any fraction of a cup, but still it can help.
Low on a crock for an hour doesn't sound like much time at all. Perhaps this is a larger batch than last time? Perhaps last time it was on high for an hour? Typically low on a crock is used longer cook times.
It was almost certainly the lack of fat from cream. I once tried to make Alfredo sauce using milk... miserable failure doesn't begin to cover it. The cheese just clumped and turned practically crunchy, it seized so bad. I've since figured out that sour cream is a much better substitute than milk if I don't have cream handy. (With my mother in the house, there is always sour cream.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.245635
| 2010-09-03T09:32:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6672",
"authors": [
"Stef Pause",
"dubhousing",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17267"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2752
|
How should I add wine to the sauce for my duck?
I have some chicken stock that I've made, that I want to use as a base for a sauce for some duck. I am roasting the duck bones at the moment and will simmer them in the chicken stock for a while.
If I want to add red wine to this should I reduce the red wine first then add the duck/chicken broth and reduce further, add red wine to the broth and reduce at the same time or reduce the broth and add red wine then reduce that. Or not reduce at all? What would be the consequences of each?
consider revising the title -- 'duck sauce' is a specific asian condiment that doesn't typically contain wine : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_sauce
Your question makes me think of demi-glace. From your question, I would say that you're trying to get a nice shiny thick sauce for your duck, one that tastes of red wine.
If that's your goal, I would recommend you
Reduce your stock down until it's about the total volume of liquid that you're going to want. The stock reduction should be roughly the consistency you want your final sauce to be.
Add an equal volume of wine
Reduce down to desired consistency (so about by half).
This will give you a lovely sauce, with lots of that sticky goodness that reduced stocks deliver so nicely.
You might do this with all of your stock, then freeze cubes of unused sauce for later; they make a great addition to other bases.
Left-over alcohol is not going to be an issue here, by the way, you'll have long since boiled/simmered it off.
p.s. Adding some fruity flavors at the end to the reduction would be nice. Orange peel, currants, etc. Do those toward the end if you like that plan.
freezing in cube trays is a huge time saver and a great way to quickly pull together a sauce
If this is a full duck, I would suggest doing 1qt of stock, 1 bottle of wine and reduce it by half. For the wine may I suggest a Chianti as well as it should go great with your duck. Since you will be slowly reducing this sauce and for a learning experience every 5 minutes give it a taste. This will help you when you make other sauces to gauge times and thickness to what the actual sauce will be.
My hunch would be if you want to play it safe, it might make sense to reduce first so you can taste it and make sure it's about the flavor you want in sweetness. Then you can add slowly while testing the sauce.
Keep in mind that you'll probably reduce the sauce further, so it's like adding too much salt too early in a sauce and having the end result be too salty.
If you're trying to cook away the alcohol, you'll need to reduce the wine first, and then add the stock, and reduce further.
Mixing the two together first, or reducing the stock first will not remove as much alcohol, although it may be that you prefer having the alcohol in there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.245889
| 2010-07-22T12:00:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2752",
"authors": [
"Alan Turing",
"Jesse Millikan",
"Joe",
"Peter V",
"SeanKilleen",
"Speldosa",
"crtjer",
"eater",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"seanieb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5125
|
Can I weigh without a set of scales?
So I'm at my sister's house, and it turns out she doesn't have any scales.
I need to weigh 120g of castor sugar.
What can I do?
This site will convert weights to volumes, and says that you should use .53 of a US cup.
Great find Neil - I was going to suggest water displacement or creating a quick and dirty fulcrum/balance beam and comparing it to objects of known weights - but .53 cups is SO much easier!
mad props to anyone who can eyeball .53 cups.
1/2 a cup is easy. Get out your half cup measure. 0.03 cups is just 1.44 teaspoons. I'd probably go sloppy and use a teaspoon and a half.
So it turns out she doesn't have any volume measurements either, other than a measuring jug.
So in the end I divided the 500g bag between two identical glasses, then divided one of those glasses up between 2 others to get approx 125g
Now it seems that the cake tin doesn't seal properly anyway so I can't imagine that my cheescake is going to turn out any good anyway...
For Neil, a measuring jug:
Way to innovate.
Nice solution. What's a measuring jug?
@Neil added a picture of a measuring jug for you
That's the same thing we call a measuring cup. I had an image of a literal jug in my head. (The image was in my head, not the jug.)
You can also use Wolfram Alpha for this, for example 120 gram/density of sugar/cups.
Although, they don't have castor sugar in their system.
Gourmet Sleuth can help you with its advanced conversion calculators.
For example, a teaspoon of baking powder does not weigh the same as a teaspoon of peanut butter. This calculator will simply give you an approximate measurement. When accuracy is imperative you should use the highly-accurate ingredient based calculator.
Weight To Volume Conversion Calculator shows that 120 gr sugar (powdered) = 1.2 cup or 48 teaspoons.
Just enter "sugar" as keyword and select "sugar, powdered" under "sweets" menu. Then enter the quantity, select conversion unit and click "Convert". On the left panel, you can see the results.
Powdered sugar is denser than castor sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.246144
| 2010-08-13T18:01:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5125",
"authors": [
"Ashlee McDonald",
"Dennis Williamson",
"DevKev",
"Doğukan Çağatay",
"Gilles",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Juice",
"Liz Z",
"Sam Holder",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9992",
"justkt",
"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
}
|
2391
|
How to caramelise onions?
Often recipes ask for caramelised onions. What are some good techniques for cooking them this way, as it seems to take a while, and often even if they are on a low heat they can brown a bit too much if they are not stirred continually.
My wife does this all the time as a sauce base. About ten minutes of constant stirring on low heat for two big onions.
Low and slow is the only way to go, I'm afraid. You can add some broth and simmer them down (as opposed to just cooking them in oil) but make sure you add little enough that it will all evaporate...Don't want to be pouring off flavor.
So if I add a little broth (or just water if I don't want any extra flavour from the broth presumably) then they will still caramelise and they are much less likely burn? Are there any downsides to adding the liquid?
@Sam Holder: The sugars all come from inside the onion, so they'll caramelize no matter what. Liquids will leech yummy onion-ness from the onion into the liquid, so just boiling them in water is likely to get you yucky onions. Using a flavorful liquid, and evaporating it, you can get the best of both worlds.
I meant can I add a little water (a tablespoon or so) so that the onions are not going to catch and burn, but not so they are boiling in water, and it will evaporate off, but will mean that I don't need to stir constantly and if I take my eye off them for a few minutes they won't be browned, rather then caramelised?
Being low and slow you won't worry about burning. When he says low he means lowww. I have found there is a direct correlation between cook time and taste. Longer the better, thus lower and slower the better.
In addition to what everyone else has said, you may want to add some salt as the onions caramelize. The salt will help draw out the sugars, and allow them to caramelize more.
Some techniques I've seen also suggest a little sugar to help the caramelizing process... but personally I think that's cheating. That's up to you though.
I think you've answered your own question. Low & slow, with constant stiring. To hot & fast will burn the sugars you are attempting to bring out of the onion.
I don't believe there are alternatives to doing this. But maybe someone will correct me.
I'm hoping someone will too :)
In a very low effort way you can do it with a crock pot. Put in 2-4oz of butter depening on crock pot size and as many onions as the crock pot will hold. Set it on low. Come back 8 hrs later.
I generally use butter, EarthBalance, or extra virgin olive oil, and lots of time. If I'm in a rush I will sometimes turn the heat up a little, but the that nearly always causes an inconsistent or lower quality result.
Also I find it helpful to separate them onions early in the process. Generally we slice them into rings before cooking. I separate the disks as I place them in the pan. I've found that while this increases the space they require for cooking, it greatly improves the quality of the results (again supports even cooking).
Take a warm pan, add oil, add onions. The higher the temperature of the pan, to about medium levels, the more frequently the onions need to be stirred in order to not burn them. Lower temperatures take longer to produce the caramelization but mostly give a more uniform result, as one can keep the onions on the heat longer. You'll need to find out what heat works best for you by experimenting a bit. Also different oils make for different flavors, I prefer x virgin olive oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.246473
| 2010-07-20T17:20:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2391",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Josh Anderson",
"Michal Mau",
"Parsa",
"Pete TerMaat",
"Pirripli",
"Rodger Cooley",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"greatwolf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4375",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5749
|
How Long Can I Keep Uncooked Sushi Rice?
I only prepare sushi rice a few times a year, so it takes me a while to go through even the smallest of bags. How long can I keep the bag for before it "goes bad"?
Keep it airtight in a cool, dark place and it should remain good infefinitely. You'll certainly be fine 1-2 years.
Agreed. Make sure it is well sealed from critters (which I guess goes along with airtight), and you'll be fine.
Additional note: the same is not true of brown rice. It has enough fat left in the seed to go rancid. Take a deep whiff whenever you open a container, and if you detect even a hint of rancidity, dump it and buy fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.246792
| 2010-08-22T04:21:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5749",
"authors": [
"Binoj Antony",
"ETD",
"Frank Zimmerman",
"J Burnett",
"Michael Natkin",
"RidingTheRails",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40035
|
How to crisp breaded foods the next day (especially panko)
I breaded some fish today, and the other day, chicken. Unfortunately, I over-estimated, and fried a whole bunch that we didn't eat. If I nuke it (microwave it) the next day, it comes out soggy and limp.
Bummer.
How can I actually reheat this and regain some of the panko crisp? Baking seems to be the right answer, except that panko breading burns really, really fast (mine is already a dark-brown from cooking it on medium).
See related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29393/re-fry-fried-food
The breadcrumbs tag already existed - I don't think we need an extra tag for panko.
@Jefromi I think a synonym would be good, because it's non-obvious. I'll bring it up on meta.
@ashes999 Don't bother, I'll create it. (I think it'll be obvious to most people, though: panko is a type of breadcrumbs. Breadcrumbs on wikipedia is the first hit if you search for panko.)
@Jefromi we can discuss it here (I already created it when I saw your comment. I mean the cooking technique (breading/battering), not panko. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1851/meta-tags-for-panko-and-breading
Reheating fried food is extremely challenging.
The least bad method is probably baking in a slow oven, about 250-300 F. You want to reheat only enough to get the food warm enough to enjoy, but not so piping hot that it would trigger additional browning.
At these low temperatures, you should not get too much additional browning, although you will never have the ideal crispy texture that first-fried foods have.
...and don't do it straight out of the refrigerator. Allow the food to come to room temperature before putting in a low oven.
A toaster oven seems to work reasonably well for this.
I would recommend a hotter temperature 400 to 425 degrees minimum. If the food has already been cooked, you do not need to have the internal temperatures reach 165.
Higher oven temperatures will drive off moisture from the coating enhancing the crispiness. They will most likely never be as crispy as fried but this will be better than slow, low heat.
Try it versus the low heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.246893
| 2013-12-07T01:41:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40035",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78903
|
Can a fish living in fresh water be called seafood?
Pangasius (Wikipedia) says:
Pangasius is a genus of medium-large to very large shark catfishes
native to fresh water in South and Southeast Asia.
...
In 2011, Pangasius was sixth in the National Fisheries Institute’s
"Top 10" list of the most consumed seafood in the United States.
If I understand correctly, fresh water is not sea water, and has little salt.
So why can a fish living in fresh water be called seafood?
Thanks.
If you really want to blow your mind ... look into what the Catholic Church has allowed as 'seafood' and thus allowed while fasting for Lent : https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/the-giant-venezuelan-rodent-that-tastes-like-fish-and-other-obscure-lenten-delicacies
Don't read too much into the "sea"; there's no rule that every word in the language has to stick precisely to its etymological roots.
Seafood just means edible aquatic life, i.e. fish and shellfish in general. It's a food word, not a biology word, and fish on your plate looks pretty much the same whether it's freshwater or saltwater fish, so generally it all gets lumped into one category.
Amusingly, I mentioned going to "that sea food place" a couple of days ago and got blank stares and after a minute, "You mean The Catfish Parlor? I can't really consider catfish to be 'seafood'." So, while I agree with this, it may not be universal.
@Catija Yeah, it's not surprising that people (the OP included) are surprised about the name when they think about it directly, but, well, even The Catfish Parlour says "seafood" on the sign, not "seafood and catfish."
Unresolved questions: are frogs seafood or not?
@FuzzyChef Nope.
That depends on who you are. If you're Chinese, or from Florida, frogs are seafood.
That usage might be peculiar to the US as most dictionaries like the Cambridge dictionary and Collins Dictionary list the broader definition of seafood as American English and have the narrower definition as the primary definition
Fish comes from an Old English word that meant any aquatic animal so most people would probably have just used fish without needing another word to denote all food from aquatic sources in general
Yes, you can do so as the term "seafood" is a misnomer. I haven't heard of the term "riverfood" or "lakefood", at least not in English. In Chinese, yes, there is such thing as "riverfood".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.247091
| 2017-03-05T03:57:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78903",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"David Rice",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34312
|
I'm trying to make cheddar sticks from scratch
What are common commercial food additives that keep the cheese 'melty', but not runny?
I have tried making fried cheddar sticks but the cheese just oozes out, like thick water...
Freezing first? Freeze the breading too?
What is the "cheddar stick" you are asking about? One commercial product, such as this one from Wegman's appears to be 100% cheese, without special additives. Are you asking about a recipe for deep fried cheese sticks? If so, you might want to post the recipe to get advise on improving it.
The title says cheddar, the tag says mozzarella?
What temperature are you frying at? The cheese will melt but the batter should harden too fast for anything to leak out. And you are actually deep-frying, not just putting it in a fry pan, right?
Are we talking like these: http://www.hotdogonastick.com/menu.aspx (scroll down a bit)
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/93307/67
Sodium Citrate is the most common emulsifier for cheese, it keeps it soft and flexible when cold, and like a smooth sauce when hot. Being an emulsifier it stops it separating too
See http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/sodium-citrate-creates-silky-smooth-macaroni-and-cheese/
You can make Sodium Citrate at home, heat a tbs of lemon juice, add 1/2+ tsp of baking soda and stir. Add this to a cup of melted cheese (all very rough measurements). Experiment to get the best results for your cheese of choice!
Why haven't you told me about this before! I have some new experiments to do!
I always check the labels of the stuff in the Supermarket that I wont buy 'cause it's crap food, and check for what they use to make it that way :-) Some aren't that crap after all
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.247308
| 2013-05-24T23:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34312",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"JD2000",
"Joe",
"Kaya",
"Linn Scheele",
"Melissa Harrison",
"Pramod ganu",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saikat Das",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Terra",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79903"
],
"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
}
|
108207
|
What are the vertical-edge plates called?
I'm assuming asking this question is ok since questions about kitchen equipment and cutlery are permitted.
So far I've only found steel plates that have a vertical edge. Do these vertical-edged plates have a specific name that I could search for, to check if they are available as a microwavable plates?
Most plates are pretty flat, which causes food to annoyingly go off the edge and onto the table.
The top one doesn't look like a plate; it looks like one of those small trays they serve Thali on.
"Pie plate" seems to yield some results
@Tetsujin: The steel plates are available in many sizes, including 6 inch diameter. Thali itself means "plate", and is just a way of serving the food. We take the katori's from the thali and place them on the table before starting the meal. The steel plate is a full-fledged dinner plate.
@DuarteFarrajotaRamos: Thank you. Although "pie plate" isn't the right type, your reply led me to "raised edge dinner plate" and "divided scoop dinner plate".
When I was young and learning ESL(English as second language) I was taught the flat one is a dish while the raised edge one is a plate. But here it says the compete opposite: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6276/whats-the-difference-between-the-words-plate-and-dish
@user3528438: I agree with the answer on english.stackexchange. Hence the name "dishwasher".
Except that soup is served in a soup plate, strictly speaking [a bowl with a very wide, flat rim]; though almost everybody calls it a dish. tbh, no-one has ever translated 'thali' for me before now. In the UK it's pretty much defined as 'a selection of various foods in small dishes, served on a tray'. The material is almost always steel for both. You eat it straight out of the dishes, still on the tray.
This is news to me. I'm a native speaker of American English and I've always considered "plate" and "dish" to be interchangeable. Soup is served in "soup bowls" around here.
With Duarte's help, I found the plates are:
Raised edge plate
The divided scoop plates.
Dignity plates.
High sided plates.
Hi Lo plates.
Manoy plates.
Inner lip plates.
There are also lipped edge plates, but it doesn't always satisfy the requirement of food not going off the edge.
There are also ‘deep plates’ and ‘wide bowls’ that might serve the intended purpose. Also ‘pasta bowl’. They tend to have a more curved transition than what was pictured, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.247499
| 2020-05-08T07:51:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108207",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Joe",
"Nav",
"Tetsujin",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12374
|
What can I do with 500 ml of demi glace?
I bought a 500 mL package of frozen demi glace in my local restaurant. While I often cook with regular chicken or beef stock, I have never used demi glace before.
In what types of preparations or recipes would I be able to get the best use out of this - i.e. for which 500 mL of demi glace is enough and the benefits from using it over regular beef stock are evident? Preferably something that I normally wouldn't be able to make without demi glace.
Hi VoY; recipe requests are off topic here, although I think there's enough substance to this question to rephrase it as a "know your ingredients" type of question, so I've edited some of the language and tags.
Thanks, Aaronut. I think this even reflects better how I actually wanted to ask my question :-).
You can make some very good sauces, based on demi-glace.
Bordelaise (if you add chopped shallots, red wine and a bit of marrow) (eat it with grilled beef, steak or pork)
Robert (if you add chopped onions, vinegar and white wine, and a bit of mustard) (fits very well with grilled pork)
Zingara (chop ham, mushrooms and truffle into tiny pieces) (You can mix this with tomato sauce and it goes well with beef tongue)
If you want to use demi-glace as it is, it fits very well with pork chops or lamb, hogget, or mutton.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.247721
| 2011-02-19T10:45:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12374",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ann",
"C.V. May",
"Jim Brodrick",
"VoY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"kuldip Makadiya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17564
|
Pimientos de Padron equivalent
In Spain I had a wonderful tapa called Pimiento de Padron. Green chiles fried in olive oil and salted. What type of chile could I find in the US to replicate this dish? The chiles should be mild, with the odd spicy one.
From which province of Spain you know them? I remember these from Galicia! We also made them ourselves in Spain from the pimientos buyed at the market! They are simply genial.
@Tomas they are from Galicia, which is where Padrón is, but are famous all over Spain, and abroad as this t-shirt tries to state.
Russian roulette peppers!
Not sure if there is a good substitute you can buy already grown?
If you live near a warm coast try growing your own. Good seed suppliers (Johnnyseeds, LocalHarvest etc - Peperone Padron in NZ from italianseedspronto) should be able to help, or check Ebay or Amazon
Sounds like it: Russian roulette, great name. Lately the pimientos I'm having are more spicy than mild. Very spicy.
When I've had the dish (and yes, it was in Galicia; Santiago de Compostela, to be exact), I'd say they all had heat to them, just a few had some natural variations that you always get with peppers. (eg, some jalapeños are hotter than others).
It's also likely affected that the peppers are picked for size, not ripeness, so it's possible that the riper (hotter) peppers are mixed in with the others ... and to get 'em picked early, you're either going to need your own plants, as TFD and Stuart have mentioned, or make friends with your local farmer. If you're growing more than one variety of peppers you might try planting most in with mild peppers, and one surrounded by lots of hot peppers to see if you can improve the variability of the heat.
If growing your own (or convincing a local farmer) aren't options, I'd go with a low-heat smaller pepper ... Pepperoncini might work, but it it's 100-500 scoville, so it doesn't have the extreme range of the Padrón. If you could find hungarian wax & banana peppers that are of a similar size and shade, you might go with a mix of the two, but they're not going to be of the one-bite size like the Padrón.
Galicia. Most of the ones which make their way to the other side of Spain seem to have no more heat than a bell pepper. You were lucky.
@Peter : oops .. sorry, my spelling sucks.
I haven't seen these on sale , and doubt if anything else has the shock effectof the odd hot one. However, I've grown these from seed this year in an unheated greenhouse, and had good yields. I plant 3 to a 7ins pot and stake, water and fertilise them like tomatoes. Haven't tried them yet, but they certainly look good!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.247857
| 2011-09-08T03:11:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17564",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Dan Auger",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rey Gonzales",
"Ria Dercksen",
"TNV",
"Tomas",
"ades",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7348",
"user37792",
"user37913"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8787
|
Has anyone successfully spatchcocked their Thanksgiving Turkey?
My T-Day turkey is looking like it's going to be in excess of 20 lbs this year, and I'm nervous about how long the darn thing is actually going to be in my oven when I have pies, bread, sides, etc. to prepare.
Martha Stewart has a brief article on spatchcocking a turkey (removing the backbone and breaking the breasts so the bird is 'flat') and I was curious as to if anyone has ever done it before with a big bird, and to what degree of success. Did you baste the turkey while it was cooking? Heaven forbid I feed my picky family a dry turkey, I would never hear the end of it.
I would practice with a large bird, but there's no way we'll be able to eat 40 lbs of turkey in a month!
My six pound chicken did quite well with this technique lying in its drippings, but that's not 20 lbs or a turkey.
I would suggest brining to avoid having a dry turkey. I would suggest looking at instructions for assembling a turducken, but I believe that they do not debone the turkey in that case, just the chicken and the duck.
Do you have an outdoor space to work with? If so, Google "trash can turkey" or check out the Orion Cooker/Smoker. They are relatively fast, and you free-up your oven.
I'm sitting here stunned that spatchcock is evidently a real cooking term.
@JSBᾶngs Equally astounded. I've always just heard that referred to as "butterflying".
Also, to the OP, make sure you have a big enough roasting pan! If you have a V-shaped rack, you can put that upside-down under the bird, but I still ended up needing to fold extra aluminum foil extensions for my pan.
I've spatchcocked our turkey the past two years and will never go back to the usual way. It just cooks so much faster. The spatchcocking itself isn't to hard, although you do have to be willing to inflict a little violence on the turkey.
I basically follow Mark Bittman's recipe. The video is located here. I do, however cook a larger bird. The time I did it with an 18 pound bird it too a bit more than 90 minutes.
November 2010's Bon Appetit features a step-by-step for roasting a butterflied turkey. The stuffing is tucked under the skin. They do recommend having the butcher take out the backbone for you.
I see three excellent questions here:
1- How to cook a turkey without drying it out.
How do you keep turkey from getting too dry?
The quick answer to this question is always brining. I love brined turkey but often the drippings are too salty to make a gravy which is a tragedy. For that reason, and because of the faster cooking time, I wouldn't brine a butterflied turkey- or at least less than usual.
Basting is unnecessary and will not help the meat stay moist. It will add flavor but if the meat is cooking in its own juices this won't be necessary.
2- How to cook a turkey without monopolizing your oven.
I use Alton Brown's turkey roasting technique. He roasts at 500F for some time to fry the skin and then drops the heat for the actual roasting. If I am cramped for oven space I will do the 500F in the oven and then move the turkey to an electric roaster for the remainder of the cooking time. It doesn't brown as completely but the meat cooks beautifully.
3- The question you actually asked: have I ever butterflied a large turkey.
Of course the larger mass will take longer to roast but it will still be faster than traditional roasting so I wouldn't worry about it become too dry. The recipes that I found after reading your question sound delicious:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/recipes/2007/11/14/herb-crusted-roast-butterflied-turkey/
I think you should go for it.
Thank you for asking this question. I am definitely going to try this with one of my turkeys this year.
** EDIT **
I did it and it was delicious. Besides the faster cooking time and resultant juiciness- I also appreciated the greatly expanded surface area that allowed me to get more flavoring against the meat.
Harold McGee actually disagrees with the brining turkey suggestion: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/dining/12curi.html
@justkt - I am interested in trying his suggested method. It sounds like it would taste good but it doesn't sound like it will be what people expect to eat on Thanksgiving. His points all make sense- the juiciness is less meaty- but personally the best turkey I have ever had was brined.
@justkt - continued... Let me know if you try his suggestion before I do.
I've tried it with chicken, but the turkey isn't my responsibility this year, so I don't know that I will get to it with turkey until after Thanksgiving (when they are cheap).
Your edit is spot on, as it maximizes area and doesn't need to be flipped, this cooking method is perfect for a glaze!
As an alternative to spatchcocking, you can simply cut it in half. This is useful if grilling, as it's a bit easier to move around and flip.
Both Sam Sifton and Julia Child recommend spatchcocking. I have tried both. Sam's is faster and easier, but Julia's is amazing.
http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1016948-fastest-roast-turkey
https://www.americastestkitchen.com/episode/413-revisiting-julia-childs-roast-turkey
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.248114
| 2010-11-02T21:29:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8787",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Gregor Thomas",
"JSBձոգչ",
"Jon",
"Jonathan",
"Manako",
"Sobachatina",
"StuPointerException",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"justkt",
"vsekhar",
"éclairevoyant"
],
"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
}
|
339
|
What are some good substitutes for salt for those on low sodium diets?
I try to keep my sodium intake fairly low to ensure that my blood pressure doesn't get too high.
Salt is such a common part of cooking, and it's especially difficult to cook Asian-style food without a lot of salt due to its reliance on salty sauces such as soy sauce, oyster sauce, etc.
I have tried salt substitutes such as potassium chloride but that can be particularly nasty on the palate, giving the food a chemical taste.
What are some good substitutes for salt in food?
Our taste buds are tuned for salt (NaCl), but potassium chloride (KCl) comes pretty close in reproducing the sensation. There are a few commercial salt substitutes that incorporate KCl (Nu-salt, Morton Salt Substitute in the US). As sodium is an essential mineral and potassium may be hard to get out of the body, make sure you ask a doctor before completely eliminating salt.
And 'Lo Salt' in the UK, just to add.
When my doctor told me to start cutting my salt intake, I headed to the spice aisle at the grocery store and bought every "salt-free" blend they had and started trying them. It was one of the best things I did, because I discovered how much I'd been relying on salt for flavor and how inadequate that was.
