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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17539
|
What other vegetables can be used in cake/muffin baking?
Vegetables have been commonly used in baking cakes and muffins. A common one is carrots to make one of my fave - carrot cake. Recently I also found out about adding zucchinis (or courgettes) to brownies and cakes. I also found some recipes advising using beetroot in chocolate cakes.
I am wondering what other vegetables can be used in baking? Is there anything I should watch out for? Does a certain vegetable pair well with another ingredient?
How do you define "baking"? If you don't insist on sweet results, you can bake practically any vegetable, especially as a filling in a strudel or lasagna. A savoury muffin can also contain practically any plant you can cut small enough.
Ah, you missed the obvious: pumpkin!
This is biologically a fruit, actually, as is the zucchini.
Pumpkin loves same spices as carrot. Maybe even rum or butterscotch too.
Now, beetroot is a veg and colors cakes delectably; perhaps why it was originally added when going stingy on the cocoa.
How about parsnip next? Sweet and nutty, I think pistachios would complement it well in a recipe borrowed from zucchini bread.
more veg here:
http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/articles/how-to-make-cakes-from-vegetables
p.s. if you haven't guessed Rabarber is rhubarb
Potato bread is a staple in many cultures, and potatoes can be baked in sweet cakes as well.
And don't forget cornbread!
I don't know whether this is done all over the world, but here (austria) where I live there is a special cake called 'Rhabarber Kuchen' which means roughly translated 'rheum cake'. It's very delicious imo. As it name tells, it contains Rheum.
I just found a website just for this kind of cake: http://www.rhabarberkuchen.net/
Maybe you can use a translator to make something out of the recipes.
I think that's be better translated as rhubarb cake; rheum is the genus including rhubarb. And yes, rhubarb is commonly eaten in cakes and pies in the US too.
My first thought for "rheum" was something like mucus.
Carrots, broccoli or even pumpkins they are all ideal for cakes, especially pumpkin: it gives a great taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.302416
| 2011-09-07T02:37:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17539",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"George Madrid",
"HerpDerpington",
"JaneM",
"Kelly Kristine Griffin",
"MicroMachine",
"Pat",
"Patrick",
"Sarah",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90135",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11092
|
How to make a roux?
Whenever I try to make a roux according to one of the recipes I find online the consistency seems a little off. Should the roux be completely thick or should it have a less solid consistency? I seem to read that a roux should start with equal parts butter and flour.
Rue means something quite unrelated to cooking. ;) I suspect you mean roux. Hopefully someone can edit this in.
ahaha thanks, Noldorin and Bob. I need another lesson in spelling.
Check this overlapping question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9119/how-do-i-make-my-roux-taste-less-like-flour/9121#9121
@bikeboy389 : I would've said this one was a closer match, as it's more related to the fat-to-flour ratio which directly affects thickness : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9300/minimum-amount-of-fat-in-roux
@daniel: That's not it's usual meaning. It's certainly not the meaning here. Say "rue" to most people and they'll think of sorrow/regret.
A roux normally is equal parts fat and flour. It should be fairly solid, not runny. However, it is an individual decision. I've known guys who like it quite solid (like me), but you have to whisk the hell out of it to get out all of the lumps. Normally, if I am making a sauce or soup that I can't strain, I will make it a little slack. I also add my roux after so I can control the thickness of the sauce or soup. Normally you are not instructed to do so, but you have greater control. If you do it this way, you have to vigorously whisk while adding, or the starches will congeal together in lumps. No big deal if it you are able to strain, but...
Note that "fat" (lard) is commonly replaced with butter (which contains fat of course) in modern cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.302622
| 2011-01-15T23:59:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11092",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Jackie Clayton",
"Joe",
"JuliandotNut",
"Milo P",
"Noldorin",
"YosemiteMark",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rog",
"skymningen",
"stevebot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21338
|
How do I know if my meat thermometer is ovenproof?
Ever since a supposedly "ovenproof" thermometer shattered glass on my turkey Thanksgiving 2006 I have been afraid of these things. Is it generally safe to use them? Any maximum temperature I should be worried about?
I'd suggest a digital probe thermometer AND an instant read digital thermometer like the OXO (which is pretty cheap) or the Thermapen (which isn't). A leave-in probe lets you monitor the general progress of the food, giving you a good way to gauge how much cooking time remains without having to open the oven and slow down the process. The instant read variety is great for checking the internal temperature of all sorts of food that you might not normally measure -- steaks on the grill, mashed potatoes, stocks and soups (to make sure that they're cooling quickly enough), bread (to check for doneness)...
Both leave-in and instant read are extremely useful, and neither of them will expose your turkey to the risk of glass shards.
$6! http://www.dealextreme.com/p/grill-and-bbq-thermometer-50c-300c-11694, that way if you "grill it", you wont be crying
Don't use the stick it in and leave it thermometers... get yourself a good insta-read. You want to take multiple readings from all over the roast not just one spot. Most chefs have a good insta-read in their sleeve pocket at all times. Even good ones don't cost a huge amount of cash and they last for years.
IMHO avoid the digitals. I don't like batteries and the calibration of them, if you can do it at all, doesn't leave me with the same confidence as a traditional dial unit.
Added Notes:