I now buy my spices from The Spice House (much fresher than the grocery store) and really like quite a few of their salt free blends. Most spice suppliers have a similar category available. Buy a bunch and start substituting when you would otherwise use salt.
Some of the experiments will be fabulous, some not as much, but rarely are they actually bad.
I use lemon juice and vinegars to approximate saltiness in foods. Lemon juice works particularly well in soups. I use 1/4 cup of lemon juice as a flavor enhancer in pots of soup of eight to 12 cups. Obviously, this is a subjective measure, and I'd recommend adding the juice by the tablespoonful, tasting the soup, and then adding more juice until you achieve the level of "saltiness" you want. Vinegars take experimentation because they tend to be stronger and there are so many different kinds, but I like to use them with sautéed vegetables. Malt vinegar is particularly good on roasted potatoes and french fries (I also add it to my baked potatoes before adding other toppings).
Oh, and because broth is so common in cooking as a flavoring component (and store-bought broth is so high in sodium), I recommend Herb-Ox Low Sodium Bouillon in packets because, while it's not as tasty as homemade broth, it's convenient to use when one only needs a little bit of broth.
Most of the time you use salt for making the food taste better. If this is the purpose, you can substitute lots of different spices and herbs. I cook Asian-style food without the usage of any salt. Instead I use a lot of garlic and onions. Ginger powder is quite good enhancing other existing flavours what salt is sometimes used for. Otherwise, it depends on the particular flavour you want to create.
If you have high blood pressure, then you may be looking for low-sodium salt. LoSalt is the only brand I've ever sampled and there is no obvious taste difference.
If, on the other hand, you are looking to add a little taste variety to dishes, then you might try fish sauce, soy sauce or anchovies. Using parmigiano-reggiano or dashi will also give you the umami flavour. All of these however have a high salt content.
Avoiding salt altogether, you might try various herbs and spices. Really anything will add flavour, but sage has a certain saltiness, as does vanilla for sweet dishes. You might also try a little lemon juice or vinegar in sauces.
I'd rather I hadn't mentioned high blood pressure. The advice to reduce salt intake, in this context, may be outdated according to one internet source. As mentioned elsewhere on this page, consult a doctor if you are worried about consuming too much salt.
If you are used to eating a lot of salt, you may first need to accustom your palate to enjoying the natural, un-salt-enhanced flavours. Lemon juice, spices, or other pungent/aromatic ingredients are a good way to keep your dishes flavourful without salt. You may initially find that you're missing the "salty" taste itself. The cure for this is just to wait for your palate to re-adjust.
Lime juice, tamarind paste, vinegars, mango powder, sour yogarts are what I use with a little as possible of table salt.
I like this answer. I've seen it often that people don't discriminate taste so well, and when food seems bland to them, they often reach for the salt. If the food is soured instead, they also like it just as much as with additional salt, if not more.
We can also use curd and lemon to substitute salt nothing to do just add lemon juice to curd. All done when you're eating food, eat this lemon curd with our food don't put salt in your food if make it without salt and will eat this lemon curd with your food in the place of salt you will not feel that in your food there is no salt.
What do you mean by "curd"? Different countries use the word to mean different things. Also, how would this replace the salt flavor?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.248659
| 2010-07-10T00:12:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/339",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Debbie Riley Slater",
"E. Knight",
"EmmyS",
"Grace",
"Jessie Gardner",
"Jnonymous",
"Joel Glovier",
"Maximillian",
"Noldorin",
"bobby",
"eswald",
"girnigoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9912",
"iesha",
"jim",
"kirsty",
"offroff",
"qingliu",
"rumtscho",
"user635"
],
"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
}
|
373
|
How can I make macarons with "feet" in my oven at home?
I've tried many macaron recipes, and all have tasted very good. The problem is they always end up as a meringue, or looking like cookies. They usually don't have the "feet" that macarons are known for. My success rate on every recipe I've tried is about 1 in 6.
Does anyone known what my mistakes are or know a recipe that easily makes macarons with "feet"?
What are macaron “feet”? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20750/what-are-macaron-feet
http://joepastry.com/index.php?title=troubleshooting_macarons&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
The point of leaving the cookies to sit on the pan is to dry out the skin so it'll solidify better. I'd suggest resting longer (up to 50 minutes) or using a hotter oven.
The key to the feet, according to the cookbook I used, seems to be letting the mix rest for at least an hour before baking at 145C for 10 to 15 minutes depending on the size.
This method did yield some pretty nice feet, though my first few batches also had a bit too many cracks to look perfect.
Note that I'm assuming you mean the type of macaron pictured on the book in the link above, since there are many variations.
Did you leave your macarons out to dry after piping them, before putting them in the oven? They need to be left out about 1hr (depending on humidity) until they develop a skin and do not stick to your finger when lightly touched.
Overmixing can also cause feet to not form. You should mix the almond flour and meringue just enough to get a 'lava' consistency. Keep scooping up with the spatula as you are folding in the flour to test if the batter would droop down. Once it starts to droop down in a thick ribbon, stop mixing.
My first batch of macarons had no feet too. I overmixed and didn't wait for them to dry. On my second batch I resisted overmixing, and allowed the macarons to dry before baking, and they turned out beautifully.
I have the same problem. During my experiments I found out that the cooler the dough is before you put it in the owen, the better. The trick is to work fast, work with it as little as possble.
Also, I use food processor with metal bowl for mixing the dough (Kitchen Aid Artisan). Before I start mixing, I fill the bowl with cold water and let it cool for few minutes.
Most of the recipes I've used say that once the batter is on a pan, you are supposed to let it sit for 30 minutes or more for the top to harden a bit. This is supposed to help with the feet (but still no luck for me).
So if I let it sit for 30 min afterwards, I doubt the cold mixing bowl will still have any effect on its temperature at bake time.
Let me know if I'm missing something.
Adam, try to let it sit in the fridge.
Most recipes say you should bring the egg whites to room temperature and you should not refrigerate the almond flour, so that humidity doesn't collect on it. This doesn't make any sense. Can you explain why or give a reference? I want to believe...
The Bouchon cookbook (page 310) recommends letting them rest at room temperature for 1-2 hours "to dry the tops", which I believe helps the development of the feet (the tops raise during cooking and the feet stick out). The instructions in that book are detailed and have worked really well for me (even on my first try).
Letting them sit and dry is very important. If it's more humid that day I turn the ceiling fan on on medium and leave them on the table under the fan for 30-60mins. That helps A LOT. They dry very nicely.
Thanks to Duncan at Syrup and Tang, and Helene Dujardin of Tartlette, I am now making batch after batch of perfect macarons. I found Helene’s recipe for (French method) Lemon Verbena macarons and after 2 years and 3 months struggling to make the perfect shell, I began using this version for every batch.
I read incessantly about macarons, searching the web for hours to find just the right thing that might help me produce taller feet and macarons that don’t have sunken tops. Finally, everything that was said regarding not over mixing during the macaronage stage (mixing the meringue with the almond flour/confectioner’s sugar) sunk in and I now stop short of what has always seemed to me to be the correct consistency. It shouldn't be runny.
While reading, I came across a curious reference to using a pizza stone. After finding the oven tutorial at Syrup and Tang, I discovered that my oven had its heating element at the top, and my macaron shells were not getting sufficient heat to thoroughly cook them on the bottom, resulting in wet macarons. I now have my old pizza stone on the bottom rack of the oven and bake my macarons on the middle rack at 300 degrees for 18 minutes, rotating the pan at the 9 minute mark.
Another change has been that I no longer use 2 pans stacked inside one another, as my macarons don’t get enough heat as it is. They are baked on parchment paper on one baking sheet and have perfect feet every time, feet that do not deflate after being removed from the oven.
Best of luck!
I am missing a mention of feet in this answer do you mean that you didn't get feet before you used the pizza stone?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.249426
| 2010-07-10T01:49:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/373",
"authors": [
"Adam A",
"Chloe",
"David Chan",
"Fczbkk",
"Jordan",
"Mike Deck",
"Nick Whiu",
"Ramiro Berrelleza",
"SeattleNate",
"Shirley Harrel",
"Tina Marie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"rumtscho",
"user18947"
],
"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
}
|
12415
|
What is "hand hot"?
How hot is "hand hot"?
Should it be about the temperature where you can stand leaving your hand in the water ... but any degree hotter and it wouldn't be tolerable? Or is that way too hot?
For example in a bread recipe which calls for hand hot water.
I don't think I'm asking for a specific C or F, more a rule of thumb.
Its the temperature where the water feels slightly hot. Boil some water and take 1/4 of a cup. Add 3/4 of cold water and check the termparature, it thould be close to 'hand hot'
It'd be nice to know what the rest of the recipe is to answer this, but it seems there could be one of several goals: (a) 110–115°F to rehydrate active-dry yeast, you'd recognize this if its mixed with the active-dry yeast, probably some sugar, and maybe oil; (b) 120–130°F to bring the final dough temperature to quickest rising temperature as in @rumtscho's answer.
I don't know the term either. I don't think it is established baking slang, so it is bound to vary between recipes, should you find it in another one at all. But if you got it from a bread recipe, it must be because you need optimal conditions for your yeast. The optimal temperature for yeast rising is 35°C, with rising being too slow below that (but it will still happen, even at 4°C in the fridge!) and not possible at 40°C and above, where leavening action gets too low for practical purposes (and at some point, the yeast dies).
This is a nice representation of the amount of CO2 produced by yeast (which correlates well with leavening) at different temperatures. The difference between the low effective temperature (25°C), the optimal temperature (35°C) and the upper limit of the effective temperature (40°C) is not big, so I don't rely on my imperfect senses and always use a thermometer when making yeast dough.
But you are writing that you want a "rule of thumb", so you probably don't have (or don't want to bother with) a thermometer in your kitchen. In this case, you can still have your bread rise well. The literal thumb is a bad choice, as it is quite insensitive, but the trick our grandmas used to gauge the temperature of infant food is still valid: use your elbow.
The skin of the elbow is very thin, and it will very well notice the difference between a 35°C liquid (which feels roughly the same temperature as the elbow, remember that 37°C are normal inside the body, not on the skin outside) and a 40°C liquid (which feels too warm). If you were to use your fingers or the back of your hand, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference well enough, and will risk overshooting and killing the yeast. There are possibly other body parts which can feel the difference (I'd guess the tongue, if you don't scald it daily with hot drinks), but hygienewise, the elbow is probably better.
40°C will not kill baker's yeast. http://www.redstaryeast.com/lessons/yeast_types__usage/active_dry_yeast.php for example says to dissolve active dry in 110–115°F (115°F=46°C) water. I've never heard of it dying before somewhere around 130°F (55°C)
I was aware that 40° is not the exact lethal temperature for yeast, only a practical upper limit if you want it to rise. But I didn't know that the difference to the lethal temperature was so high, thought it to be somewhere in the middle forties. Thank you for the correction. I updated the answer.
I suspect this might be a UK-ism, it usually crops up in bread and cake recipes and is fairly well known on these shores. You're right to guess that it's to do with yeast-based baking - as has been scientifically pointed out above, yeast likes warm but not hot water.
Hand-hot is an easy shorthand for "warm enough that you can put your hand in it with no discomfort" and is a little less grisly than the also-used "blood temperature".
"warm enough etc..." is an OK guide except the subset of temperatures in which i can put my hand "with no discomfort" is quite large.
Oh I completely agree! I'm just pointing out that this term is very rule-of-thumb. It's an archaic term trying desperately to capture what was so specifically spelled out by rumtscho.
I've never seen that term before, but from the context of a bread recipe, it must mean "body temperature", i.e. around 100 F / 37 C. Water that you could just barely hold your hand in (around 140 F) would kill the yeast instantly.
I think your right, hand hot normally means water you can just hold your hand in = 60C, hand heat would mean body temp = 37C
"Hand hot" is the hottest temperature you can immerse your hand in without pain. Generally, this is about 110-115F, or 43-46C. If you have calloused, tough hands, measure this by running water over the thinner skin on the back of your hand. The idea is to get the dough warm so the yeast works faster, but not so hot that it rises too fast or kills the yeast. Once you combine the water with room temperature flour, the result is close to the optimum rising temperature for yeast.
Anyway, temperature doesn't need to be super-precise when you're judging the rise by the feel and volume of the dough. "Hand hot" is what we use to prepare dough at the restaurant I work for, and it gives good results. Plus it's super-fast, which is important.
My advice as a chef is to get a thermometer.
If you are working in a kitchen that is hot (>30° c) then have the water yeast and sugar "activater" mix at 35deg c. That is about the temperature that feels hand warm in a hot kitchen.
In a cool kitchen (<30°c) then I have the "activater" mix somwhere between 40°c -43°c. This allows the dough to maintain a close to optimum temperature once energy is lost to the cooler bowl and flour etc.
Thats assuming I don't have access to a good proving oven. In which case start up temps are quickly over come by the warm and humid environment in the proving oven.
If course with the above your individual experience may vary due to many other factors as well. So ultimately to make great bread takes lots of practice.
Thats why bakers spend years in an apprenticeship.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.249891
| 2011-02-21T00:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12415",
"authors": [
"Barfieldmv",
"Cindy",
"Gary",
"IIsi 50MHz",
"Lori Yo",
"Martin Beckett",
"Mary mcdonald",
"Tea Drinker",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"pleasePassTheCheese",
"rumtscho",
"user150153"
],
"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
}
|
5803
|
What to do with the fat rendered when making beef stock?
I just made beef stock and after cooling the stock in the pot I skimmed the solidified fat off the surface and the walls of the pot. Since I often read 'keep duck fat' when making duck stock/broth and because lard is probably something similar from pork, should I keep that beef fat instead of throwing it away? Or does it lack the 'quality' of duck fat (for instance)?
Rendered beef fat can be used in a lot of ways. You can use it in place of oil in a lot of recipes, but finding out which ones you like will take some experimenting. Around our house, I use rendered fat from beef or bacon in place of oil when sautéing, for example with onions and peppers, garlic or mushrooms. I've also used it to add some kick to gravies.
You could use it to pop popcorn, which I've heard is delicious but unfortunately have never tried.
I've had pasties made with beef fat, and they were delicious. Mashed potatoes as well.
As far as fat ratio goes, it's better than butter, but not as good as other fats. Beef fat has a high smoke point and is suitable for frying.
The table below is based off of 1 tablespoon. Ratio means saturated to unsaturated. Smoke point can vary depending on a lot of factors (olive oil can range from 300 when unrefined, to 375-450 when refined depending on quality) but the table below should be a good guide. For the oils, I took the refined numbers.
sat mono poly ratio smoke
Canola Oil 0.9 8.2 4.1 1:12 470°F
Olive Oil 1.8 10.0 1.2 2:11 450°F
Chicken Fat 3.8 5.7 2.6 1:2 375°F
Duck Fat 4.3 6.3 1.7 1:2 375°F
Lard (pork fat) 5.0 5.8 1.4 5:7 365°F
Beef Tallow 6.4 5.4 0.5 1:1 400°F
Butter 7.2 3.3 0.5 7:4 350°F
(fat source) (smoke point source)
A lot of people mix it into their dog's food, or use it to feed birds.
Seach for tallow if you want to find recipes that specifically use it.
The main thing that beef fat is usually used for is Yorkshire pudding. You could save and use it when you want yorkshire pudding but may not be doing a roast.
Duck fat, chicken fat, and bacon fat tend to have broader applications. It's really ultimately up to you and your preference and cooking style. Of course it does become cumbersome to keep a container for each type of fat so you probably have to decide what has the greatest benefit for you and your cooking style.
If you dont want to eat it, you can feed it to the birds. Take a small can, cut the top off, fold the top over so there are no sharp edges, pour excess fat into it until its almost full. Then throw in a few peanuts and stick it out for the birds.
In my experience duck fat is the best option for roasting potatoes and other root vegetables. I tend to throw away beef fat as I'm not a fan but McDonalds used it for their fries a while back.
Good fact! According to Wikipedia, before 1990 they used a combination of 93% tallow and 7% cottonseed oil. They now use a combination of canola, soybean and corn oils.
That fat is called tallow and there are a lot of things you can do with it. Just like duck fat and lard have a place in a kitchen, tallow does too. It is also called suet. It keeps just about forever and I like the mouth feel it can add to a soup or stew. However, the most common uses for tallow are non-food related, like candle making.
The terms are used interchangeably in my books, so I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.250390
| 2010-08-23T03:33:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5803",
"authors": [
"AGS",
"Jarrod",
"Lawrence Mathon",
"Maarten",
"Marcus",
"Matt Ghering",
"Wiz Cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"joanne",
"onedaywhen",
"sarge_smith",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7943
|
Baking chicken - temperature vs time
I'd like to bake a chicken. Let's say it's already washed, marinated, sitting on tray and ready to bake. I usually do it at 180 degrees C, for 1 hour. My main problem is that the skin is not crunchy enough and the meat is kind of "wet" and watery.
I'd like to know what will change if I bake it longer at this temperature, or if I bake it for the same time at higher temperature. Basically, how does temperature, baking time and air flow (optional ventilation in the oven) affect the meat. I guess I should experiment, but I'd like to understand the underlying processes a bit.
If the question is crispy skin, these related questions (1 and 2) provide a lot of tips and tricks to get what you want. As you can see in this answer, the trick is to start at a lower temperature to render all the fat - you also want your chicken sitting on a rack or on top of vegetables so it's not sitting in the fat once it's rendered. Towards the end of your cooking you want to turn up the heat to crisp up the skin after the fat has rendered.
Note that watery meat isn't good, but you do want to keep your meat moist, so you don't want to cook it so long at a high heat that it dries out. Tender meat is greatly helped by using a brine.
The time your chicken will take to cook depends on the size and the quality of the bird. A good quality chicken has no need for olive oil or any other fats to be added. A way of ensuring a large bird has juicy tender breast meat is to roast it upside down for the half the cooking time and then turn it over so that the skin browns and goes crispy. I think the golden rule for cooking chicken is to untruss the legs, so if they are tied together untie them before cooking. This results in the thighs cooking at nearer the same time as the breast meat.
My method for cooking a chicken is this:
Rub chicken with olive oil and a good amount of salt and pepper (salt is important for a crispy skin).
Cover with foil and bake for ~40 minutes @ ~180 degrees C. This part is to actually cook the bird through - skin at this point will be white and unappetising.
Increase the temperature to ~220 degrees C for the remaining 20 minutes (I also put Yorkshire pudding and roast pots in at this point as I am usually doing a traditional sunday roast). This crisps up the skin and finishes off cooking the bird.
I then let the bird rest for 10 minutes in a warm place.
so does the salt affect the skin? That's a good thing to know!
Here's what I do:
Marinate with herbs, garlic and salt, then cover with olive oil
Bake for 45 mins @ 350F
Broil for 15 mins on Hi
It comes out nice, brown and tasty.
First off, don't cook a bird based on time if you can avoid it. The internal temperature of the meat when you put it in the oven, how accurate your oven's thermostat is, how well your oven holds heat and how often you open the door can all make significant changes to cooking time.
Get a good quality instant-read thermometer or a probe thermometer (you leave the probe in the bird and there's a wire to a readout outside the oven), and learn what internal temperature gets the meat properly cooked. You can get to a rough idea of when your chicken will be ready by oven temperature and weight of the bird, but if you want to get the right doneness every time, you really need to cook by internal temperature of the meat.
Justkt provided some good links for techniques on how you might get the skin the way you want it, and her recommendation of brining is a solid one (though unnecessary for a chicken in my opinion).
The thermometer is a great idea! I'm off to eBay... :-)
I have been cooking chicken to perfect doneness for a long time. The first thing you have to do is know your bird (not personally, but you will know it personally during the cooking process). You see, breast meat cooks at a different rate than the rest of the bird simply because of its composition. LittleDishy answered it above. It's no secret really. What you do is cook the bird upside down (which technically when alive is right side up) for about half the entire cooking duration. If you want the meat to be tender and very juicy. it is a matter of bringing the internal temperature of the meat that is not right next to the bone up at a slow ramp. As soon as we reach about 168 degrees it is time to uncover the bird and up the oven to 400+ degrees. This will cause the skin to crisp and the internal meat temperature to rise above the temperature that any possible bacteria can survive (about 170 degrees). This should not take longer than 8 to 10 minutes. The moment the thermometer reads 170 you then shut the oven down first and immediately remove the bird and cover it up again. Let it cool down until the thermometer reads about 130. Add your garnishments and by the time it is placed on a serving tray it is at about 120 to 125. Pull the cover off and there you have it, a bird with the meat practically falling off the bones, super tender and juicy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.250701
| 2010-10-08T11:35:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7943",
"authors": [
"Axarydax",
"Balázs Németh",
"Chefchab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67059"
],
"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
}
|
10757
|
"Post-marinating"? Is it a real term or do my taste buds deceive me?
Two nights ago I cooked some chicken on my George Foreman grill, just plain (a bit of non-stick spray but that's it). Then I chopped it up and put it in rice and stuck it in a tupperware for lunch today. I then rummaged my fridge for something to add flavor. Well I had some soy sauce and some teriyaki marinade, so I poured some of both in the tupperware, making sure to mainly coat the chicken with them.
That was two days ago; this morning when I got it out of the fridge before leaving for work, the sauce seemed to have soaked into the chicken, so I wondered if it's any different from marinating before cooking. And just like I thought, I just finished my delicious chicken and rice and if I didn't know better I would swear the chicken was marinated before cooking.
Is there any difference between marinating before or after cooking? I mean obviously if you cook, then marinate, then eat it right away it won't be soaked into the meat at all. But something like this where I cooked it and THEN marinated it, is there any difference? Does the meat marinate just the same, and is there any reason I shouldn't continue to do it this way rather than preparing better next time and making sure to marinate my chicken beforehand as is generally done?
Sorry if I sound completely naive, I am indeed very new to cooking (being a college student and all) and I've just never heard of post-marinating something, so I wonder if it's commonly done.
Dare I say that "post marinating" is just "seasoning"? It seems no different than if you had put some soy sauce on your food while you were eating it, and then put it in the fridge and then came back to it a few days later. Let me ask, did it taste different than if you had just put some soy sauce on the chicken after heating it up? You said it had soaked in - had it changed in flavor, too?
Marinating means "to soak", so it sounds more like you're just seasoning or saucing. Cooks commonly season before and after to adjust to taste (and sauces are a common way to add dimensions to a dish).
There are several reasons why you should marinate before cooking:
Many marinades contain raw ingredients that should be cooked along with the food being marinated, such as garlic or ginger. In some cases this may actually be a health hazard (raw garlic can harbor botulism), in other cases you'll simply end up with an undesirable pungent flavour.
Many marinades also use some amount of acid, which helps to kick-start the process of breaking down the connective tissue and tenderizing the meat. This is an especially big deal for chicken breast meat and tougher cuts of beef or pork, because most cooking methods (except for slow-cooking) don't do much of this and tend to produce a tougher, chewier end result. Once the meat has already been cooked, using an acid-based marinade won't give you much more tenderization; you need the combination of acid and heat.
Finally, many spices release most of their flavour when heated (cooked). Examples are cinnamon, saffron, star anise, and various types of hot pepper or chili powder. If you marinate after cooking, you won't get much flavour from these.
Of course if you are using a very simple marinade such as soy sauce and are marinating only for flavour purposes, then it might not matter much, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Marinating afterward can certainly improve the taste, but most of the time you'll end up with better results by marinating beforehand.
I fully agree. That said, as an interesting side note, I saw a Good Eats rerun last night where he said post-marinating as well is a very good idea because the meat will absorb significantly more of the marinade after cooking (backing your "improve the taste" idea). I thought it was an interesting idea, as I've never really post-marinated before. Alton went into the science behind why (something about pores expanding or something along those lines, I was working and only half-listening), I'll see if I can dig up the episode.
@stephen: At a minimum, it's probably partly due to the fact that cooking (except for slow cooking, again) will almost invariably dry the meat out to a certain degree, so as long as it's capable of absorbing moisture (relatively porous), then it will naturally absorb more when it's been dehydrated. But I wouldn't be terribly surprised if cooking somehow makes it more porous; after all, you are breaking down a lot of the tissue.
@stephennmcdonald And here is a very important food safety moment. If we 'post marinate' something we cannot use the same mixture the original raw meat was in. It can stay in a braising liquid, or the marinade can be cooked and modified and used as a liquid to hold the meat in after cooking, but not the marinade that the raw meat was in.
When meat is cooked it is left to rest before cutting. Why? Because the meat absorbs the juices into itself. If flavours are added at this point why would they not be absorbed as well?
There is a difference to putting sauce on the product and introducing it to the liquid to be reabsorbed.
Best thing to do is try it and then comment. Not comment without a test.
Resting meat just lets you lose less liquid when you cut it afterward. I don't think it actually causes it to soak up very much from the surroundings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.251114
| 2011-01-05T17:42:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10757",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"John",
"Marianna Grubbs",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Sherri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87196",
"markk",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19706
|
How do I clean a pasta maker?
I am experimenting with a home pasta maker, and after all the fun comes the cleaning up.
My worries come from tiny bits of dry dough I find when I clean the machine. There always seem to be more every time I shake it, and they of course contain raw egg .
On the instructions, it clearly says not to wash it with water.
What's the best practice in this case (besides disassembling the thing)?
Do you have an air compressor? :)
@thursdaysgeek afraid not :) even if I had, I would use to do some Peking duck!
If an air compressor would work, a can of compressed air probably would too!
The machine should not be accumulating bits of dough ... it should be designed so that any stray crumbs of dough naturally fall out of it. This is true of mine (Kitchen Aid Pasta Roller attachement) an I merely use a stiff dry brush to clean off the bits of dough which stick to the outside.
If the pasta maker is metal, you definitely do not want to use water, as the instructions say. You will never be able to dry it properly and it will rust.
If it's an inexpensive pasta maker, I would suggest trying a different brand. If it's an expensive one, I would contact the manufacturer. Otherwise, canned compressed air as the two commentors above suggest is worth a try.
FWIW, I wouldn't worry about the egg in the pasta dough becoming toxic. However, I would worry about the dirty pasta maker attracting bugs.
I heard somewhere that raw egg has salmonella, and if left unchecked at room temperature they just multiply... wouldn't that be a concern?
+1 to the brush. I had a similar problem when I first started making homemade pasta. The solution I found was to follow better technique making my pasta (allowing the dough to rest for at least 30 minutes at room temperature wrapped in plastic before rolling). Also rolling smaller batches so the dough doesn't get caught up at the end of the rollers may help.
I would add that the bits of pasta dough will likely dry pretty quickly, and bacteria can't live in dry pasta dough (which is why hanging and drying pasta preserves it)
A couple of things that might help help on this one:
If your machine has a few dried pasta crumbs on it, just leave it out to dry and knock / pick the dried dough out with a brush or a chopstick.
Don't worry too much about any crumbs of dried egg dough making you sick.
You are going to boil whatever noodles you make for at least 3 minutes, aren't you?
If you washed your pasta machine with soap and water -like I did- just put it in a low oven (@150 degrees F.) for an hour, to gently dry the water out. Don't go any hotter, and don't try to do this with a plastic machine.
The 3 hand cranked machines that I have seen had screws holding on the covers at either end of the rollers.
Open them up and brush a tiny bit of olive oil on the ends of the shafts and gears to keep them moving freely and to stop any rust.
Why not try a vacuum cleaner, rub a bit of mild disinfectant on the nozzle keep a little way from the machine. It will certainly lift all the loose flour/semolina around the base of the machine
Set the rollers to their widest setting, hold the tube close to the rollers and as you crank the machine it should also remove all the gunk.
Inspect, and if you spot a few bits and pieces that haven’t been removed clean with a damp cloth
You clean a pasta maker with a vacuum? I've never heard of such a tactic before. Are both still in good condition?
I have a Kitchen Aide metal pasta maker! You cannot make pasta without some particles getting caught in the machine no matter how carefull you are! I have made Ravioli for 45 years and cannot understand why a machine was made that you cannot take apart and clean the inside! We have tried a paper clip, straighten and shoved between the rollers. Air is not the best either! I get so frustrated every year with this darn thing!
Perhaps being more careful would help but I doubt that you could prevent some pieces of dough from getting into the machine. I usually end up taking it apart which is much easier than getting it back together. But with a little patience I have always succeeded. I am not so much worried about getting any contamination as the dough is at the bottom and pretty far from the rollers. It might be dangerous but my whole life I have eaten pasta as it dried. Never got sick yet so while I am not saying it is safe, I think I can say that it is rare that you will get toxic dough very easily. If anyone knows of a maker that cleans easily please speak up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.251676
| 2011-12-16T17:47:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19706",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Brendan Reed",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Jeff Bowman",
"Mast",
"Oonej",
"Vae Victis",
"cad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77127",
"thursdaysgeek",
"vgracemitchell"
],
"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
}
|
6724
|
How to best store scallions?
They always get wilted in the crisper pretty quickly. Is there a better way to store them?
Stilltasty recommends that you wrap the scallions (or green onions) in plastic wrap, and that site also says they'll last 7-10 days that way.
I actually wrap them in a damp paper towel and then in plastic wrap. I keep this little packet in the crisper drawer. I've kept them about 2 weeks this way.
Either way, each time you open the packet you should check for damaged parts and discard them.
I always stand them upright in a narrow glass, with a little water in the bottom. I the keep the glass either on the top shelf or the door of the refrigerator.
Do you cut the bunch in half so they would fit vertically?
If you're storing them for a long time, you'll want to change the water out at a minimum of once a week or it'll start to get a bit slimy. I've held green onions for 3-4 weeks this way. And regarding trimming them -- the door of the fridge generally has taller vertical space (set up for 2L soda bottles), so height isn't a problem.
I was born in 1931. From when I was a little girl I remember scallions being stored standing upright in a glass of water. We didn't even have a refrigerator then. Now I keep them in the water in the fridge. Works better than the grocery's plastic bag in the crisper drawer.
I love green onions! I will usually cut the onion to just the edge of the green part. I then store it in a glass of water. The green part gets cut into small chives and stored in a container with sealing lid in the freezer door, for soups and casseroles. I like to dip the the root stalks in ranch dressing. Yum!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.252072
| 2010-09-04T00:49:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6724",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Miriam Williamson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"milesmeow"
],
"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
}
|
150
|
How to dry oregano?
I have oregano in my garden. But I only use it fresh.
How should I properly dry the oregano so I can get something similar to oregano found in the stores?
This page lists several methods for drying and storing herbs. A quick summary:
Food dehydrator - a topic unto itself
Air drying - Indoors or out, you need shelter, low humidity, and air circulation
Sun drying - Low humidity, need to make sure the sunlight is not too intense
Microwave oven or traditional oven - use very low temperatures
I tried sun drying but it lost all the flavor.
@DanielMoura I had same experience w sage, but orange mint seems to take to sun drying well. Don't know about oregano.
I've seen it done a set of stems tied together and hanged upside down (leaves pointing to the ground) on a string on a dry room.
That said, I think fresh oregano is so much nicer and tastier than dried one that I wouldn't even bother to dry it.
I would suspect you could use Alton Brown's Jerky method. I haven't done it with herbs but it worked great for the Jerky and should provide the same effect.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/beef-jerky-recipe/index.html
You use a box fan and paper furnace filters.
Lay the filters on the out side of the fan with your herbs between the layers of filters, bungee cord the filters to the fan and leave the fan running.
Not sure timing for the herbs, would just have to check them periodically.
I've used this method with much success. Definitely the fastest method I've found to date (that is also thorough).
Tie stems together in a brown paper bag, and hang somewhere away from heat and moisture for a few weeks.
Once they're dry, strip the leaves off of each stem and store in zip-lock bags until needed. Make sure they're good and dry before sealing though, or they'll mold!
I have success drying fresh herbs in microwave. It's quick and you get reasonable results in just a few minutes. I did it for mint and basil, and I'm sure you can dry oregano using this method too.
I learned that it is possible after I had read this Tipnut article and been doing it since then whenever I have excess fresh herbs at hand.
I used to do this with mint, but found it dulled the flavor.
Along with what Donut mentioned, I've had luck with fridge drying, but it's slow:
Lay out a length of paper towel, then lay out the leaves on it, and roll it up, and hide it in the back of your fridge for a few weeks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.252255
| 2010-07-09T20:07:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/150",
"authors": [
"Daniel Moura",
"Shog9",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"antony.trupe",
"arathorn",
"bess",
"devin_s",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/899",
"mafu",
"phwd",
"shabbychef",
"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
}
|
21245
|
Cocoa nibs used for cooking or baking?
From my understanding, a cocoa nib is unprocessed cocoa (correct me if i'm wrong please).
Are cocoa nibs ever used for cooking or baking? My assumption is that they need to be processed in order to be utilized.
Cocoa nibs are the result of fermenting the seeds from the cocoa fruit (the size of a large grapefruit), and then roasting the whole cocoa beans, and then de-shelling them
The de-shelling process tends to gently crack the contents into large pieces. Unlike other seeds and nuts this is acceptable as the product is going to be finely ground anyway
You can also buy "raw cocoa nibs", which are fermented, de-shelled, but not roasted. These have a different taste, and do not make good chocolate
Roasted or not they taste interesting and are useful as a whole flavour item in salads, baking, drinks etc. They are very high in fat so use with caution. The fat also has a very low melting point, so will make any warm liquid dish look oily
They are not to everyone's taste, unlike chocolate compound :-)
In both these case the beans have been fermented on the ground for a few weeks. Non-fermented cocoa beans are not very nice (I haven't ever had any though). From what I understand they compare to fermented beans like non-pickled olives are too pickled olives :-/
Roasted cocoa bean nibs, and roasted cocoa beans
Non-roasted cocoa bean nibs
Yes, cocoa nibs are simply cocoa beans that have been roasted and hulled to the point where they would be made into actual chocolate, (adding cocoa butter and sugar). You may also see cocoa (nib) powder, this is different to cocoa powder. Cocoa powder is simply cocoa nibs that have been blitzed into a powder. Cocoa powder is just the cocoa solids, meaning all the cocoa butter removed.
It's not a direct substitution, but you can use them in place of chocolate chips for a more grown up pure chocolate flavour without sweetness (although use sparingly as they are some what bitter), I've heard they're great in banana bread. You can use them in macarons even too! Too be honest if you ground them up you could always use them instead of cocoa powder.
Being that they have a no sugar and an earthy character you could use them in a host of savoury dishes as well. As mentioned in the previous answer in marinades, spice rubs, sauces (think mole) and even in jam!
Cocoa nibs on the left and cocoa beans on the right.
I won't bother with an image for cocoa powder and cocoa powder as the images are barely distinguishable and colours and hues in cocoa powder and cocoa powder are mainly dependable on the species and how it has been prepared (dutching, etc).
Cocoa nibs can be mixed and ground with other spices and used as a rub on meats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.252488
| 2012-02-11T07:11:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21245",
"authors": [
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97017"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20667
|
What styles of barbeque exist in American cuisine?
I'm originally from the Michigan thus i don't know much about barbeque due to the lack of barbeque establishments.
From my understanding (correct me if i'm wrong), there are several regional variations or styles of BBQ in the US. Each of type is defined by a BBQ technique or method: Texas (Brisket style), St. Louis, etc.
Thus my question; what other types of BBQ currently exist and what defines it?
This question is actually pretty broad - there are even substantial differences between various areas in Texas. I think it's hopefully still answerable, though, especially if someone's done a lot of traveling.
Its definitely answerable, its just a beast to tackle.
One option to make this tackleable is for someone to start an answer with what they know, and make it community wiki. But I'm not sure its worth the effort; the time would probably be better spent improving the entry on Wikipedia (and all the sub-articles it links to).
You may imagine my surprise---having grown up in one of the parts of Texas where "barbeque" means brisket, brauts and tamales---when some folks in Virginia served chicken at an event advertized as a barbeque. I tell y'all, folks in distant parts get up to the strangest things. And that's before we get into differences in cooking styles (smoked, grilled, pit cooked, ...); rubs (sweet, hot, savory) versus smoking versus sauces (in several distinct styles); and so on...
There's a great YouTube video by Rhett & Link called the The BBQ Song (A Review of BBQ in the Southern United States) that is actually a really good starting point for answering this question.
Here are the lyrics to the song:
In the mountains of Tennessee, they like a smoky sauce;
But over there in ol' Memphis, a dry-rubbed rib is boss.
The folks down in Georgia can't make up their mind.
You can give it to 'em sweet or spicy, and they'll say "that tastes alright."
You might think that South Carolinians are just a little bit off.
Would you believe their barbecue's yellow—with a mustard sauce?
Pork shoulder is the cut of choice in Mississippi
And they pride themselves on barbecue that's totally vinegary.
And Louisiana, them Cajuns,
They like to spice it up. They like to spice it up.
This is our review of barbecue,
In the southern United States.
And when my life is through,
Bury me in barbecue,
But make sure it's vinegar-based,
'Cause you know that slows decay,
And it's the style from our home state—North Carolina! (Solo!)
Mutton is big in west Kentucky, that's a fancy name for sheep.
But in the rest of the state, sliced pork butt is what they eat.
Arkansas is kinda like Georgia, a barbecue meltin' pot,
And when you ain't looking, them good ol' boys'll make that barbecue hot!
Alabama's got the strangest thing I've seen in my barbecue days,
'Cause their barbecue sauce is white, made out of mayonnaise!
Down in Texas, where the long-horn steer roam free,
They love to smoke their brisket—that's a big ol' slab of beef.
And down in Florida . . .
Is Florida a southern State?
No, it ain't.
This is our review of barbecue,
In the southern United States.
And when my life is through,
Bury me in barbecue . . .
People not from the South
Think barbecue means "cookout,"
And that's something they're wrong about.
(Spoken outro:)
Barbecue is NOT a verb, barbecue is NOT a grill.
Barbecue is MEAT prepared in a very special way,
Which varies depending on where you go.
That song is absolutely brilliant! Thanks. If you want the votes (and the best answer on this site) you should include in your answer a summary of the unique styles that they mention.
@Sobachatina: I thought of doing that, and will when I get a chance. Thanks.
Great answer! Of course, as a native Texan, I'm obligated to object to our barbecue being summarized as brisket (there's so much more!) but there's only so much you can do with a short summary.
No mention of KC Style or Illinois style... Let me just say that Illiniosians love us some good bbq pork.
@Chad- Illinois style BBQ? Isn't that like New York style picante sauce?
@Sobachatina "New York City!?"
There was recently an article in Eater that discusses the various kinds of BBQ which includes the youtube video that is mentioned by Callithumpian:
The traditional American barbecue belt stretches from the Carolinas in the East to Texas and Missouri in the West and from Kentucky in the North down through the deep South. While state lines de-mark significant political and civic parameters, barbecue is not quite so parochial, despite the common stereotype. What we see in the Carolinas for example, are wide swaths of a particular style — most significantly defined by the sauce used — that tend to cross states lines. The simple vinegar and pepper sauce of eastern North Carolina is also popular in the the Eastern part of South Carolina. And similarly, the tomato and vinegar-based sauce of the western Lexington Style bleeds into the Northwestern part of of South Carolina and indeed into Eastern Tennessee and Southern Kentucky.
Source:
Eater, "American Barbeque Style Guide". http://eater.com/archives/2014/07/10/american-barbecue-style-guide.php.
You're asking for an entire book worth of information. Rather than trying to answer this myself (heck, I don't even eat meat), I'll give you some references:
Wikipedia
Serious Eats (several more articles in that series, search around)
About.com
The aforementioned book
There are entire books written on the styles of barbecue within a single state (and not even a huge state at that!).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.252733
| 2012-01-21T22:43:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20667",
"authors": [
"Callithumpian",
"Cascabel",
"Chad",
"Knut Gjerden",
"Micke",
"Patrick L",
"Preston",
"Sobachatina",
"coredumperror",
"derobert",
"djangodude",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8930",
"ludolf",
"rfusca",
"zagolio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12744
|
Party scale sous-vide
I have used the chilly bin (cooler) sous-vide hack at home for a while and get excellent results for up to eight servings
I use extra insulation on the lid and a digital submersible flexible probe thermometer. The whole setup only loses around one degree C per hour with four servings
I want to go to party scale, say 30 to 40 servings, what are my chances of success?
Should I just get three or four chilly bins or just one large bin?
Has anyone had success at large scale sous-vide at home?
I am using it for chicken breasts and sliced fatty beef cuts. These are home-kill cuts so I know of the quality and cleanliness
Edit
In my 25L chilly bin for four serves of Chicken breasts, I half fill the chilly bin with tap hot water and add one jug (2L) of boiling water = 63°C. When I add the four pouches of chicken it drops to 62°C. A hour later I take out the chicken at 61°C, and add a small jug of tap cold water and I have 56°C, four beef cuts go in for an hour too. Temperature at end is 55°C
@hobodave In my local language "catering" would be a professional company? I was trying to tag it to the domestic side of life? How about just Party
Catering, while often done professionally is not restricted to that. We have an existing tag catering which is intended to cover exactly this topic. As a general rule of thumb, at this stage of our site if you're creating a new tag, you're probably doing it wrong. Please feel free to start a discussion on meta if you feel this warrants detailed discussion and community input. As it stands, I will be reverting this back to the existing tag, catering.
Has anyone had success at large scale sous-vide at home?
My scale was not quite as big as yours, but I cooked my Thanksgiving turkey for the extended family this year sous vide. Not only was the outcome a huge hit among the guests, but it was a huge relief for (your truly) the chef.
I want to go to party scale, say 30 to 40 servings, what are my chances of success?
In my experience, scaling up is one of the biggest advantages of cooking sous vide. Cooking 30-40 servings on a home stove would be a daunting prospect, to say the least. With sous vide, 15–20 servings is only marginally more work than 4–6. Again, I've not done 30–40, but it should scale accordingly.
Should I just get three or four chilly bins or just one large bin?
If your food will fit in one cooler, it will work, but I think you'll find it much easier to use more. The more water you have, the slower it will lose heat, and thus, the less you will have to pay attention to it. I also typically cook chicken and beef at separate temperatures, so I would probably have two coolers for chicken and two for beef.
Thanks for that. I will use more chilly bins. I don't have a water stirrer so concerned with even heat distribution when chilly bin stuffed full more than heat loss. I guess I can just give it a gentle stir now and then?
@tfd, I've never done the beer cooler hack (I have an immersion circulator), but I think you've hit the main issue. You need to make sure that the water surrounds each piece of meat and that the introduction of the meat doesn't have too large an effect on the water temperature, as you do not have a way to introduce heat to the system.
You have a submersible probe thermometer--I'd suggest you use that and monitor it closely, especially early on. I would guess that you will need to add heat a few times before the temperature stabilizes. Probably a few stirs will help as well. Again, this will particularly be true early on, when the temperature differential is the greatest.
The "chilly bin method" will work with small cuts of meat like individual sized portions. If you're just scaling up with individually sealed cuts, I would err on the side of caution with using more bins rather than a single larger bin (and even favoring multiple large bins since they will have higher heat retention). The reason for this is that in a large bin with a quantity of 30-40 cuts (or a small bin with 10+ cuts), you may be blocking water circulation and end up with temperature variations (cold spots) that will allow dangerous bacteria to breed. Make sure that you have plenty of "space" around each piece of meat with the "chilly bin method" and that you have a high enough water-to-meat mass ratio that you won't lose much heat during the cooking.
However, even with these warnings, I would never use the "chilly bin method" for a large cut of meat. Not even for a 2 lb pork tenderloin. The reason why is that doubling the circumference of a cut of meat can quadruple cooking time.
I have cooked 8 lbs of pork tenderloin (half of it fed 7 and the leftovers fed another large group meal) and a 10lb ham that would easily feed 15. Unfortunately as noted, large cuts of meat can take a long time to cook sous vide. It took 18 hours with my ham (thawed at 38F) and 10 hours with the tenderloins (from 23F).
Due to the time scale, you probably need active and controlled heating if you want to avoid falling into the "danger" zone for temperature when you are doing sous vide. It would be dangerous do do a 10 lb ham for 18 hours in any chilly bin or even 10 hours for the tenderloins (~2 lbs each x 4).
Active heating means a water oven or an immersion circulator or heater with air-bubble circulator. You can do sous vide on the cheap with PID controllers and a crockpot or many other cooking appliances.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.253218
| 2011-03-03T08:15:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12744",
"authors": [
"David",
"Eternal",
"Peanut",
"Ray",
"Stefan Bucur",
"TFD",
"acav",
"elias",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jmk",
"user26400",
"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
}
|
44984
|
Do I need to boil filled jam/chutney jars?
I want to start making chutneys/jams at home, but am unsure of exactly how to proceed. Friends I've spoken to
have said to sterilize the jars, then just put the hot jam/chutney in, and some online recipes seem to say this too - http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/7565/marrow-and-ginger-jam . There are also a good number of recipes which need an extra step- boiling the sealed jars (eg: http://www.freshpreserving.com/guides/IntroToCanning.pdf ).
Is one method better than the other? Does it depend on the recipe? Ideally I want the least amount of hastle (ie: boiling the jars after filling)
What's more hassle - boiling the jars after filling or having to throw out an entire batch of spoiled jam?
A few people I've spoken to sounded surprised and worried the jars would explode if I seal and boil them. Ending up with boiling jam all over me is unappealing.
You don't do the lids up tight when you boil them, just to the 'biting point'. This prevents any pressure build up. Then you tighten them fully. I should also mention that the amount of sugar in your recipe and the length of time you think the jam will be stored for will determine how necessary a second boil will be.
Recipes for preserving tend to be very specific. They're calibrated to balance factors like pH and sugar content in the final recipes, and of course to minimize the risk of spoilage. In general, you should always follow the steps as written in your recipe.
What I've generally observed is that jam-type recipes don't always include the final boiling step because the jam is already cooked (edit: and because per rumtscho, the sugar content is generally high enough to be inhospitable to bacteria). That differs from canning fresh fruits and vegetables which are largely raw. The purpose of the boiling step here is to kill off pathogens before they get a chance to settle in and spoil the contents, as no matter how well you clean them, there are likely to be some spores, bacteria, etc. remaining. Even a tiny initial population can grow and spoil your preserves over the length of time they'll be put away.
So, initial sterilization is always required to clean the jars themselves. The second boil pasteurizes the contents. If you've already done this as part of your preparation, as with a jam, then it most likely isn't required. It probably won't hurt, especially if you plan to put up your jams for an extended period of time (i.e. months or years) but you'll have to weigh the convenience of skipping that step against the potential risk of spoilage.
That said, let me state again for the record that if your specific recipe says to include the final boil, then there's likely a very good reason, and you should follow that instruction.
Yes you should boil them if you want them to be shelf stable, otherwise you run the risk of botulism spores taking hold in the jars (or other food poisoning). This is called water bath canning.
I recently made some pie filling this way (which is basically jam) and there were no explosions.
In fact, you can even can juice this way. It will not explode.
Edit: It is important to use a recipe specifically developed for water bath canning, as these recipes have been tested for proper pH or sugar levels such that it inhibits the growth of "baddies" in your jars.
You need to avoid infections so you should clean the jars in very hot water and then dry them
out. You could use a warm oven for this if you're using glass. However, it only has to be
warm, not at a cooking temperature. If you can't do this, you can let them dry normally but
you should ensure they are as dry as you can.
Everything will be quite hot so be careful, definitely a good reason for getting a Jam funnel as that will make life a heck of a lot easier when it comes to putting hot jam into hot jars.
Don't make the jars too hot as you don't want them to cool rapidly and then shatter.
If you are using flip top jars rather than screw top jars, you must take the rubber seal
off (thinking Kilner style jars here) as you can just pour boiling water on those and dry
them.
You should also consider getting wax discs to put over the jam/chutney if you are leaving
it for a while. This is probably more for jam than chutney due to the different ingredients
used.
I recommend going to your local home store and looking at the home cooking aisles for
the funnel and discs. I recommend also getting labels rather than using a permanent marker
if you can as its easier to re-purpose the jars later.
I know I need to sterilize the jars first, but do I need to boil them afterwards too?
I never have. I've never seen it required in any of my recipe books either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.253755
| 2014-06-19T12:12:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44984",
"authors": [
"Cleaner Vibe",
"Cosmo",
"Cypress Catering Company",
"Echilon",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Luquillo0200 spam",
"Matt",
"Simon",
"Spammer",
"TheFreshcleaning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5489",
"webcoredigital spam",
"ztk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22704
|
How can I get good spherification results with alcohol?
I've been trying to make chocolatini (vodka, godiva liqueur, baileys) spheres, but I've had some issues with separation of the alcohols. Also, I've been deciding whether the alginate solution should be placed into the mixture (vs. calcium lactate into the mixture)... and then placed into calcium lactate solution or alginate solutions respectively. Anybody have any suggestions or recipes for something like this?
Reverse spherification
You need to first make a sodium alginate bath, mix with one-third of the water to begin with using a hand blender and then add this to the final full proportions. You need to let this bath sit for a while to ensure there are no bubbles left. (Standard practice).
Add your calcium lactate to the mixture you are trying to spherify. Apparently thickening the the alcohol with xanthan gum can help to form better shaped spheres.
further information:
http://blog.khymos.org/recipe-collection/ <-- fantastic recipe collection
http://www.molecularrecipes.com/spherification/reverse-spherification/
I am pretty sure you want to reverse your mix.The Godiva Liquer has natural calcium in it so therefor you want to reverse your mixture and add sodium alginate to your liquid and bath in the calcium lactate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254155
| 2012-04-02T00:03:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22704",
"authors": [
"DFHobbs",
"Taylor Ackley",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54851",
"user51167",
"user54851"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24793
|
How can I make a BBQ sauce from my dry rub?
I would like to use my dry rub to make a BBQ sauce but don't know how.
You haven't given us much information to go on here, but I'm assuming your dry rub is a mixture of dried spices and possibly sugar.
If that's the case, I would fry some onions and garlic and add the spices (not the sugar, which will burn) to them while they soften. Then I would add the usual BBQ sauce staples - ketchup, vinegar, some water, and the sugar before simmering for a while to reduce and thicken. Put through a blender and sieve and you're good to go - if your spice rub is distinctive enough, it should translate through into a sauce well.
If there is a particular flavour that makes your dry rub stand out, you could add another 'version' of it to the sauce to emphasise it - for example, if you have fennel seeds in your rub, you could add a shot of aniseed liqueur like Pernod to the sauce, or if you have orange zest in the rub, use orange juice instead of water.
No matter the option, the rub will be an accent to the sauce, not a main flavor. So it would be best to envision it that way from the beginning. It's actually a really good way to coalesce the spices you would add to your sauce, so that you don't have to do duplicate work. Just make double the rub you normally would, reserve half of it (PLEASE be sure you do not cross-contaminate it with the meat you are rubbing), and add an amount commensurate to your personal taste to the wet ingredients. This works pretty well whether you're using tomato-, vinegar-, or mustard-based sauces.
You can save yourself the waste of making double, while preventing cross-contamination, by using one hand (clean) to scoop and sprinkle, and one hand (dirty) to pat and rub the spices. Typically I apply a honey and mustard glue to the cut before smoking or bbq, wash my hands, then proceed with rub after the glue has had a chance to adhere. Makes for great bark.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254286
| 2012-07-02T12:18:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24793",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27515
|
When is the best time to use my sourdough starter?
When I feed my sourdough starter and leave it out to make bread, it reaches max size in about 6 or 7 hours, then it begins to fall back. Is this the point at which I should make bread in order to get the maximum rise from my starter?
From my experience, using the starter when it is at it's peak activity will help your dough rise faster but not necessarily higher. There are a lot of factors that contribute to how much dough expands when baked including, but by no means limited to: loaf shape, docking pattern, oven temperature, and oven humidity.
Be aware that there can also be a point at which dough has risen too much and the structure and texture suffers.
Thanks, and yes I have overproofed my dough at times. Kind of a newbie but getting the hang of it.
I rarely care about the state of the starter dough. IMHO, it is one of the least important factors. The amount of impurities in the flour is the most important factor for my results at home. The "dirtier", the better. I get the best results by far with stone-milled organic flour from a regional producer.
Thanks I'm probably just over analyzing things. Having fun learning though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254472
| 2012-10-01T22:54:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27515",
"authors": [
"Albert Surf",
"Alex W",
"Coxer",
"InSight",
"Ivan allen",
"Sheri McDonough King",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62057",
"vinod"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23524
|
What does cream of tartar do in baking recipes?
I am making the following recipe for a birthday party: Pinata cookies!, and it calls for cream of tartar in the dough. This is the first time I've seen that in a cookie recipe and I can't figure out what the purpose of it is. Anyone know what cream of tartar does in baking recipes?
Wow, those are intricate!
As @rumtscho said, it is an acid and in your recipe above it is for activating the soda.
However, in general, recipes almost never call for cream of tartar for this purpose. Modern recipes, if they need acid to activate the soda, will call for baking powder instead which has the cream of tartar already mixed in.
Almost every time I see cream of tartar called for in a recipe it is when making a meringue. The acid denatures some of the egg white proteins and makes the eggs froth up faster and makes a stiffer meringue. Cream of tartar is good for this as it is dry so it doesn't throw off the liquid content and it has little flavor of its own.
Since this thread got resurrected by someone else, I'll add a comment, too. Most (all?) commercial baking powders use monocalcium phosphate, not cream of tartar. For most people that's a distinction without a difference; it's the fact that it's acid that matters. But for people who have kidney trouble phosphorous can be a problem; they should use home-made baking powder with baking soda and cream of tartar.
It is a weak acid. It purpose is to react with the baking soda for leavening. If you can't get it, you can use some other acid, e.g. citric acid, but it will introduce a slight taste of its own, and it is stronger than cream of tartar. You can also substitute baking powder instead of the baking soda + cream of tartar combination.
The cream of tartar gets in the way of sugar's natural tendency to bind together and prevents sugar crystals from forming. makeing a light pillowy texture rather than a sugary crunch
However if you use the baking powder instead of soda and tartar, u can still get the same identical effect by the temperature of your oven and time limit. Give it a whirl
Can you add some more details about adjusting temperature/time when using baking powder?
cream of tartar is a leavening agent, it makes my puff pastry puff.
Just cream of tartar, no baking soda?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254627
| 2012-05-02T11:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23524",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"Brad Rhoads",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kohen J Veldman",
"Nells Diner",
"Nikita Kohli",
"Pete Becker",
"Peter Armour",
"Redman",
"Richard ",
"Whirl Mind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53286",
"user53286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30014
|
Is it possible to whisk egg whites too much?
Just a though that I had today while whipping egg whites in the tabletop mixer. Can you whisk them 'till they separate, curdle, develop off flavour, strange aroma or texture ?
Suppose they could cook from the generated heat if you'd whisk them for an hour or so, but I'm thinking more short term.
If you whisk egg whites to much they will definitely separate.
Basically you are over tightening their stretchy proteins which squeeze out all the water. You are left with useless protein fluff floating on water.
The flavor and odor will not change, however. That would be a sign off spoiling and unrelated to the whisking.
I would add that adding salt or cream of tartar allows you to whip the whites with less risk of over-whipping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254852
| 2013-01-12T18:59:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30014",
"authors": [
"Apoorva Joshi",
"Cynthia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hybelkanin",
"Liz M",
"Mike Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23452
|
Why can heating things in a microwave make them soggy?
Why does heating something (like pizza) in an oven make it crisp but heating it in the microwave makes it all soggy?
I am not sure that this question is answerable at all - it seems to have a false premise. In my experience, heating anything made with dough in the microwave makes it dry and hard as a stone, not soggy. (and we have already answered why this happens).
@rumtscho You can definitely make soggy pizza (especially any of the American styles with plenty of toppings) by reheating it in the microwave. There's plenty of water from other ingredients. If it were thin crust and minimal toppings, sure, it'd get tough, especially after cooling, but the question is fine.
Possible duplicate of Why do microwave ovens make bread rubbery?
Microwaves specifically heat water molecules in the food. This turns them to steam, and because the air in the microwave is actually cool, the steam then condenses. There is often not proper air circulation to move the steam away from the food. Often times the outside edges of the food will not be soggy, but rather burnt, because they receive more energy and the water can totally vaporize.
For better results when reheating food, do not reheat your food on "high" or the default power. Reheat it at a lower setting for longer time. For pizza specifically, I heat it in the microwave only to room temperature and then finish it in the toaster oven or in a pan.
Thanks. Why in the conventional oven it is not soggy? Because of better air circulation?
Yes, the circulation will whisk the water vapor away from the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.254967
| 2012-04-29T07:05:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23452",
"authors": [
"Bfreckle",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"George",
"Kaushik",
"Phil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"rumtscho",
"smcg",
"susan",
"user53085",
"wscourge"
],
"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
}
|
5222
|
Culinary uses for bolted lettuce?
Does anyone have a culinary use for a lettuce which has bolted? Or do I throw it away?
Bolting being what gardeners call that moment when your lovely full bodied lettuce suddenly shoots skywards, in order to produce seed. Once salad crops have bolted the leaves still have a good colour, but they are usually thought of as unusably bitter.
Bolted lettuce tastes bitter; I'd suggest putting it in your compost pile if you have one. Of course, if you like bitter greens, you could make a salad of your lettuce (perhaps with a mix of other greens) with some dried fruit, toasted nuts, and a little goat cheese; the flavors might marry well.
While it might be too tough and bitter to eat as a raw salad, you might try it as a warm wilted lettuce salad with a sweet and sour dressing (bacon, bacon grease, onions, cider vinegar, sugar) to help mask bitterness.
Alternatively you might also try a Lettuce and Pea Soup:
Sweat onions in butter, season with salt and pepper. Add lettuce and wilt down. Add fresh or frozen green peas along with chicken stock and bring to a simmer until peas are soft and tender. Puree (maybe add a little chopped fresh mint) and adjust seasoning with additional salt, pepper, and sugar if the peas don't produce enough sweetness.
Taste it. If it is too bitter to be pleasant, bin it. In my experience, it usually is too bitter unless it has just barely started to bolt.
I've discovered our chickens are very keen on them and that seems to me to be the best use for them. Whilst this isn't a proper food-and-cooking answer the unwanted lettuces are (indirectly) coming back into the kitchen in the form of very lovely free range eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.255153
| 2010-08-15T09:24:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5222",
"authors": [
"3lectrologos",
"Nick Huffman",
"Omranic",
"Sisir",
"Tal Galili",
"gxingienterkhenal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10628",
"pygospa",
"tchakravarty"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20196
|
What does the "bold" setting on my Cuisinart coffee maker do?
I recently bought a Cuisinart coffee maker.
It has a button to switch between "regular" and "bold" when brewing. I have no idea what this actually does. I thought that usually bold coffee came from different beans or from the amount you used, not from a setting on the coffee maker.
What does this function do and when would I use it?
Does it brew for a longer time when you select "bold"?
didn't time the coffee, but it sounds like from the answers listed, that it probably is slower.
It seems this could be put to bed by reading the instruction manual.
@PrestonFitzgerald -- If only it were actually in the instruction manual...
Haha. Of course.
"Bold" appears to be a flavor term in general, usually referring to a type of bean; however, on coffee makers, it appears that the water drips more slowly, which allows more flavor to be extracted from the beans. This source confirms that this appears to be the case on at least one Cuisinart model.
Haha we posted at exactly the same time.
@Jay lol, so we did.
Actually you might be a couple seconds earlier AND you listed sources. I suppose you win ^^.
I hereby issue the following royal decree: "Bold" shall henceforth be the default setting on all things Cuisinart. This court shall not countenance wasted flavour. Make it so.
The problem is you don't want all of the flavor in your beans. Over-extracted coffee due to either too long a seep or too fine a grind has extremely bitter notes as you are extracting significantly more tannins than you want. In general the acids come first, then the body, then the bitterness.
When a coffee maker has a setting for bold coffee, this usually means that the amount of water that passes through the coffee grind and filter is slowed down so the water has a longer time to steep in the coffee grind which will produce stronger coffee.
I believe but cannot confirm, the water temp. Is also hotter along with slower dripping as stated above. Mine always seems hotter on Bold .
If you have a thermometer, you could verify this pretty easily. (I'd be curious to know what Cuisinart is up to...)
I found that because it takes longer to brew, the burner has more time to warm up the pot. This could explain why you find your coffee hotter on the bold setting. (I thought I commented here, but accidentally made an "answer". I need more coffee!)
I find coffee brewed on the BOLD setting to be a bit darker and more flavorful than when brewed on the REGULAR setting. I always go straight to the BOLD setting when it's an option so I can't speak to the flavor of REGULAR. The preceding explanations of how the process works makes a whole lot of sense too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.255340
| 2012-01-05T17:51:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20196",
"authors": [
"Albatros Umzüge Berlin",
"Chuu",
"Denis",
"DottyPhone",
"Hortitude",
"Jay",
"Lex Podgorny",
"Preston",
"Ray Lacey",
"Shadi Alnamrouti",
"SourDoh",
"Talysin",
"Thomas",
"Yamikuronue",
"datagod",
"fodma1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"kootaka",
"rumtscho",
"sumitani"
],
"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
}
|
8719
|
Why whole peppercorns?
Some recipes call for whole peppercorns. Why not crack them and use a lot less? In a cooking show I watched recently the host specifically said "Do not crack or grind them" but he did not explain why.
The only reason I can think of is to make it easier to take them out of a sauce or soup if you want the taste of pepper but not the texture/appearance.
Unless you're straining the soup, I'd assume that the whole vs. cracked isn't going to be helpful in removing them, although I will admit that I can't recall seeing a recipe that called for whole peppercorns that didn't require cracking them.
Part of the reason for whole pepercorns is the surface area -- if you crack it, you'll create more surface area, and for the same amount of pepper, there'd be more pepper flavor.
It's also possible that there's a difference between the chemicals available in the outer hull of the peppercorn vs. the middle, but I don't know how you'd compare, simply because the cracked pepper would be more overpowering.
Is surface area really a reason? Sure, more flavor per amount of pepper, but couldn't you just use less cracked than whole?
@Jefromi : the problem is I have no idea how to conduct a good test ... the cracked pepper is also going to expose 'fresh' oils ... it's possible that's actually the issue, if there are some that evaporate earlier, in which case pre-ground pepper might be an acceptable alternative to whole peppercorns, but freshly cracked pepper wouldn't.
Good point. It does sound like we're all on the same page - there is some difference in flavor, including more sharp peppery flavor from freshly cracked pepper. Hopefully someone will come along and enlighten us further!
With whole peppercorns you will eventually bite into one, giving a burst of peppery goodness. This works only if the dish is to be cooked enough to soften the corns. I love to do this in soups and meatloafs. It could also work in casseroles.
This is one of the reasons I use whole peppercorns in my beef stew--yum!
Peppercorn, like many other spices, contains volatile flavors and oils. By cracking the peppercorn, you expose it. This is why freshly ground pepper is stronger and has more complex flavors than pre-ground.
However, the keyword here is volatile. For longer cooking dishes, those flavors can and will cook out. By not cracking your peppercorn, you slow that breakdown process.
This is fairly applicable to a lot of spices, not just peppercorn. It's just that only peppercorn can be cracked or VERY coarsely ground.
I don't have a good answer for you, but I can share my experience
Usuaully I put whole peppercorns in when making stock or soup, I think it gives a more full body favor. At the same time, it doesnt over spice the dish. Cracked peppercorns will give out a more spicy taste.
I can think of two good differences in whole peppercorns: easy to add/remove from soups and stocks, and likely a more mellow taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.255883
| 2010-11-01T13:07:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8719",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Cecilia",
"Evan Johnson",
"Joe",
"Rewdy",
"RolandTumble",
"SmartCookie",
"Susan Joines",
"Tarius729",
"david",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"namita"
],
"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
}
|
11354
|
Why sweat but not brown?
Many recipes require that you sweat vegetables (celery, onions, etc). Why not saute them and brown them a little instead? Would not that develop the flavors even more? Why would you not want that?
Related: How do I sweat onions?
Onions
The more you cook an onion, the sweeter it is going to get; heat breaks down the volatiles and complex starches and converts them to sugars.
When an onion is completely brown then it is basically caramelized. The point of sweating onions is to draw out some of the pungency, but not all. If you cook them 'til they're brown (caramelized) then they will be very sweet, and not really retain any of that sulfurous "onion-y" flavour at all.
So it's not really a question of how much you're developing the flavours, it's a question of which flavours you're developing. The more sweetness you develop, the more of the original onion flavour you lose.
In my experience, caramelized onions are rarely used as an "ingredient" - they're more of a garnish or side dish, since they wouldn't really impart any significant flavour to the main dish.
Celery and other aromatics
These don't undergo the same drastic flavour changes that onions do, but the principle is the same: You sweat them to draw out moisture and aromas without starting a Maillard or caramelization reaction.
The key is that sweating is a preparation step. Yes, frying/sautéing these for longer would develop more flavour (or at least more of a certain kind of flavour), but you don't want to do that too early, since they're going to sit in the pan for a while longer; sweating means softening them up slightly without eliminating all of the aromas or the natural crunchy texture.
You generally don't brown vegetables during the preparation of a recipe; you only do that if you plan to eat them by themselves without any further cooking. If you brown them, then continue to cook, you will turn them into mush and possibly burn them, and there's no way to fix it after that happens.
thanks for that good answer. Note that my question is not specific to onions. But I suppose the your answer also applys to celery or other veggies that we typically sweat. I edited the question to be less "onion specific".
I've also updated the question to compare sweating to sauteing... That why I had tagged the question with the "cooking technique" tag in the first place.
@Sly: I've updated my answer for other vegetables (it's not really much different for those). As for the [cooking-techniques] tag, we're trying to get rid of it; it's really not very useful when you consider that over half the questions here are, generally speaking, about cooking techniques.
When you wrote "You generally don't brown vegetables during the preparation of a recipe" I was in total agreement. Coincidentally, I've just finished reading "50 Great Curries of India" http://www.amazon.com/GREAT-CURRIES-INDIA-PANJABI-CAMELLIA/dp/1856266966/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296688754&sr=8-3 (a great book by the way). It appears that many Indian Curry recipes use browned onions as an ingredient for flavor and as a thickening agent. -- I'm not arguing on your very good answer; just providing additional information on the matter.
Heating does not convert starches into sugar. It takes enzymes such as amylase to do this. The reason cooked vegetables taste sweeter is that cell breakdown makes the sugars more immediately accessible to the tastebuds, and caramelisation oxidises sugars into caramelin and other molecules that give a richer and sweeter taste.
It's an interesting question. Without a specific recipe, it's hard to say if either technique is better than the other. You can always caramelize half of the onions and use them with half of the recipe to compare the tastes and see what you prefer.
I say you need to use your judgement to decide if you want that different flavor that caramelizing offers. For instance, are the onions going to be a main or strong secondary flavor or are they just there to create a more complete taste?
Examples:
Liver and Onions - The onions are traditionally very caramelized and cooked as the strong, sweet flavor goes nicely with the soft liver.
Peppers and onions for hot dogs - The onions (and peppers) are sweat to remove the initial strong flavor. The less cooked flavor pairs better with the hot dog.
Stocks/Soups - They just sweat the vegetables to create a subtle vegetable flavor. They're not trying to create a sweet broth.
Also, what about time? You'll probably save yourself a third to half the time to just sweat onions instead of browning them. If all you're aiming to do is remove some of the strong flavors, then just sweat them. Otherwise, try both and see what you like more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.256254
| 2011-01-22T16:26:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11354",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amit",
"Mark Wildon",
"Sly",
"Tom Mango",
"alwaysondrm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"user23319",
"user23320",
"yatso"
],
"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
}
|
9077
|
Does the use of kosher salt vs. table salt lead to a higher overall sodium intake?
When using kosher salt one has to use more kosher salt than table salt to achieve the same level of saltiness. Does it mean that using kosher salt causes one to consume more salt (or sodium)?
Note that kosher salt is not actually "kosher", since minerals are not an object of religious diet prescription. The name comes from its use: kosher salt is used to make OTHER aliments kosher, such as extracting the blood from veal or poultry.
Essentially, it should be called "Koshering salt".
@ceejayoz and it often is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_salt :-)
Kosher salt is the same thing (though I'm pretty sure it's not iodized), but the crystals are less dense and larger. There's more air in each piece, and they don't pack together as tightly. That means you have to put a larger volume of kosher to get the same amount of actual sodium chloride (salt).
Think of it as the difference between ice cubes (regular salt) and snow (kosher). Both are water, but ice cubes are way denser than a scoop of snow. When melting it, you'll need more volume of snow to come out to the same amount of water as you'd get from a few ice cubes.
So no, it's not worse for you.
Also, what's theoretically bad for you in salt is sodium, FYI. But sodium isn't bad for you. It's actually critically necessary in your body. What can be bad for you is way too much sodium. How much sodium you can tolerate safely is based on some hereditary factors and how well hydrated you stay.
I think the comment is important enough to be part of the answer. The supposed dangers of sodium are almost 100% myth. You can overdose on sodium and go into hypernatremia - if you're ingesting salt in large quantities at the same concentration as sea water. Most people who aren't on a boat would be gulping down fresh water before they got anywhere near fatal sodium levels. But that's all incidental really; "bad for your health" implies complications associated with long-term sodium consumption and that's just hokum.
So the numerous studies on salt level intake are all wrong? That news! If you want a salt taste with less salt, try finely powdered salt. Just process salt in a food processor till it looks like icing sugar, and dust onto dish
@TFD, @Aaronut: Not that this is a medical advice site, but there have been plenty of studies suggesting that salt isn't quite so bad for you, and it's hard to say how valid a lot of hyped-up nutritional research is anyway. As long as I'm off topic, great article: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
I kind of wanted to make it a side topic, since it was only tangential to the actual question. Perhaps there's a better way to do that, but I don't know one. And I sure don't want to even hint about medical advice here--I figured laying out the most anodyne scientific line was appropriate, however. All in hopes of giving some tools for finding more info if desired.
Specifically: 1 teaspoon Diamond Crystal Kosher salt = 48 grams,
1 teaspoon iodized salt = 87 grams - almost twice as dense. I don't have any Morton's Kosher handy to measure right now, but if I remember right it is between the two.
I figured you'd chime in, @TFD. Pray tell, what are all of these "numerous studies?" Most current scientific (i.e. not political) data indicates that salt consumption is relatively constant and low-sodium diets may actually cause harm. Hell, they even knew it was junk science back in 1997. I really don't want to stray into nutrition territory, but I've recently seen an increased badgering about low-fat, low-sodium diets and it has to stop now.
I apologize for dragging this off-topic, bikeboy, but reading this question (and the predictable reply to my comment) makes me think that we need to start adopting a NPOV policy for health/nutrition. While it's certainly possible for certain individuals to be on low-sodium or other diets as prescribed by their doctors, I think it's necessary for any question/answer that implies (unproven) general health benefits of any particular diet to come with a big disclaimer so that we don't promote the ongoing spread of such misinformation.
I try to stay with NPOV anyway, but I think this is a great example of where it's important to remind folks that we need to keep such policy in mind. There are a lot of doctors out there still advising their patients about restricting salt--many for reasons we can't hope to know about an individual on here--and I sure don't want to be the one who convinces some poor soul to ignore his/her doctor in favor of my potentially ignorant advice.
Kosher salt and table salt are equally "salty", however, kosher salt is less compact, which means that the same volume of salt will not be equally salty.
PepsiCo (owner of Lays chips) developed a new custom salt for potato chips, which allows them to use far less salt to achieve the same level of saltiness. This will allow them to cut sodium levels by 25%. So it's certainly true that the form of the salt has an affect on the amount of sodium you are consuming compared to the saltiness of the food. Some of the comments posted on this answer call into question whether you should care about sodium content. Assuming you should care, then it's worth considering it.
@Sobachatina: Whoops. Fixed.
@Mr Shiny: this was very interesting: "Normally, only about 20% of the salt on a chip actually dissolves on the tongue before the chip is chewed and swallowed, and the remaining 80% is swallowed without contributing to the taste"
That's interesting. Without having articulated it that way in my mind, this is why I cook with enough salt that I almost never want to add any at the table. It seems to take a lot more salt at the table to make a served portion of something properly salty than it does to make the whole dish properly salted. Now I can go around annoyingly spouting the 80/20 principle on this subject with at least the tiniest shred of evidence to back it up!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.256656
| 2010-11-12T22:29:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9077",
"authors": [
"A.Kang",
"Aaronut",
"Ameer Moaaviah",
"Arun",
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Josh",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mr. D",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"RandyS",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Tamara",
"Tessa",
"bikeboy389",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"khylo",
"user18580",
"user22979"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24786
|
Eating food from a slightly rusting cast iron dutch oven...is it safe?
I have a cast iron dutch oven. It has a self-basting lid, basically it has a grid of little cone shapes on the underside of the lid. The idea is that liquid condenses on underside of the lid and these little cones help the liquid drip back down onto the stuff that is cooking.
I noticed that the tips were a little rusted but I decided to cook a one pot chicken and rice dish in it any way. It the food safe to eat? I couldn't discern any type of rust flavor or anything in the food. I searched around on the web a bit and couldn't really get a straight answer about eating rust. All I've read is that you have to injest quite bit to be of any concern. I think that cooking and eating the food this one time probably won't put my health at risk.
Does anyone have a more definitive answer on this?
I'm just curious ... why did you ask after cooking, instead of before? :)
@thursdaysgeek. My gut feeling was that it probably didn't matter. But after the fact I just wanted to be sure. You're right though...I should have asked before.
You're going to die horribly from cooking in a rusted pan!
Just kidding! A little iron in your food isn't going to hurt you, and can actually help prevent anemia. To quote On Food and Cooking (pg 790): "Excess iron is readily eliminated from the body, and most people can actually benefit from additional dietary iron."
Now, to back this up further:
You won't get much iron out of the pan unless you cook something acidic in it. Rust is insoluble in water without acid present, and in order to become soluble you have to convert to iron nitrate, sulfate, or chloride, according to the solubility table. Nothing you cook in there is likely to cause the necessary reactions to render it highly soluble.
I found a source quoting specific numbers for iron from cast iron cookware, if you are concerned. The gist is that most cooking in cast iron added from 1 to 5 mg of iron to the food, with the highest numbers coming from acidic foods with tomatoes. Applesauce was the highest, good for about 7 mg.
This level of iron intake is quite safe and healthy. To give you a point of comparison, the FDA suggests iron intake of 8 mg/day for men, and 18 mg/day for women, and 80% of the world may be iron deficient. Iron toxicity occurs at about 45 mg/day. So, as I initially stated, you're perfectly safe cooking in your cast iron, and are probably helping your health rather than hurting it!
Nice answer. Is it really so difficult to form iron sulfate though? It seems like one egg would have enough sulfur to turn the whole pan into iron sulfate. Is something else required?
I can confirm having cooked mac 'n cheese in rust-coloured water and feeling fine the next day. Rusty nails and other rusty items of that sort are normally dangerous because of where they've been, not because of the rust.
@Sobachatina: Sulfur in eggs is trapped in the form of cysteine and methionine, so not readily available for inorganic metal salt reactions. However, some small amount of sulfating reactions might account for why eggs do leach a relatively higher amount of iron out of pans.
@user19831 I believe that's in comparison to heavy metals, which aren't removed by normal processes and accumulate over time. Normal treatment for those is administration of chelating agents to bind the heavy metals for removals. Iron may not be as readily excreted as some other metals, but it does have processes that control the rate of uptake and has removal processes. Yes, that is primarily gastrointestinal or menstrual bleeding -- or in a professional kitchen, using knife skills at high speed. :) The amount of iron from a rusty pan should be no problem though due to low availability.
I'm not an expert, but here is my reading of the facts:
Ingesting Iron (III) oxid, or rust, in small doses will not cause iron poisoning. Iron in this form is insoluble and will, I assume, pass through the digestive system.
There is an hereditary condition called haemochromatosis where iron accumulates in the body. I wouldn't imagine rust affects this, but like I say, I'm not an expert.
I have a similar dutch oven which is also rusty (ok, very slightly rusty) and my family have survived eating from it.
It's worth noting that it is possible, and dangerous, to consume too much iron in the form of iron dietary supplements.
Iron oxide reacts with the hydrochloric acid in your stomach to produce iron chloride, which is soluble in water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.257159
| 2012-07-02T04:34:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24786",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anna Taurogenireva",
"BobMcGee",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95528",
"milesmeow",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82339
|
How much is a "splash"
I've run into several recipes which asked for a "splash of" water, soy sauce, etc. How much is a "splash"? I assume if it's something more concrete like 1/4 cup, they would have said so. Since it's a "splash", I just poured some (1/2 a cup) water into a coffee cup and poured once around the pan, although, my control isn't that good so I probably ended up pouring 1/4-1/3 of a cup.
Everything still tasted ok but I'm just curious what a "splash" is.
It's a hint for "the recipe writer doesn't know either and/or doesn't want to guarantee a blind flavor balance and/or can't be arsed" :)
@rackandboneman: +1 for "or can't be arsed". Splashes, dashes, and, most definitely, rashes should be avoided in recipes. Pinches too, if you ask me.
Yes, because they can lead to recipe failures, unintended mashes, and thus flashes, gashes, crashes and (hopefully not) lashes.
If you're lucky, you get hashes.
I'd have to do some testing to get firmer values for things, but they're still ranges, as it depends on what you're pouring it from. Here's what I typically use for imprecise measurements:
Liquids
dash : a quick shake from a bottle with a restricted top. If it doesn't have one of those plastic things in the neck of the bottle, cover the opening partially with your thumb. (likely less than a teaspoon)
splash : From a bottle with an unrestricted top, tip the bottle 'til the liquid starts flowing, then pull it back. (maybe a couple of tablespoons at most)
glug : start pouring at a steep angle, stop when the bottle attempts to aspirate (air is sucked back into the bottle, making a 'glug' sound; very dependent on the size of the bottle opening and liquid's viscocity; might be a couple of tablespoons to a half cup)
Solid powders/granules
dash : a shake or two from a container w/ a restricted top (eg, a shaker top on spices)
pinch : what you can pick up between your thumb and one finger (note: dependent on what you're picking up; you can pick up more flaked salt than fine salt in a pinch)
heavy pinch : what you can pick up between your thumb and two fingers
Misc
smidge : very small, but I have no clue. I typically use a dash or a pinch.
Should I start a wiki for this, like the translation one? (which has 'tin' ... and knob/pat/stick of butter)
Fine by me, provided you're also going to include the generous, good and solid dash/splash/glug, and the generous, semi-heavy and slight pinch. Perhaps we can base it of musical notation? A quarterdash, a semisplash, a hemidemisemiglug, a full pinch?
@WillemvanRumpt : I'd make it community wiki, so people can add whatever other strange measurements they knew of
Nothing wrong with it of course (I actually agree on the pinch, that's how I interpret it). But wouldn't the list be highly subjective? Is your splash my splash, your dash my dash? (Un-)restrictedness of the bottle top (larger/smaller) and size of the shaker top make it even less accurate. In "the glug" case: It's the difference between 30-45 ml to 125 ml. It would be more of Cabinet of Curiosities than anything else.
@WillemvanRumpt : maybe we need to list all of the possible interpretations, so that we can determine a range for them.
I would measure a splash by the second - that is, holding the container (usually bottle) about a foot above the pan, and pour about a second or two's worth of liquid. Or to put it another way, stop pouring about when the stream of liquid hits the pan and consider that mid-air-stream a (medium) "splash".
I would usually get a couple tablespoons of liquid pouring this way. Of course, stronger liquids usually come in smaller mouthed bottles so less gets poured - for soy sauce, I'd get a few teaspoons, for water (from a cup) a few tablespoons, for something like liquid smoke - a few drops since the bottle's opening is very small.
More generally speaking, I've always considered "splash", "dash", "sprinkle" and other such measurements to be an equivalent for, like oft cited for salt and pepper, "to taste". Or perhaps "to texture", depending on the what-where-when that's being added. The recipe doesn't have a measurement because it isn't recipe-critical how much is actually added, it's just to the preference of whoever is cooking.
Yes, Megha, thank you for your usual breath of fresh common sense. +1 for "doesn't have a measurement because not critical how much".
+1. The "to taste" in the last paragraph seems a better approximation for any of these vague tiny measurements than any quantification.
If you hold the bottle a foot above the pan, you may get more 'splash' (and subsequent cleanup) than you wanted.
@Joe - it depends on how high the sides are, and what it's being poured into - most of my pans will take that much easily, only the frying pan would need consideration. Then again, once I have an idea how much I want, I can pour from closer if the pan is shallow or the contents unaccommodating - it's just easier to visualize the amount from a distance when explaining
I think you're right. It's a lot shorter than writing "1 tablespoon, or to taste" which is a form I've seen in the past.
A splash is a small amount, definitely not 1/4 of a cup. This is obviously a subjective thing, but I'll try to put some numbers on it. Once I did a quick measurement of my soy sauce bottle to get an idea of how much I was using when I added a few shots (the bottle had a pin hole top and the soy came out in bursts when the bottle was shaken, I call that a shot). It turned out with that bottle about 6 shots was a teaspoon. If a recipe called for a splash of soy I'd have done 5 or 6 shots with that bottle, so I would call a splash of something about a teaspoon, aka 5ml, maybe up to 10ml. It's a non-specific amount so you don't need to be too worried about it.
Why don't recipes say to add a splash of something instead of an actual measurement? It could be laziness, the author didn't measure the amount used so adds subjective amount (I've been guilty of that once or twice), or rather than laziness the author didn't have time to grab a measuring spoon as the water was required quickly. It could also be the author's style choice, favoring a freestyle approach to cooking rather than specifying everything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.257518
| 2017-06-12T05:53:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82339",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Joshua Engel",
"Lorel C.",
"Megha",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39423
|
How to make flavoured rice like uncle ben's chinese rice?
What can I add to my rice cooker to create a similar flavour? Also I find, rice comes out quite dry even when I put more water? There's a slight oily sheen to it. Will this help?
Thanks heaps!
You'll probably want to ask this as two questions -- one about it drying out even after additional liquid, separate from the attempt to recreate the boxed mix.
I've never read it, but there's a rice cooker cookbook by Roger Ebert (yes, the film critic). It's possible that there might be something similar in there.
Does your rice cooker have an automatic shutoff? I wonder if it's just shutting off too late, so that if you add more water it just cooks it off.
When you say your rice is too dry, what do you mean? Is the rice still crunchy from being undercooked, or has the rice cooked fully and then begun to dry out?
If you're Canadian and talking about the Chinese Fried Rice, see sourd'oh's answer. But if you're from the UK (or maybe other places?) and are asking about the Chinese Style Rice...
The UK site has an ingredient list!
Steamed long grain rice with sesame oil, soy sauce, garlic & ginger
Ingredients: Pre-steamed LOng Grain Rice (85%), Onions, Red Peppers, Sunflower Oil, Flavour, Sugar, Garlic, Ginger, Chives, Salt, Toasted Sesame Oil, Soy Sauce, Chili Oil, Spices
You've got some of the main ingredients you'll want there: soy sauce, sesame oil, red pepper, onion, garlic, ginger, and chili oil. By far the simplest thing would be simply to mince the red pepper, onion, garlic and ginger and toss them in along with all the other seasonings (soy sauce, sesame oil, and chili) to cook with the rice. For the chili, you could use some kind of ground chili powder instead; it's just there to add some heat. If you want this to be really easy, you could try paprika, onion powder, and garlic powder instead. The flavor will be a little different, though. (Ground ginger is very different from fresh, though, that's harder to substitute for.)
For "flavor" and "spices", you may not need too much, but I'm guessing you'll want some umami - you could try a bit of fermented soybean paste (or a premade Asian sauce containing plenty of it), nutritional yeast like sourd'oh suggested, or whatever your favorite is.
As for the rice drying out, I'm not sure. My best guess would be that your rice cooker is just going a bit overboard and overcooking your rice. That'd explain why adding more water doesn't help - it just automatically cooks it longer with similar results. If that's it, you might have to just try to time it and shut it off a bit sooner than it wants.
The ingredients on Uncle Ben's Chinese Fried Rice are:
LONG GRAIN PARBOILED RICE, SOY SAUCE (SOYBEAN, WHEAT, SALT), DEHYDRATED VEGETABLES (RED BELL PEPPER, CARROT, PARSLEY, ONION, GARLIC), MODIFIED CORN STARCH, GLUCOSE SOLIDS, HYDROLYZED PLANT PROTEIN (WHEAT, SOY), MALTODEXTRIN, AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, FLAVOUR, SPICES, HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL (SOYBEAN, COTTONSEED), SILICON DIOXIDE, SALT, CARAMEL, VINEGAR SOLIDS.
First off, the rice: In a rice cooker, I wouldn't use parboiled. Just get regular long grain white rice, but be sure to rinse it pretty well. Extra starch left on the rice can cause it to come out sticky. When you complain about your rice being too dry, I'm not sure what you mean, so perhaps leaving a bit of starch in would help?
You can easily just add a bit of soy sauce to the water that you'll cook the rice in.
As for the vegetables, if you can find dehydrated vegetables, great. Otherwise, I'd just saute fresh veggies and fold them in at the end.
Next we have some industrial ingredients that will be harder to replicate at home. The corn starch I'd skip. Glucose solids can be replaced with a pinch of sugar. Hydrolyzed plant protein and autolyzed yeast extract could be replaced with a bit of nutritional yeast or some liquid seasoning like Maggi or Kitchen Bouquet.
Flavour and Spices get a bit tricky. I'd guess a bit of black pepper and a dash of sesame oil, which can be thrown into the water at the beginning. You'll need to adjust those to taste, of course.
Hydrogenated vegetable oil can be replaced with whatever you saute the veggies in and the sesame oil you threw on the rice.
Silicon dioxide is just an anti-caking agent to keep it from clumping up in the package, so you can skip it.
Salt, caramel, and vinegar solids: Your liquid seasoning (Maggi, Kitchen Bouquet) should provide these. You should, of course, salt it to taste though.
I am an engineer by training; if I can't give you an exact answer, I give you the information you need to do functionally the same thing. As such, this is not a perfect answer, but it will help you get rice cooked (and edible) and it will help you make the dish in question.
Cooking Rice
I avoid rice cookers. Every time I use them, the rice is always too dry. This doesn't seem to happen for multitudes of roommates I've had who use them though.
When I make white rice (any length, but not arborio rice) I usually use 1 part rice to 2 parts water. Bring the water to a boil, add the rice, cover it with a lid and simmer for 20 minutes. Do not open the lid until the 20 minutes are up; rice needs pressure to cook correctly. If it comes out dry or crispy, turn down the heat, and it doesn't hurt to add a little extra water.
Brown and wild rices will cook differently. If you use the above cooking method on them, you'll probably have to throw it away (it can be salvaged, but it takes some knowledge).
Making Fried Rice
As far as Uncle Ben's Chinese rice goes...I've never had it. I've started learning how to cook various Asian dishes at home simply because I love Asian food enough that I want to know anything and everything about it.
That being said, making fried rice from scratch isn't too hard once you figure out the sauces/flavors you want in it. Frequently, I will use sesame oil instead of olive oil (I never cook with vegetable oil, particularly in a wok where temperatures are higher, which breaks down vegetable oil relatively easily). Not only is sesame oil safer with high temperatures, but it also adds a distinctly Asian flavor. After I'm done with all the cooking, I like to add a little teriyaki sauce, Hoisin sauce or Five-spice powder (also known as Chinese five spices) depending on my mood. I've even had roommates who will throw in a splash of rice wine while it's cooking. (These are not necessarily authentic uses for these flavors; I am not even Asian by association.)
Take left over rice. If it's cold from the fridge, even better, although not necessary. Put 1-2 tablespoons of sesame oil in a large frying pan or wok and add some heat. Before the oil gets way too hot, put the rice in and try to evenly coat it in the oil while heating it up. Add bits of cooked meat, tofu, vegetables, or whatever else you'd like in your fried rice. Once the rice is warm enough (you can even brown it a little if you'd like) and the vegetables are cooked to your liking, take it off the heat and add any additional sauces you'd like. Be sparing with the sauces though; you don't want to over power the flavor of the food and a lot of sauces are potent and chalk full of sodium (even MSG depending on where you get it). You can even sprinkle some green onions and/or sesame seeds on top.
Uncle Ben's website also has a handful of Asian recipes, although most of them look like normal rice with something prepared served on top.
I'm not sure that this is functionally the same thing. You're focusing on fried rice, which is not what the OP is asking about. And while the question does ask about the rice drying out too much, it's definitely interested in the flavor, which as you say, you don't actually know. So this is a lot of good advice that's sort of related to the question, but I'm not sure how useful it is as an answer. (Note that whoever downvoted can come to those sorts of conclusions even if they don't know the "correct" answer - there's nothing wrong with downvoting.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.257989
| 2013-11-13T21:29:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39423",
"authors": [
"Alice",
"Anandologist",
"Cascabel",
"Cassepied ",
"Faris",
"Joe",
"Matt Butler",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie Kay Shockley",
"Stuart",
"asddafsgdsfgdfg",
"gawkface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91830",
"mattbloke",
"rayewillow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25409
|
How to imitate commercial fried chicken?
I'm trying to develop my own "secret" fried chicken recipe, something that is similar to Popeye's or Church's. I'm a LONG ways from getting there. Here's what I did in my last experiment:
Chicken was marinated in buttermilk with Cajun spices and Tabasco
sauce for 24 hours
I used a deep fryer and canola oil. 175C.
Prior to "dressing" the chicken, I let the excess buttermilk brine drip off the chicken. I then seasoned it with Cajun seasoning
I made a batter using an egg, self rising flour, milk, baking powder
I also tried using just plain flour for breading
Results:
Using the batter, the chicken came out looking burned and too smooth (didn't have that crunchy look). It burned too much that I couldn't finish cooking the chicken.
Using the flour, the chicken came out with a thin crust, somewhat crispy, but also too burnt.
Dipping the chicken in the batter AND then flour gave a bulky & crunchy look. However, again, the result looked too burnt.
Modifications:
I then changed the the breading. I used bread flour and corn starch. I dipped the chicken in the batter again, then used the new breading. The bread flour was a bit lighter. And the corn starch was even more lighter. But they were still burn looking (just lighter shades). I also dropped the temperature to 160C.
Results:
Burnt chicken whose crust wasn't really sticking to the skin/meat.
Questions:
Any suggestions on what I can do to improve? I'm guessing something in the batter is causing the burnt coat. What flour should I use? What can I do to make the coat stick to the skin/meat? Any other suggestions on what to do?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5764/67
160C sounds about right for cooking oil temp. I typically shallow fry on the stovetop for about 10-12 minutes for the thighs and then transfer them to a 175C oven to finish cooking (if needed) and then repeat with the breasts. I would stay away from "battering" if you are looking to replicate something like popeye's.
A few things I do to ensure a nice thick crunchy crust:
Put your flour (seasoning or not thats up to you) in a very large zip top bag or paper bag will work too so that when you put the chicken in you can "tumble" it around to be coated like in a dryer. I find that this is cleaner and more effective in creating a crust.
pull out the dredged chicken, redip it in the buttermilk and then throw it back in the bag to tumble.
let the chicken rest on an elevated rack for 15-20 minutes (up to an hour ideally) to allow the dredge to set and adhere to the chicken well. This helps prevent the dreaded "skin falling off the meat" phenomenon.
Do you know of any additives to help prevent the "skin falling off the meat" problem?
are you referring to the skin of the chicken or the breading falling off the chicken? to adhere the skin to the meat you could use something called transglutaminase (meat glue) but that's probably above and beyond what is necessary for a typical fried chicken dinner.
One trick to get the really awesome crunchy coating is to add some buttermilk to your flour mixture and mix it up briefly with your fingers. That way you are getting little balls of flour mixture sticking to the outside of your chicken that turn into the super crunchy layer when fried.
I've heard this technique, also. However, the suggestion was to use water instead of buttermilk. What about crackers? Would that help?
i think crackers would burn more easily. Something to also keep in mind is that water is flavorless so whenever you see someone adding water for moisture purposes you can always add some other liquid that can impart more flavor.
Most fried chicken (Church's and Popeyes) is NOT made in a pressure cooker. THAT is the provence of the greasy stuff known as KFC:-)
Batter mix and chicken must be ice cold, oil temperature should be at 340 degrees.
Dip 2 identical pieces of chicken in lots of flour and press hard on the pieces to coat.
Rap the two pieces together gently to remove excess flour
Dip in WATER "mixture" (more on that later) BRIEFLY, then place the two pieces back in flour and repeat #2 and 3.Do NOT use buttermilk or any other milk!!!!!!!!
Place the two pieces in a deep fryer, NOT a skillet. Dark meat for 12-15 minutes, white for 10-12 minutes. 160-165 degrees internal temperature.
Stir chicken every 3-4 minutes. First stir after 2 minutes. No sticking, even cooking.
Drain on rack for a minute.
That should solve the texture and the color problem. No spices are in the flour. Both Church's and Popeyes use a secret marinade that is injected at the processing plant directly into the meat. In the water dipping mixture there is salt, MSG, and garlic and ?. Obviously both the marination and the mixture are a secret so the taste will need some experimenting. The flour is regular flour and contains no rising agents and the dipping mixture is as thin as water. The flour coating is very thin.
DO NOT OVERCROWD in the fryer!!!!!!! A 50 pound fryer (a block of shortening) can cook about 40 pieces, so if you use a 5 pound quantity of shortening (10% of a block) it stands to reason that you could only cook 4 pieces at a time in 5 pounds of shortening. Also, keep in mind that those large fryers have "cold zones", areas near the bottom that don't get hot and thus don't cook the crumbs which will burn the oil AND those fryers are filtered 2-3 times per day. The cold zones are created by having the burner coils or gas tubes halfway up the shortening, something you cannot duplicate on a stove. You might be able to do so with a dedicated fryer with movable coils, but I doubt you will find that. Also, there should be a wire screen in the bottom of the fryer as you do not want the chicken lying on the hot surface of the bottom or getting it contaminated with old crust that has fallen off. Tough job at home:-)
+1 for don't overcrowd. But what size is a "piece"? Do you mean half a chicken, or some other size?
In us parlance a piece is an eighth. A wing leg breast or thigh cut to our usual practices.
I have usually failed in making a good fried chicken in the past because it always ends up boring and tasting like home made, and not in a good sense!
A few days ago I was looking for recipe's to replicated KFC and came across a few, so far I have only tried one. It totally failed! It was an eggwash with buttermilk that you dipped in a plain flour and seasoning mixture, far too much salt by the way, it tasted quite horrible.
I made this today, but I also had some genius idea to freeze the chicken and take it right out and fry it, that was pretty dumb of course, but I think the chicken would have failed anyway because it did not have a good texture.
However, a few days ago while looking for the KFC recipes I also came across a youtube video about Korean fried chicken called "Yangnyeom tongdak". I did not have the potato flour that was supposed to be added so I ended up replacing that with mostly rice flour which was anyway in the recipe and then some additional plain flour.
Anyway, you put salt and pepper on the chicken at first, and then you obviously just throw the dry mix right over it with flour and baking powder, then an egg n top.
I mixed the dry stuff together first because I just wanted to make sure it was all mixed to prevent any mistakes, then poured it over the seasoned chicken and an egg right on top.
I then mixed it all together and it was pretty sticky and I was a bit sceptical because it did not seem to stick properly to the chicken, there were alot of empty "gaps" on the chicken where there was no batter and I tried just pressing some of the batter unto empty spaces. Overall it was not so much of a work actually, just that I was doubtful.
Anyway I ended up frying it according to instructions and the chicken turned out absolutely beautiful, it had a wonderful crunch and it looked perfect with little pieces of batter making it look extra crunchy and all.
I made the sauce to it but you can skip that part and just eat the chicken as it is, and OMG that batter around the chicken became absolutely wonderful. I have never... I must say it beats KFC and all the chicken I ever tried and it did not taste homemade at all.
This is anyway the homepage where the recipe is:
http://www.maangchi.com/recipe/yangnyeom-tongdak
As I wrote, just skip the sauce unless you want to try it, the sauce was also really tasty though I made it with less chili sauce.
I suppose you can pre-season it however you want, but my suggestion is that you try following the recipe the first time. I do not know how it tastes with the potato flour since I never tried that. But with the rice flour it was wonderful anyway.
I also read just today that it really is better to pre-season instead of seasoning the batter since the seasoning can obviouosly burn faster, and so I will be doing that in the future.
I made the korean chicken yesterday and the failed KFC today, so I am kind of spoiled now and put off by anything not korean chicken with rice flour batter.
I am going to try out more recipes just to find out if it really is the secret to mix the flour and egg in that sticky way also, so I will see what happens.
Welcome to the site! Thanks for the contribution, but I'm not really sure answers the original question - it sounds like you're making something different, not replicating KFC or Popeye's style fried chicken. While I can believe it's really good (and perhaps the OP would like it better), it doesn't seem like it answers the question as stated.
This helps a lot. I'm not necessarily trying to copy KFC or Popeye's, but I am looking for something that can get me in the right direction of something "commercial" yumminess. Thanks.
Some of the more volatile organic compounds in stuff like Tabasco will burn very quickly. The fact that you still say that it looks burned when just using flour leads me to suspect that the temperature of the oil is staying too hot? Or perhaps the pieces are too big and need to be cooked for too long?
A simple coating for chicken is
4 part plain flour
1 part paprika
1 part black pepper
1 part fine salt
Try using that with small pieces of chopped up breast meat for some very tasty popcorn chicken
I used a temperature controlled deep fryer. Alton Brown says not to season the flour as that might burn; he seasons the chicken and then dredges it. I was cooking drum sticks. The Tabasco was in the buttermilk brine -- would that still have burned since it was covered with breading/batter?
if the tabasco was just in the brine then probably not. Does this chicken actually taste burnt or is it just a darker color? Also, lots of black pepper tastes great in the flour...
The chicken itself was OK (maybe a bit under cooked, was still very juicy). It's the crust that was the problem. The pepper won't burn in the fryer?
Did you use old fry oil in your deep fryer?
Fry oil that's gone bad has too many surfactants, which results in the oil spending too much time in direct contact with the food, resulting in too much heat transfer. The result is similar to cooking the food at much too high a temperature: the outside will burn well before the center cooks. You'll also end up with very greasy food, since the increased contact time results in more oil soaking in.
Brand new fry oil sometimes has the opposite problem (that is, slower cooking, and crust not browning enough on the food being fried).
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to put my two cents in :) I always parboil my chicken on the bone before frying. This means I put the pieces in boiling water and let them boil for about 15-20 minutes. Then when they are cool enough to handle, I bread them and fry them. I haven't had burnt chicken since I started doing this. Since they are almost cooked through after boiling, you don't have to fry very long, just enough to brown up the breading. I also let the breading rest on the chicken about 20 minutes, bread again, and fry.
Boiling would dry out the meat. I would suggest poaching the chicken, instead. Haven't actually tried this approach, but might be worth a try.
Perhaps the biggest difference between most commercial fried chicken and home-made fried chicken is the use of a pressure fryer. The chicken cooks faster, more evenly, remains juicier, and the coating/batter doesn't burn. DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS WITH A HOME PRESSURE COOKER- special equipment is required for safety.
Batter makes for a crispier exterior as does the addition of starch (corn starch etc). Another popular method of coating for a thicker, crispier exterior (though not as much as batter) is to dredge the chicken in your flour mixture, dip in eggwash, then dredge in flour once more.
Regarding what batter to use, all purpose flour is fine and can be amended with corn starch to alter the texture. At 160C / 320F your chicken should take about 12min to cook through deep frying depending on the cut and size. The exterior will be darker than pressure fried chicken but not burnt. I would suggest reducing the size of the chicken pieces you are using if your chicken is not cooking through before the exterior burns. Note that spices and herbs in the flour will generally burn before the flour so your seasonings are more important than the flour when it comes to burning.
They make home pressure fryer / broaster; I've got one sitting my my pantry. :) As you said; be sure to use correct equipment; the pressure fryer is a much lower pressure than normal pressure cooker.
Simple recipe for fried chicken with a tasty and moist inside with a crispy skin is: Defrost your chicken drumstick or thigh parts in a microwave both sides. Then put some salt, pepper and lemon juice on the thawed chicken parts. Put them inside your refrigerator to chill the skin before frying. Deep-fry in new oil over low fire to avoid burning. This leaves no mess and residue in your frying pan.
Can you please cite your references? This is a very new approach to me.
Bisquick for the breading - add your spices to the Bisquick. Prior to using it I dip the chicken into a couple of raw beaten eggs then coat it in the breading.
Very Simple and Stunning Fried Chicken:
2 Cups Flour
1/4 - 1/2 Cup corn starch
4 tablespoons salt
1 tablespoon seasoned (Lawry) salt OPTIONAL
2 tablespoons cayenne pepper or more to taste.
This isn't health food, don't skimp on the salt
it affects the chemistry and the coating doesn't stick as well.
Mix well in a suitable bowl for dipping or do the bag thing.
3 or 4 eggs beaten in a flat bottom bowl.
Pat the chicken pieces dry with paper toweling.
dip the dried chicken pieces in the egg and roll or toss in the flour mix.
Let them rest for at least 5 minutes.
Deep fry at 375F until golden brown.
My indoor turkey fryer works splendidly for this
as it holds 2 gallons of oil and it recovers quickly.
Gives you a thin crispy crust that sticks well.
This also tastes better reheated than most.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.258735
| 2012-08-01T13:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25409",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"CookingNewbie",
"Daily gaminglife challenges",
"Diane Quinton",
"Ellen Cooperberg",
"Ethel DeBari",
"Freed",
"Hefnawi",
"Joe",
"Kate",
"Linda Renz",
"Matt Solarz",
"MattQ",
"Mim",
"Mindy Larson",
"PNWLiz",
"Proof.by.Accident",
"Roku1125",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Thirsty_Crow",
"Victor Raimondi",
"William Stephenson",
"aychedee",
"gvgramazio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97653",
"rumtscho",
"zerobane"
],
"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
}
|
26123
|
What does al dente really mean?
Initially I was told that al dente meant that the pasta was cooked but still firm, definitely not soggy or overcooked. Later, someone told me that it meant not quite cooked all the way through. Actually many people began telling me this. In addition, they would also tell me that it was silly to make such a request because no one in their right mind would eat pasta this way.
So what does al dente really mean?
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11929/whats-the-best-way-to-tell-that-pasta-is-done-when-boiling
"Al dente" is used to refer to food cooked so it is still "firm to bite" but not soft
This is very important to pasta which should be removed from the cooking liquid just before it has fully cooked through, as like most foods, it will continue to cook after being removed from the heat source
Always gently stir your pasta every minute or so while cooking to ensure it cooks evenly. Then near the end of the cooking time, bite into a piece of paste every 15 seconds or so to see if it has nearly cooked through. It should be firm to bite, and not soft all the way through. It should not resist biting though
With some pasta types like Penne etc. you can sometimes actually see the uncooked inner layer (a thin white line) if you carefully slice it in half which a knife, or just bite cleanly with your teeth
If the pasta is going to be mixed into a hot liquid sauce before serving, take the pasta out of the cooking liquid at an even firmer point
The term "al dente" can be used for all cooked foods that should be cooked to just before soft, and then served (fresh greens, thin meat cuts etc.)
The reason for all of this is that there have been many flavour and nutrition benefits noted when cooking to this point. Also for pasta it tends to fall apart if cooked past "al dente"
I have always been told this as well, but recently I have started to ignore the rule of taking the pasta out when you have a thin layer of uncooked pasta (unless I am cooking it in a sauce for a couple of minutes). I just don't like the consistency of uncooked pasta and it gets stuck between your teeths. That said, good pasta is still al dente when just cooked through – so I wonder if this "al dente" rule is misunderstood. Maybe the only goal is to cook it just done and not a second more. If it means "with a thin layer of uncooked pasta", that would mean you can't cook fresh pasta al dente?
@citizen if I'm not mistaken, the idea is that the residual heat will finish cooking that thin line to just barely done after it's pulled from the stove -- much like how you pull a roast out of the oven at a few degrees shy of perfect so while it rests it comes up to perfect temperature.
@Yamikuronue: Yes, but in my experience the short amount of time it takes from draining the water and dressing the pasta with sauce to serving, is not long enough to make the pasta cook done.
You cook to al dente when working with FRESH pasta. If working with dry then you need to take it further than the white ring picture showes above. The reasoning is that fresh pasta is soft to begin with and the change from al dente to mush happens very quickly. The majority of the classic Italian recipes I've worked with have assumed the use of fresh pasta, not to say that dried pasta is bad, in fact it is quite good in many cases. Just keep in mind that cooking dried penne takes about 12-15 minutes while cooking fresh penne takes about 3-5 minutes.
Al dente works for fresh and dried. You can test a little less often with dried, maybe 20 to 25 seconds, but there is still a critical point. I have never had a dried pasta taking longer than 10 minutes, how thick is this Penne?
I second the comment on dry versus fresh pasta. The actual test is to chew threw a cooled piece of pasta and notice how the pieces fall on the tongue. With farfalle, al dente is hard to achieve and the edges will be somewhat smoother than the al dente of the middle section. Also, if the pasta is going to be used for a pasta sallad or otherwise cold dish, the pasta will stop cooking once it's cooled, in which case the pasta should be al dente when it leaves the stove.
If you make fresh pasta like we do in Italy you can't cook it al dente - it is already too soft.
I don't know who invented the term, but it just a guideline for how much you should cook dried pasta when re-heating it so that you do not boil it to pieces.
People who make their own fresh pasta will never be eating pasta al dente.
Al dente means the tooth, and if you are cooking fresh pasta there is a moment when the pasta becomes ruined by overcooking, a moment before that it is perfect to eat, but a moment before that it has "a tooth" slightly tougher to bite into, this is "al dente" and is important only if you are cooking fresh pasta because if you take more than a few seconds to remove it from the hot water or you will be adding a hot sause to it, you will lose the pasta into a mushy mess. True al dente is not for eating, it is a stage of cooking.
Al dente in Italian means "to the tooth". The basic idea is cooking dried pasta so that it retains a bit of firmness to the bite and is not overcooked. I personally do not like cooked pasta that retains a white line of raw pasta interior, but some do. It is a preference but what is generally agreed is a big NO to overcooked pasta. Dry or fresh.
Giada De Laurentiis said it today : you’re only going al dente if finishing (cooking) in a sauce. So, to go straight from boiling to the bowl/plate you would cook to desired firmness/tenderness. Makes sense to me and I’m glad I was watching that episode.
"Al dente" means "firm to bite".
-1: This is a very literal interpretation and does not go into the detail the OP needs.
Meh, it answers the Question title. Sure, the other answer is better, but I think this is reasonable (moreso as a comment, maybe).
Although, FWIW, literally "dente" is "bite", "firm" is not in there ...
In my Italian family we always felt that when pasta s ticks to the wall when thrown. Or sticks "TO THE TOOTH" it is alla dente.
Please, there's no reason to throw your pasta at the wall. It's really not a good method of testing for doneness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.259939
| 2012-09-12T06:52:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26123",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chef Flambe",
"Dani",
"Debbie Maillet",
"Geraldine Blew",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"hunter2",
"noumenal",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38095
|
Why did my chicken fingers not brown?
I used a boxed breading that called for dipping chicken in egg and milk then rolling in breading. The chicken fingers still look kind of white with noticeable flour left on them after baking. I did use parchment. Is that why??
Try either a higher oven temperature or more time. Probably higher temperature, unless your chicken was undercooked. Browning occurs above 212F (the boiling point of water), so it won't start until the moisture (eggs and milk) has cooked off of the outside of the chicken.
You may also want to let the milk/egg mixture drip off of the chicken a little (so it isn't too thick) before rolling in the breading.
Thank you Steve. I was baking at 425; next time I will go up to 450. Maybe that will help. I did let the mixture drip off before rolling. Maybe not enough? Also, I will not use parchment to see if that helps too.
If you have an oil sprayer, a light mist of olive oil will help. Part of your problem is that the coating dried out and did not brown. This is especially true for flour -- hence the white dust on good artisan bread. A light mist of oil will allow it to brown more evenly. I know baking is to avoid the oil from frying, but a light mist adds little fat and vastly improves the result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.260476
| 2013-11-02T17:33:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38095",
"authors": [
"B Sierra",
"BJ Safdie",
"Laurie Michelle Young",
"Mathistopheles",
"Neeka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89738",
"weeklyLottery"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26143
|
Using Pam on a Gas Grill
Is there anything wrong with spraying PAM (cooking oil in a can) on real hot grill grates in a gas grill to prevent meat from sticking?
My Dad practices this and I think it's crazy, as it undoubtedly imparts the taste of burnt PAM into the food. I just brush my meat with canola oil before I season and grill it, and this always prevents sticking. Someone help me settle this argument.
Burnt PAM can't be good, right?
Anecdotally, I've found PAM to have a low smoke point, which would be bad for high-heat grills.
Pam, Weber and others have started selling "Grilling" and "High-Heat" versions of their non-stick sprays for just this scenario.
"Pam on a Gas grill". It could be a true blood scene. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Swynford_De_Beaufort)
Oh man. Aerosol oil over an open flame. What could go wrong? :D
Non-stick spray is just oil with a little added emulsifiers to make it extra non-sticky. It isn't any more dangerous when burnt than the oil you apply to your meat.
Spraying oil on the grate will also help season it and keep it from rusting.
The biggest reason not to do it when the grate is hot is that the atomized oil is quite flammable. That said, I spray non-stick spray on the grill and enjoy the pyrotechnics.
if you enjoy the pyrotechnics, does any of the oil actually wind up on the grate?
Sure- it doesn't catch on fire until it reaches the flame beneath. That's when you stop spraying- unless you're more interested in the flamethrower than the food.
I use olive oil on a paper towel (peanut oil might also be an option, because of high heat characteristics). I would not use any kind of aerosol next to a flame. Too risky.
Don't use olive oil. The smoke point is far too low.
what oil are you using?
I preheat the grill and then turn off the flame. I then apply the PAM on the hot grills and then restart the flame. It works well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.260726
| 2012-09-13T00:23:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26143",
"authors": [
"Annie",
"Midhat",
"Pascal Belloncle",
"Preston",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"baka",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"smcg"
],
"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
}
|
19940
|
Can brownie dough sit?
I've been making brownies lately, and my last brownie turned out like dwarf bread. As the recipe and the oven/time haven't changed, my guess is that the preparation went wrong.
I mixed all the ingredients, (just like always) and then walked away to have lunch. After lunch, I tried to pour the batter in the mold, but it was impossible to pour.
Is my analysis correct and, more importantly, is there anything that can be done if the batter does have to sit for a while? Can it be gently heated?
Edit Chocolate & Margarine gently heated together. Sugar and Eggs beaten. Mixed together. Added flour & hazelnut.
What were your ingrediens and technique? It's hard to troubleshoot otherwise.
Added edit for clarification. Hope that helps :-)
If the flour is self-rising flour, then it shouldn't be allowed to sit for too long. However, this wouldn't result in it being "impossible to pour" - it would just prevent the item(s) from rising properly when baked.
If I had to guess, I would point to the chocolate as the culprit. If your batter/dough recipe uses melted chocolate (as opposed to just cocoa powder) then it is almost certainly going to solidify again as it cools. In which case, you can simply heat it again (gently - you don't want cook the eggs!) to loosen it up a little before pouring it.
Just my guess. The flour is ordinary, not self-rising. I do add 1/2 ts baking powder, though.
@BaffledCook: Should have mentioned that - baking powder is another ingredient you shouldn't leave to sit. Once it gets wet, the clock is ticking.
Yeah, I forgot to mention it, sorry. :-(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.260938
| 2011-12-23T22:32:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19940",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Jerry",
"Joshua K",
"KLeonine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21114
|
What is the best way to melt chocolate?
Sometimes when I melt chocolate in a double boiler it will turn grainy, and melting in a microwave often burns it. What is the best way to melt chocolate to get good, smooth results?
Well, do you have a sous-vide setup? That'd be the best way—you can melt it without needing to retemper it—and with absolutely no risk of burning it.
No, no sous-vide I'm afraid
It depends on what you're doing with the chocolate.
If temperature isn't that critical and its going to be mixed into a cake or brownies or such, then do it in the microwave. Its simpler and as long as you don't rush it, its does a good job. Just go 10-20 seconds at a time, in bowl that doesn't hold heat well.
If you need precise temperature controlled chocolate (for tempering perhaps), its best to use a double boiler. The bottom pan just has steaming water - so I never really count that as a dirty dish. With the double boiler, you get several advantages. It won't get any hotter than the water. It its gradual and gentle. And you can monitor and stir as the temperature rises. If it turns grainy, its likely a bit of water dripped in. Depending on the top bowl on the double boiler, its possible to accidentally knock some condensation into the chocolate...and now its toast. I use a top bowl that has a small outer lip on it to keep this from happening.
Alton brown uses a heating pad to avoid the risk of the water altogether. Yes- I know how much you love AB references.
@Sob - I tried the heating pad after watching that episode. An hour and almost no melted chocolate, I fired up the double boiler.
Melting chocolate in a double boiler is the safest method for melting chocolate, and it's fairly easy. But it makes two pots dirty. I didn't had the problem of it being grainy. So I don't know what to say about that.
Melting chocolate in the microwave oven is faster and requires less dishes, but you have the risk of burning. Therefore, lower the wattage and take it out to stir every 20 seconds. It also continues to melt out of the microwave oven, so you can take it out even when there are still some pieces. They will melt because of the heat of the surroundings. If you see that not everything is going to be melted, pop it back in for ten seconds and stir.
I would advice using the microwave oven (but with reduced power), although most chefs (in their videos at least) use a double broiler.
And a footnote: be very careful with white chocolate. That tends to burn the most easily.
The 2nd dirty pot had water and perhaps a spot of chocolate on in it, the 1st with chocolate cleans so easily since chocolate melts at below 120 degrees so I would not be concerned with this. Upvoted because double boiler every day!!!
I usually use the defrost function to melt chocolate and haven't had any problems.
If you are very patient, and chop the chocolate into reasonably small pieces (say a 1/2 inch squares), or use chocolate chips, the microwave at low power is extremely effective.
I put chocolate in on power level 2 on mine -- it takes several minutes at that low level -- and you should stir several times. I do this in a glass bowl, intentionally, so there will be some residual warmth when I take it out. At low power, the risk of burning is insignificant.
By doing this, I can keep chocolate in temper for candy (12 ounces of chocolate and three cups crunchy cereal like corn flakes is wonderful) without all the usual fuss of tempering.
I would imagine that you have to be very careful with the temperature in order to keep the chocolate "in temper". From what I read, if the temperature exceeds 91ºF (33ºC) you will need to temper it again. Melting in the microwave is not ideal if you need that level of control.
For the physics of keeping the Type IV cocoa butter crystals (IIRC the crystal types correctly), you surely do. In practice, you are BARELY melting the chocolate, so it is easy to manage. The heat in the glass bowl helps melt the last bits, and the stirring is important. And going SLOW. It can take 8 to 12 minutes to do 12 oz of chocolate. But you only have to stir two or three times. Slow, slow, slow :-) Also, my nuker has a rotating platform--I imagine this is harder in an older microwave without that.
Ok. In that case it's not ideal in my microwave :-) Sounds like yours has a lower setting than mine.
Yeah I do it on power level 3 on a fairly weak built in microwave, then drop to 2 when the first visible signs of melting appear.
I've been melting chocolate at the lowest position on the induction stove. No double boiler, no nothing. Just the pan, the chocolate, the butter and nº1 on the stove.
As the heat is so low, it will always turn out right.
Edit: And whisk every once in a while. It will lower the temperature.
My favorite way to melt chocolate is to surround a glass bowl with a heating pad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.261127
| 2012-02-07T17:06:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21114",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Deborah Scheimer",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mike B",
"Nelson Chew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9025",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15023
|
What are some appropriate accompaniments for satay?
I have an excellent recipe for satay chicken, which I usually accompany with coconut rice. Last time, I also attempted a kind of Asian coleslaw of white cabbage, chilli, carrot and lime juice, but it didn't turn out all that well.
Can anyone suggest a suitable accompaniment, preferably something vegetable and fresh to counter the peanut butter in the sauce, for this? The only caveat is that I am cooking it soon for guests who don't like salad of any kind (lettuce, cucumber etc).
Get better guests. The appropriate pairing is a cucumber salad.
Hehe. I would, but they're relatives. Short of joining a witness protection program I'm stuck with 'em :)
Well then, you're screwed. You want something cold and crisp. I'm drawing a total blank for ideas that aren't salad. Even a slaw is a salad...
When I say salad I mean lettuce/leaves, cucumber and tomato. When I read 'cold and crisp' I immediately thought 'apple'. I wonder if an apple slaw might work... hmmmmm.
I have made Asian coleslaws multiple times, and they work very well. My main suggestion would be to heat the dressing before adding it to the slaw. Particularly if you're using scallions, the heated dressing wilts it just enough to cut some of the sharpness of the raw veggies. I'd probably make my own dressing from rice vinegar, neutral oil (such as canola) and a touch of sesame oil. Add in spices such as garlic, ginger, etc. You can also vary recipes such as this.
You could also try using unexpected ingredients. I make a salad from cubed jicama, apple, and ripe avocado, topped with lemon juice, olive oil, and a touch of chili powder or cayenne. You get the crisp sweetness and some creaminess from the avocado.
If they're not fans of cucumbers, how do they feel about pickles? Those could also be a nice addition to a coleslaw. Or you could try marinated mushrooms. Either of those would add a vinegary sharpness that would cut nicely through the creaminess of the rice and the satay.
This also brings to mind a preparation I've seen for vegetables in a prepared salad. Blanch your veggies and shock them in an ice bath. Then give them a vinegary dressing and lay them on the plate in attractive ways. This could include green beans, carrots, beets, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, potatoes, etc. You could achieve similar effects by serving roasted vegetables. (Either from the grill or oven-roasted.) These are quite good cold or warm.
The classic pairing would be a cucumber salad, but that's out based on your constraints. I think you probably want the same characteristics as the salad though. You want crisp and cold, but with plenty of moisture (like cucumber). Carrots would be a good idea. As you suggested in the comments, apple might be good too. I would do a fruit / veg salad, maybe a slaw. I'd julienne your ingredients so that it keeps some crunch (rather than shredding for a slaw).
The cucumber salad has a tangy sweet aspect to it which is a nice counter point to the peanut sauce. So check out some recipes for the Thai Cucumber Salad and use that for whatever ingredients you pick, but the basics are rice vinegar and sugar.
It likely depends on how hot you make your peanut sauce, and what you consider to be a salad. You mentioned that you had chilies in your slaw (and some people consider slaw to be a salad), but if you have a very hot peanut sauce, you might want something more cooling.
I once did a very nice carrot slaw (jullienned carrots, left to sit in a rice wine vinegar dressing for a few hours), but I can't remember the complete ingredient list, and I've never managed to re-find it ... I seem to remember there being a touch of sugar, sesame oil ... soy or fish sauce, can't remember ... it was really, really simple. (might've had some scallions added for garnish, but it was basically just marinated carrots)
You could also add some thin sliced red onion, scallions, bell pepper, or bean sprouts to it, but then you'd be getting into salad territory.
...
If you didn't want to make coconut rice, I find I can get a good amount of vegetables into anti-vegetable people (eg, kids) with nasi goreng. As I don't have a good source of kejap manis, I also mix in some shredded carrots at the end to add to the sweetness.
I think they could manage slaw, it's lettuce/cucumber they don't like. I will be making the rice, I just need something veggie to balance it all. I might just do a quick stir fry of onions, peppers etc. The peanut sauce is relatively cool, just one chilli.
Cucumber comes to mind. For instance.
Edit: As others said. Apples and Carrots... Why not combine apples, carrots and raisins?
"The only caveat is that I am cooking it soon for guests who don't like salad of any kind (lettuce, cucumber etc)." :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.261547
| 2011-05-25T09:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15023",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Tina Liddell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35140
|
Does jaggery need to be soaked?
One of our TV chefs has done a show on India, and one of the ingredients he has used in a few recipes is jaggery, a sugar made from palms.
In the show, it appears to be soft, like soft brown sugar. However,the jaggery I have found at the supermarket is in hard lumps.
Does it require soaking or some other preparation before using?
Jaggery doesn't require any kind of soaking.
It's usually added either while sautéing or if the dish is gravy based, while its boiling.
Jaggery usually softens up when heated and gradually dissolves with other ingredients just as salt or sugar would.
The hard blocks of jaggery are difficult to break into pieces and its easier to grate it.
I usually break them in advance to teaspoon sized pieces, and then just add them as i go along to my curry according to the sweetness i desire.
Jaggery balls can be grated with knife, which can dissolves in recipes which we add. There is no need of dissolving it.
You can easily grate jaggery with a knife, but if it is really hard then you may wish to grate it first and then soak it in small amount of water before you add it to your dish.
This will ensure that jaggery gets mixed very well in your curry.
Personally I have observed that when my jaggery is very hard I still see some small (really small) pieces of it in my dish.
Like... when I would add it in the kheer I would make for my infant daughter I want the jaggery to be mixed very well, so I would just dissolve it in half a cup of water and then add it to the hot simmering kheer and be ensured that it gets mixed really well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.262152
| 2013-07-07T18:35:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35140",
"authors": [
"568ml",
"Dottie Giesler",
"Julie",
"Spammer",
"dan12345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96900"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22927
|
How can you tell whether bread dough is ready for baking?
I've tried to make a special bread for making 'torrijas', the Spanish version of French toast. Very popular during easter, here.
Twice, the bread didn't rise correctly in the oven, even after extended rising. The resulting bread was pretty solid, with unbaked lumps in the center.
The second dough was kept in the fridge for 24h, then risen for about 1h, then formed and risen again before baking...
So, the question is if there is an objective way to determine when a dough is ready to be baked?
PD. I'll start a dwarf bread factory, shortly.
Unbaked lumps? That sounds like you didn't get it mixed well.
Unbaked lumps probably mean you aren't mixing it enough. Try starting with a little less flour and knead in more as you go.
Another issue is you may not be kneading it enough. Next time try using the windowpane test. You don't have to do this every time, but if you're having trouble with a specific recipe this will help you figure out how the dough should "feel" when its ready by giving you a visual indicator. I've found that when I have dough rising problems, it's usually because I didn't knead long enough. This should also help fix your mixing issue.
That being said, there are two good methods to see if dough has risen enough. One is to let it rise in a marked container (though this doesn't work well for shaped loaves or if you aren't supposed to let it double). The other is the poke test. From a Bon Appetit online article:
To test for doneness, use the finger test: Poke it with 2 fingers; it holds the indentation, it's ready.
Generally I poke it and if it pops right back out, it's not ready. For sourdough, if it holds its shape for a moment and then slowly starts to expand back, it's perfect. For other breads, holding the indentation is a good indicator. This isn't necessarily advisable for delicate doughs. If you're working with a delicate dough, try the test on one loaf that you don't "need" to be perfect. You can use this as a relative time measurement for the future.
Obviously it isn't a good idea to poke after proofing. For that you can only really go by "doubled in volume"
A gentle poke is perfectly fine after proofing. It won't generally hurt even delicate dough, and the hole disappears upon baking.
Depends on the dough. I agree there exist breads that could take it but I often bake breads that have to be handled very carefully to keep from deflating after proofing. Even if it did spring back in the oven (and it won't always) you would be wasting oven spring that could have made your loaf that much lighter.
I added a caveat for delicate dough--thanks for the suggestion.
I like to think that I mix and knead enough, but next time I'll try the windowpane and the poking.
A probe thermometer is also a good investment. Most doughs are kneaded enough when between 77º and 81ºF internally.
@BaffledCook kneading per hand requires usually at least 5 minutes, more for richer doughs. Also, if you are using American recipes in Europe and don't have bread flour, you have to knead even longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.262321
| 2012-04-10T10:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22927",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jimmy",
"Lee Graham",
"Sarah Howard",
"Sobachatina",
"Spitz",
"The Gamer King",
"Vivian",
"derobert",
"giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"ramblinjan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20199
|
Are plastic (vs metal) immersion blenders safe for hot mixtures?
I have a braun stick blender that I bought about 10 years ago. I love it because it's really versatile and I can make puree soups, etc. I usually will stick the immersion blender into the pot of hot mixture to puree the mixture. Is this safe?
CLARIFICATION
Is putting plastic in the hot mixture safe?
What do you mean by "safe"? Are you concerned about, for instance, BPA from the plastic leaking into your food? About the plastic melting?
@Laura : Yes...to all of the above. I'm concerned that the age of my immersion blender places it before BPA was in our consciousness. I guess I can call up Braun to ask them about safety of the plastic in hot mixtures.
If you do speak do Braun, be sure to report back to us!
Hello everybody, I would like to remind you that we are not a discussion forum. We now have one "mine melted" and one "I used mine for years and it never melted" post which I kept to show that both things can happen. Beyond that, please don't add any new posts repeating that your blender melted or did not melt. It does not bring new information. Please only add new answers if you have a general argument to make.
Short of the danger of splashing hot liquid on you, or the standard immersion blender dangers of having it slip and hit you, there's no additional risk with using immersion blenders on hot mixtures. Making hot soups creamy is pretty much exactly what they are designed for.
I concur. I use mine to puree soup all the time.
my metal blender had a warning saying not to use in hot liquids, I had guessed this was due to splashing.
I'm afraid I don't that hard evidence to back up the following statements, but I thought I'd offer my thoughts based on the clarifications to the question from the OP's comments.
Regarding BPA/chemicals leaching into food: This is likely a concern for most plastic products produced before a year or two ago (and a good number of them that have been produced recently, too). However, I would say that in the grand scheme of health hazards related to cooking gear and food, your plastic immersion blender is mostly on the "Don't worry about it" end. You aren't storing food in this object, just putting it into contact with your food for a few seconds to a few minutes. Yes, if the food is hot, there will probably be some leaching of chemicals, but it should be minuscule.
Regarding the possibility of the plastic melting: Again, I don't really have an evidence to back this up, but I'd say you're pretty safe on this front, too. Braun is an established and respected brand, so they likely test their products pretty vigorously before sending them to market. It's hard for me to imagine them producing an immersion blender that is not safe to use with hot foods. Additionally, if you've been using the immersion blender for 10 years and haven't had an issues yet, you're probably more likely to have the motor wear out than to have to deal with melting plastic.
So a note on this that no one has discussed, it’s not always about the housing. I’ve been through two metal immersion blenders that I was assured were fine for hot foods and both were ruined due to the lubricant in the blade mechanism not being suitable for heat. This meant the oil leached out and the mechanics ceased. Before that happened, food started to taste chemical metallic, and I noticed after cleaning a dark liquid would appear on the surface I had it placed on where it was draining/drying. Spend the money, get a pro immersion blender. I’m still looking for the best one. My suggestion in the interim with plastic or metal is to plan ahead so you can allow your foods to cool first. Then re-heat food before serving.
My blender just melted (distorted shape) in hot soup and the blade took lumps out of the bottom of the metal pot. Had to throw the whole batch away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.262619
| 2012-01-05T18:01:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20199",
"authors": [
"Employee",
"Kelly",
"Laura",
"MAKZ",
"Manako",
"Nolan Hergert",
"Simone Bronzini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"milesmeow",
"mrtunes",
"rumtscho",
"wythagoras"
],
"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
}
|
11877
|
How long can I store cooked lentils?
I love lentils mixed with onions, spinach and tuna in the morning, unfortunately I am having a really hard time finding cheap canned lentils in my area. So I wonder, if I cook a big batch of dried red or green lentils how long can I then store them?
Also any tips on how best to store cooked lentils will be much appreciated.
Depending on the temperature in your fridge, cooked lentils will be safe to eat for 2 to 5 days when using a sealed container, filled with the cooking water. By immersing them, your lentils won't dry out and they'll be ready to use whenever you need them - just drain the amount you need.
If you've got sufficient freezer space you could also freeze the cooked lentils. Just prepare a whole lot of lentils and divide them in individual portions to put in small freezer bags. Make sure you push out any air before sealing the bag. Freezed lentils will be fine anywhere from 4 up to 6 months.
However, I would strongly recommend using dried lentils, which I'm sure you'll be able to find in Copenhagen. Just make a habit of soaking the amount of lentils you need for your breakfast and you'll never have to worry about storing leftovers. It's a lot cheaper too! But above that, dried lentils tend to taste much better than canned lentils. :)
Fantastic answer - quick question: I was under the impression that you must boil dried lentils for at least 20-30 minutes but you mention soaking them. Does this mean I can soak them night over, without boiling them so they are ready in the morning ?. Or even soak them when I get up for later use (if so for how long must they be soaked ?).
Indeed, you'll have to cook your lentils after soaking them. Most types of lentils will be done in half an hour but it depends a bit, just check the packaging. If this is too much of a bother in the morning for you, I'd say you go with the freezer option! :)
I use my vast collection of ice cube trays to freeze things such as lentils or pesto into easily baggable, easily portionable cubes. Want a little? thaw one cube. Want a lot? Thaw twenty cubes.
It depends on the type of lentils you are using. I pressure cook yellow split peas and keep them in the fridge with the cooking water for a few days and it's fine. It's really handy to have it cooked and ready so all I have to do is just flavour it how I want and it makes weeknight dinners a breeze.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.262954
| 2011-02-07T00:37:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11877",
"authors": [
"Andrew Janjigian",
"Anurag",
"Jerrin",
"Lars Tackmann",
"Prime Grinds",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"adlee.dev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"ilonavg",
"user1082"
],
"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
}
|
11582
|
How to prevent sticking and get a nice searing on scallops
When I am searing scallops, they often stick in the pan and most of the time, they are very hard to turn.
I use only a little oil 1-2 tablespoons.
Am I not using enough?
I found stephen's answer to be very useful, but his answer is a very general answer that could fix a lot more problems than just scallops. i did a search and couldn't find a general question asking about correct pan heating technique. would you kindly rephrase your question to be more general so more cooks will find out about this great trick?
Another HUGE thing for proper release is having the protein DRY!! If there is water, this cools down the pan.. Also, allow the protein - chicken, beef, fish, scallops,etc.. to come up to as close to room temperature as ou can and time allows. Sure, bacteria will start to grow, but you are about to cook the stuff! Minimizing the temperature difference will reduce the rebound time for your pan to get back to temp. Most food in standard pans stickas a little at first, but then releases. This is critical. Leave them alone for the first 1-2 minutes...
Most likely, you're not heating your pan enough before placing the scallops in. Without knowing your exact method it's hard to say what's going wrong, but 1-2 tbsp of oil should be enough for a normal amount of scallops.
To learn about properly heating your pan, I recommend this link:
http://www.houseboateats.com/2009/12/on-properly-heating-your-pan.html
Nice (with eleven more to go)
WARNING: That link no longer works, but will send your browser through a sketchy series of redirects like it's the year 2000.
Your link is spam now.
Most likely, your pan is not hot enough before you put the scallops in. The pan should be hot enough for a drop of water to bounce around on the pan instead of just evaporating. There have been other similar questions:
How do I prevent food from sticking to a standard (non-coated) pan?
Wow, almost the same exact post, within minutes of each other! +1 for that :)
My first advice is to use a bit more oil, maybe.
I recently did scallops with a recipe from Thomas Keller, and his recipe calls for quite a bit of oil--probably 3 tbs or more (don't remember precisely, but it was way more than I would have put on my own). This was also my most successful pan-seared scallop batch to date, so I think he's onto something. And to my surprise, they were not at all greasy when served.
You will need your oil to be quite hot too, as you want to be able to caramelize the scallops on the outside fairly quickly without overcooking the inside.
Another thing is to leave the scallops alone after you first place them, and turn them only once. When the proteins are properly caramelized, the scallops will release from the pan much more easily. Just place them, leave them alone until that side is nicely browned, turn them over, brown and serve.
Like the other comments mentioned you need to make sure that the oil is very hot before you add the scallops. Also, for a very nice color take a small amount of butter, about half a teaspoon, and add it to the oil. This is might go against your intuition, however, it is the technique used by most high end French restaurants to sear Scollaps, Veal, Ris de Veau, and other light colored meats.
Its normal for scallops to stick to a non-stick surface sautee pan. Let them sit until they come loose from the pan. It may take a few minutes but when they do thei will be browned perfectly. Turn and cook another 2 min. on the other side and spoon melted butter over them during this time.
YUMMM!
Dont use s nonstick pan- a pan that is hot enough to get a good sear is also hot enough to burn the nonstick coating- which is very bad for you (the fumes also kills birds).
Nonstick pans also tend to be aluminum and thin, they don't hold enough heat- the pan cools down and you don't get a good sear.
Use cast iron or carbon steel pans if you can, they're the best for searing.
Get it very hot - water should sizzle vigorously when it hits the pan.
Use more oil than you think you need. A 1-2 mm layer will get in between the cracks of the scallop and allow for better heat transfer. Use a oil with a high smoke point, not olive oil. Grape seed oil works great and is neutral. Corn oil is cheaper, so is canola.
Make sure theyre dry when they go in. Pat them on paper towels, then season.
Don't use frozen scallops, buy dry scallops. frozen scallops give up juice when they hit the hot pan. Plus they are usually soaked in a solution to make them heavier. You can tell if they were frozen because they're be sitting in a pool of milky liquid and will likely be white/milk colored. Dry scallops are pink, light orange or cream colored.
If you use butter, add it when you flip. Otherwise the water cools the pan too early. You can baste the scallop with a spoon, but keep the butter frothing by turning up the heat.
Don't mess with it, sear it. Let it sit. Flip once. Keep them apart otherwise they steam.
I use a non-stick pan, make it really hot, season the scallops and give them 30 secs - 1 min a side, only touching them to turn once. I find it gives a really good sear, but with a tender centre.
You don't want to make a non-stick pan really hot. "There’s a whole chemistry set of compounds that will come off when Teflon is heated high enough to decompose,” says Wolke. “Many of these are fluorine-containing compounds, which as a class are generally toxic" (from http://goo.gl/xb7ao)
If you read the article, you will notice that the danger point for teflon is 500 degrees Fahrenheit, which is beyond the smoke point of almost all cooking oils. As long as the oil does not smoke, you are OK.
Walter, I have to disagree. First, if you're heating it without oil (which is bad anyway, but I know a lot of people who do it), it says: "In GHRI’s tests, each of the three empty nonstick pans we heated on high reached temperatures above 500 degrees in less than five minutes — and the cheapest, most lightweight pan got there in under two minutes. Even pans with oil in them can be problematic; our cheapest pan zoomed to more than 500 degrees in two and a half minutes." Also on page 3 it says: "Most nonstick manufacturers, including DuPont, now advise consumers not to go above medium."
Most importantly, it says "Don’t broil or sear meats. Those techniques require temperatures above what nonstick can usually handle." - if you're getting a good sear on scallops in 30 seconds a side, your pan is WAY too hot for nonstick. A pan with 2 tbsp of oil (see their chart on page 2) became over 500 degrees in less than 3 minutes on high heat; an empty pan took under 2 minutes. I simply don't see the point of risking any chemical issues with a nonstick when you could accomplish the same thing, with no health concerns, using a stainless steel or cast iron pan.
Sorry to have so many comments here, but I wanted to make sure my facts were straight. Another article (http://goo.gl/qu7NJ) brings the "danger" number from 500°F to 446°F by DuPont's tests - and has a nonstick pan reaching over 700°F in under 5 min. A third article says "According to peer-reviewed studies as reported by the EWG, nonstick cookware, including Teflon, begins outgassing particles at 396°F" (http://goo.gl/ZRyM). I tend to trust the EWG's recommendations/numbers (http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon) more than the first and second.
I understand the home cook's desire to use nonstick because it's easier, but I don't think the risk is worth the reward. Cook a few proteins in a stainless steel pan 5 or 6 times and you'll learn very quickly how to make it act like a nonstick pan, without any risk. Personally, I feel much safer staying away from non-stick except for a few applications, like a quick egg/omelette breakfast, and I keep my burners at medium or lower for that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.263295
| 2011-01-28T21:54:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11582",
"authors": [
"A. Vidor",
"Anne",
"Arjuna Del Toso",
"BaffledCook",
"Charles",
"Chicken Pie",
"E. Rivera",
"Jacob Thomason",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Mr. Jamalqui",
"Saket Choudhary",
"Squish",
"Teresa",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93345",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user23792"
],
"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
}
|
42358
|
Meaning of the term 'tack' in bread making?
I have a recipe for oat and honey bread and it mentions the word 'tack'. Please can you tell me
what this means? It says the following; "It should start coming together and getting more tack and less sticky after about 5 minutes"
I am not sure there is common meaning of "tack" that makes sense in this context. I suspect it is a typo for "tacky", but even so, tacky implies a certain amount of stickiness.
On the other hand, the outcome that is indicated is clear. When your dough first forms, it sticks to almost anything: the sides of the bowl, the counter, your hands, leaving a residue. As you knead and develop the gluten in the dough, it will prefer to stick to itself, rather than these surfaces.
That is likely the answer. I will add to that by saying that there is a qualified difference between stickyness, and tackyness; something tacky will, as I understand the term, adhere to e.g. your hand, but be fairly easy to remove. When it is sticky, removal would take more effort.
For bread, sticky is that you touch it, pull your hand away and some comes with it. Tacky is that you touch it, pull your hand away it will pull with it for a moment but eventually give and stay with the dough....if that makes sense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.263950
| 2014-02-27T09:42:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42358",
"authors": [
"Abhi",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99001",
"razumny",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43627
|
Baking Electric Fan Oven
I have just moved to a kitchen with a electric fan oven and I have always been use to using a gas oven.
I have always done a lot of cake baking and have put a sheet of grease proof paper on top of the cake tin/liner to stop the cake from burning or cooking to much. With the Fan oven this blows off has anyone any suggestions tostop this happening.
Do you do this for all cakes? If so, why? If they are often getting burnt or overcooked it would suggest your oven is too hot.
Some convection ovens have the ability to turn off the fan -- if yours has one, that would be recommended.
One of the big issues is that the cooking time changes based on the surface area of the item being cooked -- so if you have a thin cake, such as a jelly roll (baked thin, then rolled up), your cooking time will be dramatically reduced ... but it doesn't help with large cakes -- you'll just end up with the top browing faster than the middle sets.
In general, the recommendation for convection ovens is to lower the temperature by about 25F / 15C (some newer ones with digital controls will do this automatically), but some people report problems with cakes being overly dense; I've heard different theories (eg, bernoulli effect lowering the pressure in the oven, causing the air bubbles to come out of the batter). Adding a tight covering of aluminium foil might help this, but it will cause other issues (eg, steaming the top).
Another recommendation I've seen for baking in a convection oven is to make sure that your oven has had sufficient time to pre-heat, then when putting in your baked goods, turn the oven off, and leave if off for 3-5 minutes before turning it back on. (this is typically to solve problems with baked goods appearing lopsided, as the fan's blowing so hard it's moving the batter around significantly).
I'd just try baking a cake without the paper. As GdD commented, it sounds like your old gas oven just wasn't very good or accurate and is probably the reason you needed to use the paper in the first place, you shouldn't need to physically shield the top of a cake to keep it from burning. What temperature are you baking at?
It sounds like your new oven is a convection oven. If used in convection mode, you should be able to use a baking temperature about 25°F lower than the recipe calls for, that would also help prevent burning. Your oven may or may not have a convection-only mode, which uses a hidden heating element behind the fan to heat the air as it circulates, but if it does, use that.
Definitely turn it down as @DanC says, or use fan off mode if available.
Use aluminium foil instead. When you wrap the edges a bit around the cake pan, it doesn't fly off. It prevents burning just like the paper.
While this will work, there may be other issues because you should not be getting over-development of the top crust routinely. Are these layers especially deep?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.264111
| 2014-04-21T16:12:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43627",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Granite Depot",
"Kathiespat",
"Mr. Koh Kock Leong spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"copacetic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"user3240688"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44678
|
thick, crunchy, fluffy corn flakes breading
In student canteen one of dishes I'd frequently order were soy steaks in corn flakes. I remember them well to this day, because the soy comprised maybe half the volume - the small pieces of soy were crumbed in a thick layer of corn flakes, holding firmly, and forming some kind of fluffy, crunchy crust.
I tried to repeat this a few times, following various recipes about different foodstuffs crumbed in corn flakes. I never got this effect.
Firstly, most of recipes call for corn flakes smashed/ground into small pieces. These had predominantly regular sized corn flakes. Then, full-sized corn flakes simply don't hold - I cover the piece of soy in egg, then crumb it in corn flakes, and most of the corn flakes fall off, either at once, or upon placing in hot oil. For the life of me, I can't get more of it stuck.
I believe I'm missing some ingredients, and the technique might be different than what I'm trying, but I don't know what should it be. So, how do I achieve a thick layer of corn flakes breading?
This is pretty much the look I'm striving for.
Do any of these pictures get close? I mean these are chicken obviously, but can you pick any that kind of look like what you are going for?
With meat you would normally use flour, then egg, then crumbs. The flour sticks to the meat, the egg sticks to the flour, and the crumbs stick to the egg. Have you tried flour?
@ElendilTheTall: No, but I never had problems with the egg sticking to the faux meat (it's very porous, spongy). It's the cereal not sticking to egg.
@Jolenealaska: these seem pretty much spot on.
@SF. I don't know how much sugar you want or will tolerate in a meat-like course, but could it be that they used sugar to make them stick? I have frequently had sweet cornflakes in other circumstances.
@rumtscho: that specific recipe seems to allow honey mixed with eggs. Personally, I'm not very much into this kind of additions (soy by itself is rather sweet), but then I have no idea what they used in the student canteen... (though personally, I doubt they used honey. It seemed more like that was some kind of batter instead of plain egg.)
In addition to what's already been mentioned, try tossing the cornflakes in some melted butter (or similar) a few minutes before using the cornflakes as breading. That will make them a bit less brittle, a bit more formfitting.
I don't know what student canteen is, but can you ask the chef? Write an email or something?
@PrestonFitzgerald: unlikely. Over some 15 years since then I don't really believe their staff and menu didn't change...
One more question. Are you sure that they were fried? Cornflakes are usually used in oven-fried recipes.
@Jolenealaska:No, I am not. It is entirely possible they were baked.
The comments have already touched on a number of potential solutions. The core problem seems to be that you need a thicker, more viscous batter than can hold onto the cornflakes better than raw egg. Egg is slippery stuff, and will tend to form only a very thin layer on whatever's being dipped into it, but you want something much denser here.
In the recipe you included, honey makes the egg more viscous while seasoning at the same time. You could do the same thing by adding a small amount of flour or (appropriately) cornstarch to the egg before dipping the soy. You could even try going completely eggless and make a beer batter or tempura-style batter; depending on your recipe, you may need to back off on the liquid so that it remains relatively thick. Dip your soy into the batter, then into the cornflakes, and then fry or bake as you see fit.
You can probably play it quite loose with the cooking time. Since soy isn't an animal product that needs to be cooked to a certain temperature for safety purposes, just cook until you're happy with the final product.
I'll test that before accepting :]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.264391
| 2014-06-06T13:46:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44678",
"authors": [
"Business Name spam",
"Cindy Lou",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Harriet Evans",
"Jolenealaska",
"Naman Chopra",
"Preston",
"Rak Money Exchange spam",
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user22198089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54579
|
Cooking time adjustment for large quantities of stew
First off a little backgound: I am a member of a cooking club in my local village center. We have a reasonably well fitted kitchen, but the logistics of cooking in it for 20 people are always a bit tricky. We start at 17:30 and our menus always consist of an amuse, 2 starters, a main and a dessert. The aim is to serve the main between 21:00 and 21:30.
For this question, please assume that the oven is always taken for a different dish, so the stew has to be prepared from start to finish in a large pan.
We have often found that we fail to get stews cooked in time for serving. I am aware of the following factors that will increase the total time from start of prep to serving:
It takes a long time to prepare and brown 20 portions of meat before adding it to the stewing liquid
It takes longer for the stewing liquid to get to simmering temperature because of the higher volume
Even when taking these factors into account, there seems to be a sizeable difference between the cooking times we are used to when cooking 4 to 6 portions and the time it takes for the big pan for 20 portions.
We have a theory that this might be due to a temperature gradient between the bottom and top of the pan, but I don't know if this makes any sense.
Can anyone come up with something resembling a formula to adjust our cooking times in this situation? It might help us decide which dishes are (not) feasible to cook in the available time.
Do you have a high-powered burner? We brew beer and bought a turkey fryer gas burner to heat the wort more quickly. It took an hour to come to a boil the first time (on our gas range) and only 15 minutes on the new burner. Of course, we bought a heavy-bottomed pot to protect our high-sugar mixture from scalding. I know chili cookoff contestants regularly use these, too.
Nope, we do not. We have a standard 6 burner gas stove. We sort of work in the way that Joe describes, putting at least part of the stewing liquid on early and using an electric water boiler to add hot water. That part of the process we seem able to fix. The cooking time once the pot is simmering has so far alluded us.
Ah. It might be a good option if you were open to new equipment. You'd have to watch it to be sure it didn't burn on the bottom but it would definitely be great for huge quantities... I know that's not your question, which is why I'm not answering but it would speed up the process.
Here are 2 thoughts I have. First, do you have an electric roaster? These are marvelous and can cook turkeys, roasts, rice pilav, you name it, you got it including chilis and stews (browning the meat and doing everything that you do in the pot). Second, did you ever think that if you cut your meat and veges smaller, it would cook faster? Third thought, oops, how about a microwave to heat up your liquid in small batches and add to the pot? Just a thought.
Useful thoughts of course, thanks. The fact remains that we have to work with what the community center has, so it has to be a pan. We cook our pieces fine and heat up liquid outside the stewing pan. These things help to cut down the total time, but don't offer an explanation about why the stewing takes longer in the large pan or a way to recalculate the stewing time.
When we used a 6 burner commercial stove at home, we used 2 burners at a time for cooking food, then we transferred to our "chaffing dishes" which had the flames to keep the food hot. Could you use 2 burners at a time keeping them on a high heat covered, then reducing after adding veges?
Normally, cooking a stew (not counting prep) in less than a three hours seems like rushing it to me. I can't imagine that you'd ever get the fall-apart tender meat that people expect from a stew, but...
There are a number of techniques that I've seen professional cooks use when they're in a time crunch that may help you overcome time constraint problems such as this one:
Cut the ingredients into smaller pieces
Use larger bottomed or multiple pans (even electric ones as mentioned in the comments)
Use a deep fryer (not recommended for a stew ;-), though it would certainly help get the meat up to temperature)
Use a microwave (works well for some ingredients, not so much for others)
Use a pressure cooker (if available, this is what I would recommend for a stew)
From a scientific perspective, it's going to take 5 times as much energy to bring 20 portions worth of ingredients to temperature as it would 4 portions. Coming up with an exact formula would require some detailed information such as the BTUs put out by the stove, the spread of the burner, and surface area, shape, and material of the pan being used, etc. However, we do know that a lower portion of the energy will be lost when cooking 20 portions due to more surface area of the pan being in contact with the ingredients (even if only on the sides). I would guess that the wasted energy probably ranges from 50% if you're cooking small portions to 20% if you're cooking large portions (again, depending on the efficiency of your cooking arrangement, which will vary widely).
So, if F is the energy required to bring 4 portions of the food to temperature, and S is the energy per time unit put out by the stove, and t1 is the time required to bring 4 portions up to cooking temperature, and we guess that we have 50% efficiency when cooking 4 portions, we have F=.5*S*t1. When we increase to 20 portions, assuming the efficiency increases to 80%, we'd have 5F=.8*S*t2. Solving for t2 relative to t1, we get t2=5*.5*S*t1/(.8*S), or t2=3.125*t1, so (given the assumptions of course), bringing 20 portions up to cooking temperature would take 3.125 times as long as bringing 4 portions up to temperature. To speed things up, you would have to alter the input energy (more burners, electric assistance, etc.), or increase the efficiency (more pan surface area, smaller cut ingredients). A more general equation would be t=M*Eb*tb/(Mb*E) with tb, Mb, and Eb being the time to cook a baseline amount, its mass, and the efficiency for that volume, and t, M, and E being the time for the new amount, its mass, and its efficiency.
Of course this is just the time to bring the ingredients up to cooking temperature. Once there, the volume of ingredients doesn't matter much unless there is a lack of convection due to the thickness during the cooking phase, so with more portions you may need to stir more (this would be the solution to the gradient problem). After coming to cooking temperature, adding energy faster or more efficiently won't help much (if at all), but changing the pressure will change how quickly the food cooks, which is why this is what I would recommend. The cooking phase is the majority of the time, so a 10% savings there will save you more than a 10% savings during the 'coming up to temperature' phase. Depending on the stew, you may or may not need some time at the end for reduction and thickening as well.
In addition to all this, if you're doing prep work during the time you've listed, I'd skip the mise en place and get whatever you can heating up immediately so you can get as much heat as possible into as much of the stew as possible as quickly as possible.
Nice one Sir! Very close indeed to the answer I was looking for. Would you not say that removing the lid for constant stirring would also have a detrimental effect on the cooking time due to the loss of heat?
You lose some heat each time you remove the lid, but if the stew is thick, you may have to open and stir in order to prevent clumping and/or burning. The heat lost from removing the lid can probably usually be compensated for by increasing the stove output (especially if you're just trying to simmer). Remember that the lid isn't adding any heat, just preventing it from escaping, so unless you're steaming something above the liquid, it's simply a matter of balancing the heat in and out to keep it at the right cooking temperature.
Sorry, just a thought on my comment that was not clear. One large pot/pan, like a rectangle chaffing dish or pot on two burners cooking at the same time. One pot/pan using 2 burners and it is excellent to keep half of it covered at all times with a lid and the second one to stir so the heat does not escape and not burn. Just a thought. (We've done this with 2 burner chaffing dishes and had the water ready boiled with lighted gas burners to serve and keep hot)
+1 for pressure cooker. It's a great option if you can get your hands on one of sufficient size.
Well, even though your answer did not fully provide me with the answer I was looking for I truly appreciate the effort you put into helping me. Da bounty is yours James!
I tend to cook my stews for so long, I'm not really sure what the minimum time that it would take to cook ... however, there are some things that you can do:
Heat up some of the liquid separately, while you're browing the meat. Deglaze with the cold liquid, then top off with the hot liquid to cook.
Use multiple pots (or pans) to brown the meat. (and you can start the liquid heating while the last batch is browning in the other pan)
Cut things a little bit smaller (note that this may require more browning time)
Use a wider pot, not a taller pot. (would minimize the chance of there being an issue with temperature gradients) Or use two pots, rather than just a taller pot.
If the oven isn't taken when you're starting your prep, you can brown the meat in the oven (using the broiler) ... but don't flour it, instead add a roux if you typically floured your meat.
If you didn't have the oven restriction, I'd also have recommended that you cook it in the oven to completely remove the temperature gradient possibility.
Thanks for the comments. We partially already work this way so shorten the total time it takes to cook our dishes. It's just the difference in cooking time once everything is done and the stew is simmering that continues to baffle me.
@RichardtenBrink : is it the meat, or the vegetables? You can roast the vegetables 'til fully cooked and add them towards the end of the stew, but their flavors won't have a chance to meld. You don't want to do this with the meat, or it won't get tender. Personally, I prefer making stews a day or two before, and then reheating them, so the flavors can blend.
It's the meat. Veg take so much less time to cook than stewing meat that we've never had any problems there. The only thing that might be of influence there is that if you add the veg cold you might lose temperature again. We have tried quickly stirfrying the veg to avoid this, but it did not solve the base issue.
@RichardtenBrink : that's a good point about the vegetables cooling off the stew. With a larger volume, your temperature recovery is going to be worse, as the burner can only put out a given amount of heat. And I'd roast the vegetables, no stirfry, just because it's easier to manage large volumes. (assuming you have space in the oven ... it doesn't even have to be high heat, just put them in with whatever else you have to knock the chill off)
When I prepare stew, it's usually a 3 hr process. Half hour for prep (including browning the meat), and 2 1/2 hours cooking time. I make 5 quarts at a time in my cast iron dutch oven which serves 6 hungry people, or maybe 8 with smaller serving.
I just brown the meat in the bottom of the dutch oven saute style, push them to the sides and saute my onions next, then start dumping in the fluids (I use red wine) and root veg (potatoes, parsnips, turnips) and herbs (oregano, thyme and bay), tossing in carrots an hour before completeion, and celery in 30 minutes before done.
If you increase the volume it takes longer to get to temp, but once it's to temp cooking time is the same regardless of volume. Perhaps you could split this into 3x 5 quart preperations or 2x 7 quart preperations. 7 quarts I would SWAG take an additional 5 minutes to bring to boil. Once there you bring it back down to a light simmer and would take the normal 2 1/2 hours (time obviously depending heavily on your recipe and intended outcome)
I know I just gave you mostly a recipe, but that wasn't my intention, just letting you know how I make my stew so you can perhaps adjust your order of operations. Minimize the number of pans (even though you would still need 2 or 3 pots or dutch ovens), and get it cooked quickly yet completely and so deliciously.
The problem as I said is that there is a difference between the simmering times between the different numbers of portions. I'm trying to get an explanation for why that is and a formula to recalculate the stewing time. Your claim that it takes X amount of time regardless of the total volume is not true in my experience.
Temp is temp...what takes longer is getting TO temp. Once there, food cooks the same. If you are using larger pieces of meat, that would influence cook time, but not volume once temp is reached. Also keep in mind, if you are boiling a cup of water in a tiny sauce pan, and 7 gallons in a stock pot, not only will it take longer to get to boiling, but the boiling will be much more violent in the stock pot due to volume of water being converted to steam. Maybe what you are calling simmering in a smaller pot isn't actually simmering in the larger one, maybe you need a touch more heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.264750
| 2015-02-10T10:18:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54579",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Darriel Ambrose",
"Doris Cron",
"Escoce",
"Helen Legacy",
"James",
"Joe",
"Lily Nguyen",
"Noel Cullen",
"Ocean County Roofing",
"Preston",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Sue Rautenbach",
"Toni Cruz",
"Ursula Harpestad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27583
|
Replacing agar-agar with gelatin
I'm not able to purchase agar-agar (yet), so is there a rule for replacing the quantity? I've seen a recipe with 0,5 spoon of agar-agar for 1 spoon of gelatin. Is that the usual proportion?
Additional: is there a difference in treatment to activate the agar-agar or gelatin?
Where do you live? Alaska? The Russian peninsula from where you could see Alaska?
@BlessedGeek, do the properties of agar-agar and gelatin depend on geography?
No, sir - but your location could indicate how far you are from an Asian grocery store.
@BlessedGeek, the question was about how to substitute, not where to obtain. (FWIW he's near a provincial capital in western Spain. There's more to the world than the USA and a bit of Russia visible from Alaska).
@Peter- so true. There's also southern Canada and Juarez, Mexico. :)
Another question would be if it's worth having agar-agar, seeing I still have tons of gelatin I'm hardly using...
You could use it to make tons of icecream and then take a trip to Picadilly somewhere or whereabouts of Kensington station to buy some decent agar-agar.
@BlessedGeek, do tell me where you live...
But, I've never been to me ...
I'm surprised that you apparently can't obtain any in Spain (according to your location), considering that's the home of elBulli and therefore texturas. Their listed distributor there, Solé Graells, seems to have it; do they not ship to your particular location? Of course, if you just don't want to spend the money, that's another story - but one of those containers will last you forever.
@Aaronut, I'm sure I can obtain it, it's just that I didn't find it the other day. Next time I go to Madrid, I'll buy it. But, independently, the question is how to replace it if you don't have it. In my case, I have loads of gelatin. I believe the benefit of agar-agar is that it stays jellied at higher temperatures, which is not something I need.
The difference between activating them is important if you want to use gelatin instead of agar. Gelatin is made of proteins and peptides and agar is a polysaccharide.
Gelatin should not be boiled, because it breaks down. Agar needs 95 deg C to dissolve, so usually it is simply boiled. This means, that if your receipe calls for boiling the agar with stuff you want to gel (e.g. fruit), you have to add gelatin later, when all the boiling is finished, but the mixture is still hot enough to dissolve the gelatin.
Also, agar will work on some fruit, that prevent gelatin from geling, like pineapple or kiwi. If you want to use these fruit with gelatin, you have to boil them (or so they say - I have access to agar, so I never tried gelling boiled pineapple with gelatin).
Oh, and about the proportions: 1% agar as stiff as a jelly bear, 0,5% agar is as stiff as a normal jelly. One teaspoon agar weighs 3g, so it will make about 600ml of a jelly.
"Texture" the hydrocolloid recipe collection says the typical concentration of agar agar is:
0.2% will set
0.5% gives firm jelly
How much gelatin you need depends on the bloom (strength) of your gelatin.
Page 82 tells you how to convert measurements from one bloom strength to another.
I think you should edit this answer to include the reference on page 82. I'll do it, but some other time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.265898
| 2012-10-04T08:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27583",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew Connell",
"BaffledCook",
"BlokeDownThePub",
"Cynthia",
"Jessi3 Rich",
"JustCurious",
"LаngLаngС",
"Maryse Ownie-Crilly Kloss",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Weidi Wang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24028
|
Can you extend the life of frying oil with lettuce?
Someone told me that putting lettuce in frying oil, it will recover some of the properties. That way you can extend the number of uses you get from this oil.
I read (Spanish) that doing so will keep the oil from foaming.
Is there any evidence this is true? How should this be done, dump the lettuce in the cold, warm or hot oil? How much lettuce? Would other green leaves work as well, better?
I'd say that this was an urban myth, except that I can't find any reference to is anywhere other than the page you linked.
Sounds like an effective way to breed bacteria.
That page is a mixture of sound advice, discredited advice (such as the old chestnut about searing meat to keep the juices in), and improbable-sounding advice. But given that Amparo suggests putting chickpeas and parsley in the oil too, you'll need a large pan to have any space left for the thing you're trying to fry.
With regard to your source that suggests adding lettuce will reduce foaming of the oil: it might be possible to use lettuce as a tool to scoop up surfactants from the surface of the oil. If you're going to attempt it, I think the best time to do it would be when the oil is cool.
An Introduction to Surface Tension
Foaming is related to surface tension: for example, adding a surfactant (such as soap in water) to a liquid reduces its surface tension, which makes bubbles more stable. So to reduce foaming, you would need to increase the surface tension.
Note that we can't increase surface tension by adding something to the oil: the only way to increase the surface tension of a liquid with an additive is to increase its overall density.
To see why that's the case, suppose for a moment that there were a magical substance that liked to stay on the surface of the liquid and caused higher surface tension. That higher surface tension would compress the liquid, and raise its pressure. That means any spot on the surface that had less of the substance would have less surface tension and less pressure, so the pure liquid would be pushed out of that spot and cover the surface. That process would result in the substance never actually being on the surface of the liquid, which contradicts our starting assumption, so no such substance can exist. Instead, such substances become distributed evenly throughout the interior of the liquid...and, if they make the liquid more dense, that raises its surface tension.
So, if we want to increase the surface tension of aging oil, the only way we can do that is by removing surfactants from the oil, assuming we don't want to mix the oil with large quantities of something more dense.
Surface Tension and Frying
As J. B. Rossell explains in Frying: Improving Quality (with credit to BaffledCook for finding the source), surface tension is very important in deep fat frying, beyond just the idea of foaming.
Initially, oil for deep fat frying tends to undercook (or takes longer to cook) food, because few surfactants are present in fresh oil. Due to the high surface tension, the oil is less often in direct contact with the food being fried (as little as 10% of the time it is submerged), which means less heat transfer by conduction, less of a crust, and less oil present in the final product.
As the oil gradually breaks down with repeated cooking, surfactants build up in the oil, reaching an ideal range which gives the preferred golden crust and moderate greasiness, with oil being in contact with the food between 20% and 50% of the time it is submerged.
When the oil goes bad, the high quantity of surfactants results in too much contact between the oil and the food, resulting in greasy food that is overcooked on the outside and undercooked on the inside, and may have a bad flavor due to the rancidity of the oil, or contamination from the food being fried.
Removing Surfactants
First of all, I want to say that I'm not sure I'm in favor of trying to prolong the life of frying oil beyond its natural lifetime: the breakdown of the oil results in potentially cancer-causing free radicals, so I'd rather err on the side of replacing the oil too often, especially if I'm cooking for myself or loved ones.
If you were going to re-use the oil anyway, you might be able to reduce the amount of oil that gets into your food by reducing the quantity of surfactants, but if you're debating saving money by using your fry oil longer than you normally would, I'd say a bottle of oil is cheaper than a trip to the oncologist's office.
Speaking of cost, I think a bottle of most oils used for frying is also cheaper than a head of lettuce, so I'm not sure how economically viable this strategy is.
That said, since surfactants (SURface ACTive AgeNTS) are attracted to the surface of the liquid (they find a lower energy state by decreasing the energy of the boundary between two liquids or a liquid and a gas), they can potentially be removed by skimming (or just pouring) them off the surface. (I expect putting the oil in a narrow bottle and pouring off some of the oil from the top would be a more economically viable solution to remove surfactants.)
Because crinkly lettuce leaves have a high surface area, its possible that just dipping lettuce in the oil and drawing it out might remove a significant amount of surfactant, especially if the surface area of the lettuce leaf is high in comparison to the surface area of the pot that the oil is in: the surfactant will attempt to spread evenly across the entire surface of the oil. If we assume the surfactant is attracted only to the oil/air boundary (note: I have no knowledge of whether this is actually the case, or whether the material of the container matters), then when a lettuce leaf with a surface area equal to the surface area of the oil/air boundary is dipped into the oil, and then slowly removed, the oil covering the top of the pot and the oil covering the lettuce leaf will have roughly equal surface area, and if the surfactant has had time to spread evenly, they will have roughly equal amounts of surfactant, so dipping the lettuce leaf in once and removing it would remove about half of the surfactant (though somewhat less, due to dripping returning some of it to the pot).
Drying the lettuce leaf (or taking another similarly sized leaf) and repeating would drop the amount of surfactant to about 25% after the second attempt, around 12.5% after the third, etc.
Using a pot or bottle to hold the oil that reduces the surface area would make it more effective: if the ratio of surface area between the oil and the lettuce leaf were 1:2, you'd be removing two thirds of the surfactant each time, but if it were 4:1, you'd be getting at most 20%, and it would take a lot of dipping cycles to make any noticeable difference. If (as assumed above) the surfactant is present only on the oil/air barrier, then a tall thin pot or bottle would be ideal; if instead the surfactant spreads over all surfaces of the oil (including the oil/pot barriers), then it'd be best to put it in a pot that makes the depth of the oil fairly close to the width of the pot.
Of course, anything with a high surface area would be a good candidate to remove surfactants via this dipping method, there wouldn't be anything magical about lettuce leaves beyond their shape (and perhaps their affinity for oil), anything with a high surface area that doesn't immediately shed all the oil as its pulled out would work just as well.
Interesting, "Surfactant theory of frying"
@BaffledCook Thanks for the source, I've added some information to my answer from it.
Another interesting link is this one, even though it's from a commercial site; they sell fryers.
At best this will do nothing for your oil, at worst the water in the lettuce is going to boil and cause fryer to spit oil all over the place! Could actually be quite dangerous.
Please don't put it in hot oil it will cause a painful commotion. I know that the reason chicken is so hard on oil is due to the liquid it contains dilutes/contaminates the oil. Lettuce contains a lot of moisture so I would tend to bet that it will harm, more than help your oil. Old saws usually contain some truth. "They get along as well as oil and water."
Lettuce is almost entirely water. Any time that you store water and oil together, the water allows the oil to oxidize or go 'rancid.' It sounds like this would do the exact opposite of extending the life of your oil.
there is no possible way that this could be true. other than by frying lettuce in the oil you'd ruin it and have to buy more, thus getting new oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.266219
| 2012-05-27T07:58:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24028",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alice",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Godsil",
"Dean Haustead",
"EvilStepMom",
"ForwardMotion",
"FuzzyChef",
"J. Starnes",
"Mohammed Faris",
"Peter Taylor",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"maria",
"user62351",
"user62477",
"user62585",
"user74862"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33297
|
Should you store cutlery upside down?
I try to touch only the handles of my cutlery (as recommended here), but I have one doubt. After washing, I place the cutlery upside down in a plastic basket. This way the handle is 'handy'.
Is this the correct way to reduce risk of cross contamination?
Are you talking about knives, as part of a cook's kit, or general forks, knives and spoons? I read all of the linked documents and didn't see anything specifically addressing either of these items... perhaps I missed something.
@SAJ14SAJ: It's in there, sort of. See the section "Don't Set It Down – Put It Away!"
@SAJ14SAJ it's about the eating utensils.
@SAJ14SAJ, knives and forks, eating utensils
This discussion is a bit far fetched, (going for safety's sake). If by upside down you mean the 'business end' of the utensil is down and the handle up, this comes to mind:
If there is a drop of contaminated water (from hands or a splash) it'll work its way to the very tip. The tip also is the last place to dry.
the tip of the utensil (nearly guaranteed to touch food and likely lips and mouth) is touching a surface that many other utensils hit (bottom of the basket). A parallel issue to ground meat from multiple animals here where if one piece is carrying something, then it's spreading.
A clever thing I saw a banquet hall staff do, was to bring the utensils with the bucket to the table which was covered with clean (disinfected) table cloth and tipped it over. That way she didn't have to pull them out by the business end and could grab the handles once they rested on the table.
Sounds good to me
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.266968
| 2013-04-07T16:05:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33297",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Hot in the Kitchen",
"Linda",
"Mien",
"Pranjal Dhole",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tyler Dean",
"Yogi Aaron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77228"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9300
|
Minimum amount of fat in Roux
Most (all) recipes I know talk about 50/50 butter/flour for roux. However, at home I'm using something like a 40/60 butter/flour mix. It's thicker, but it works.
Does anybody know what the absolute minimum butter content is for roux, so it will thicken with a low fat content. As far as I understand, the fat is there to align the starch molecules.
Cheers
Are you measuring by volume or weight? Many people use 1:1 by volume, but others use 1:1 by weight, which is much less fat (I've always gone with a heaping Tbsp of flour for each Tbsp of fat). Also, butter isn't fully fat, so would cut it down even more. I don't know exact proportions it all works out to, though. (it makes a rather thick glob ... almost looks like clay, or like after you've mixed tile grout correctly)
The minimum amount is whatever it actually takes to coat the flour. If you've got loose flour that won't incorporate, you haven't used enough. I'm not sure exactly what ratio that is, but I never even measure, personally...
@Aaronut - your comment is the closest thing to an answer I've seen so far.
I am not sure if you are interested in substitutions, but I have used Earth Balance (Soy-based, 11g total fat per tablespoon) for gravies and have been very satisfied with the results. A tablespoon of butter is also 11g, but Earth Balance markets itself with non-GMO, and better-than-normal-fat-is hooks.
The purpose of using a roux, as opposed to just plain flour, is to improve the dispersal of starch molecules in the sauce. If you just toss a bunch of flour into a simmering sauce - or do the reverse, pour hot liquid onto dry flour - then you'll immediately start getting gross glutinous lumps and will find it nearly impossible to smooth them out.
Starch is not actually soluble in fat; instead the fat coats the starch molecules, making it difficult for them to clump together when incorporated into a sauce. Making a roux out of the flour (and making sure to give the sauce a really good whisking after incorporation) basically helps to ensure an even distribution of starch so that your sauce ends up smooth, not lumpy.
So to answer your question, the minimum amount of butter (or other fat) you need is however much it takes to fully incorporate the flour. If you've still got dry clumps, you haven't used enough fat. More fat is okay, but if you don't use enough then you'll suffer some of the same lumpiness as if you didn't use a roux at all.
I'm not sure if there's a magic number - it's going to depend on the specific flour you're using and the specific fat. Even if you narrow it down to, say, all-purpose flour and butter, it can depend on the brand of flour, the fat content of the butter, and whether or not the butter has been clarified (which, if you have the time and patience, it should be).
The 1:1 ratio (by volume or mass) gives you a pretty decent safety margin; you won't need more than that, but it's also not so much that it'll make your sauce greasy. But you really don't need to measure it out at all; I don't, I just add fat while stirring until the flour is fully incorporated. Sometimes I might be more generous with the butter simply for flavour purposes.
Bottom line, it's really pretty obvious when you haven't got enough fat. If it looks good, it is good, and after a few sessions without the measuring spoons, you should very quickly get a feel for how much fat you really need.
I was looking for the 'magic number', but your answer is comprehensive and actually what I do in practice, so thumps up!
The fat is there to more easily incorporate the flour and add flavour. You can thicken liquids without added fat, it's just more difficult to avoid lumps (and less flavourful). In addition to a smoother mouthfeel, the butter can help brown the flour (for a dark roux) and adds salt and other tasties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.267165
| 2010-11-20T09:03:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9300",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Ray",
"Stefan Szakal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"pumpkinEater"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7167
|
What is the preferred method for sanitizing the kitchen?
I'm aware of a number of ways for sanitizing.
Soap.
Ammoniac.
Bleach.
Sodium bicarbonate.
Which of these is the preferred method of sanitation?
Which concentrations are recommended?
How can you test whether the levels of concentration are correct?
This site has to stay focused on culinary techniques. Cleaning your refrigerator and brushing your teeth are not on topic for this site. I have to close as off topic. Sorry.
Food safety should not be an off topic. There are questions about sanitation that have not been closed. This question has been restated to be more on topic.
(Belated comment) The edited question is now pretty well kitchen-focused, so I've reopened it.
Another route for day to day cleaning is vinegar. I use a spray bottle with half white vinegar and half water at night on my counter tops before bed. (Use soap after cooking or prepping.)
The vinegar does a good job cleaning bacteria, mold, and germs. Once you get accustomed to the smell of vinegar, you will realize it deodorizes after the vinegar smell goes away.
A nice touch is rubbing a lemon on the counter beforehand, but it really doesn't do much other than smell nice and break down oil.
+1 for vinegar- in many tests it outperforms commercial cleaners and is both cheaper and safer. It's what we use- although the smell could be quite a deterrent.
I remember there was a (lifehacker?) post about its uses a bit back; the two best being its standing use in a bowl, 1) leave a cup of vinegar in a bowl in a spot with odors (fridge, bathroom) and it will kill the odors after awhile, and 2) to clean your microwave, nuke a half cup in the microwave for a pre-degreaser
Soap, Rinse, Dry. Then 50% vinegar/water. Lemon optional. Sounds good to me.
Some bacteria like acid environments, so vinegar will not kill them at all. What vinegar does is help dissolve the oils and fats, which remove the food supply for bacteria to multiple in. There are hundred of studies on bacteria cleaning in hospitals and surgical scrub stations, these always use soap, brushes, and mechanical scrubbing to remove bacteria, not a weak acid!
@tfd you are correct however I'm not trying to breed staphylococcus on my countertops ;) vinegar is just a nice mild cleanser/deodorant for after doing dishes and does not replace regular scouring
For the family home kitchen don't sanitise your kitchen, you are wasting your time
Just use "elbow grease" and a little of the same detergent you wash your dishes in on a plain cloth. You want to mechanically remove food, oil, and fat from work surfaces. The cloth gets washed with your hot towel laundry. Remember the knobs and dials on appliances and handles of cupboards and the fridge too
Anything more is just cosmetic. All you need to do is mechanically remove food, oil, fat and water so bacteria can't multiply
Also if you don't change your cloths and towels with each cooking session you are really wasting your time trying to sanitise the kitchen anyway
You cannot 100% kill bacteria without using chemicals unsafe for humans and pulling apart your kitchen. And then an hour later it will be dirty again because the breeze brought something in, or you have shoes on that have been outside!
Your kitchen will be full of your families bacteria if cleaned this way. These bacteria are compatible with you body, and should not become a risk unless allowed to grow in large numbers. These bacteria will compete for food with any new imported bacteria, so you don't want to wipe them out (not that you can). They can help stop imported pathogenic bacteria from establishing themselves
Shouldn't you sanitize after prepping raw meat? That can introduce new and dangerous pathogens into your kitchen.
No. Raw meat handled and stored properly should not have sufficient bacteria to overcome your family bacteria. Any food not handled or stored correctly can become toxic, not just meat
MY preferred method (and for the establishments I have worked) has been to clean using soap and water, then sanitize using either a commercial product, or a bleach and water solution.
If you are going to immerse items to be sanitized, you should use 1/4 cup of bleach per gallon of water. Item should stay in solution for a minimum of 2 minutes. Air dry.
If you want to spray sanitizer onto items, like counter tops, use a solution of 1 tablespoon bleach per gallon of water. Sanitizer should be in contact with surface for 1 minute. Air dry.
If you don't want to air dry, rinse the item and dry with a clean towel.
Due to comments below, I searched for something to back up my statements. The guidelines I stated are from the CDC, and I apparently remember them from when I was worked in childcare (in which we prepared foods). Here is a page that should clarify.
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/5FCFA874-2853-4247-ACC4-F11196C07F93/10596/GeneralSanitationGuidelines.pdf
Hopefully someone can make this into a "cleaner" link with a clickable text, as I am not sure how to do that.
This one surprised me a bit. I would have expected that you'd want a more concentrated solution for spraying. Is the reason for using a lower spray concentration just that you'll tend to use more of it per individual item?
I'm also confused by the 1 minute contact for the weak solution vs. 2 minute contact for the strong solution. Note that the Clorox website recommends 3/4 cup and 5 minute contact... Although they may have a vested interest in encouraging stronger solutions ;-P
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.267522
| 2010-09-12T08:16:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7167",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Biagini",
"Jennifer Chan",
"Lorri",
"Manny",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Ostermiller",
"TFD",
"Taryn",
"Techie Joe",
"er0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"mfg",
"rajesh",
"saber tabatabaee yazdi",
"school",
"user21545"
],
"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
}
|
6899
|
Blowtorch - hardware store vs kitchen store. Is there a difference?
When looking for a blowtorch for the kitchen, you can buy some reasonably expensive tools. When looking for a blowtorch for plumbing, you can buy some reasonably cheap tools.
The price is different. The look is different. The principle is the same. I guess the gas is the same.
Why pay more? Is there a health issue? Is the kitchen blowtorch more precise?
Possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5105/should-a-serious-cook-own-a-blowtorch
Not the question... but the answers.
The fuel is sometimes different. You don't really care if your roof or weld smells a bit like kerosene.
Yes, there is no real difference.
Be aware that if you one from the hardware store, it should be one where the flame does not fluctuate when you tilt the torch. This usually happens with the very cheap ones. This becomes a big problem when you try to uniformly brown something.
Aside from that and maybe "esthetically" I see no reason not to use one from the hardware store.
:) I tried a cheep one a few years ago and set as I tilted the burner down at an ~45 degree angle, the flame spiked violently, setting a few kitchen towels on fire that were placed somewhere behind the piece of meet that I wanted to brown. Nothing really happened, I just needed to get a better burner :)
Actually, the gas isn't always the same -- in hardware stores, there's both propane and MAPP gas; you'd want to get a propane one. (it's cheaper, but it doesn't get as hot ... you won't need the extra heat for cooking purposes)
But well, the hardware store ones tend to be either much larger, or much smaller (they make some little mini-torches for emergencies that are about the size of a AA-battery flashlight). I would think that if you're a caterer, doing smaller parties at customer's houses, that the mid-size 'culinary' torch would be a benefit as it has enough gas in it to handle the job, but not so large that it's going to take up lots of space.
Yes. I've been visualizing trying to brown a crème brûlée with my bjillion BTU MAPP gas soldering torch. Not a pretty site. But I might try it for chilies...
@dmckee : it's not that much hotter -- 2900C vs. 2800C.
Does anyone know if the MAPP gas is even safe for food? I use a hardware propane torch and am very happy with it. Refills are cheap and last much longer than the dumb little kitchen store ones.
@Michael: It is a pure hydrocarbon with no ethane rings, so I would assume that as long as you are getting complete combustion (i.e. a nice blue centered flame with no smoke), you should be fine. I wouldn't use my pipe soldering torch because it is hard to adjust reliable to small amounts of output. Six inch flame, though? No problem.
@MichaelatHerbivoracious Yes, MAPP is safe. In fact, the authors of Modernist Cuisine recommend MAPP over Propane/Butane for its hotter flame temperature and lower propensity to deposit 'off flavours' onto food (which can happen with Propane).
The MAPP Gas is your best bet. Even though it may burn hotter, when the MAPP Gas does not completely combust, micro particles of the gas will be emitted from the tank and onto the food. This is also true with the propane burners. The difference is the flavor and smell. You will not taste or smell the minuscule amounts of MAPP gas on the food, whereas with the propane you will.
Correct, but you will still have have hydrocarbon by-products all over your food :-(
They're not always the same thing. You need a pressure regulated torch; the unregulated ones will shut off when tipped down, making them impossible to use on food.
For the most part they are the same. But if you work professionally, you may need one with health code stamp on it regarding the mechanisms cleanliness.
I had traded a refillable butane torch to a friend's daughter who was in school and needed one for class for one of her Sherry cakes,Not a big deal. I bought the them for $15 at HF tool store.
she was gonna buy the same looking thing for $60-$70. after a month or so. I had heard about the Health code stamp, she had to borrow a friends for the class. but still uses the one I traded her at home.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.268104
| 2010-09-07T10:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6899",
"authors": [
"Alec Keyser White",
"BaffledCook",
"Beth Koehler",
"Bogdan Belcea",
"Chris",
"Joanne Wiley",
"Joe",
"John Straka",
"Michael Natkin",
"Paul Simandl",
"SF.",
"TFD",
"codingFriend1",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"k.stm",
"sufw",
"user1515644",
"user21439"
],
"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
}
|
18130
|
Is there any use to salmon heads and spines?
The fishmonger gave me a whole salmon rationed, and included the head and spine. I threw the head and spine away, but was wondering whether there is any culinary use for it.
Normally in a fish stock, I use white fish, not blue.
I agree that you can get some good meat from the head and could use it to flavour Bouillabaisse, i wouldn't however use it for stock as oily fish can lead to a cloudy fatty stock rather than the clearer and more flavoursome fish stock that can be derived from the off cuts and bones from white fish.
I've seen a recipe for a 'strong fish stock' that uses salmon. I've also seen a warning against this type of stock as being too strong. So, bouillabaisse could be an option, next time around.
Lots of good meat on the head (e.g. right on the cheeks), don't throw it away!
I use salmon bones in stock all of the time. It's delicious!
I've always wondered if there were any kinds of fish that didn't make good fish stock?
The heads contain a lot of natural collagen and meat, so they are perfect for making head cheese. Here is a good recipe for king salmon heads. Here is a picture of the result of that recipe.
One word: nice (15 chars or more)
If you actually like gnawing on bones (like my parents), you can sprinkle some seasoned salt and bake/smoke them... and then gnaw on them...
They also prepare the head in various ways like steaming in rice wine with a bunch of scallions and ginger or the aforementioned stocks. This also depends on whether you like picking meat off.
In classic french cuisine there is probably no use for it in stocks. But you can look at asian stews for inspiration, e.g. Japanese 三平汁 or Russian Уха.
In Finland, salmon heads and bones are used to prepare the stock for salmon soup (lohikeitto). Salmon goes well with salmon (surprise!), and since the soup is cream/milk-based and rather thick, the oiliness and cloudiness of the stock is not a problem either.
Here's a randomly selected but authentic recipe. Dill is obligatory, and for bonus authenticity points, use a couple of whole allspice (maustepippuri) instead of black pepper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.268504
| 2011-10-01T16:09:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18130",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Crocoduck",
"Hopeless Cook",
"Jenny",
"Julia",
"Rikon",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"jcsky",
"john",
"vapcguy"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.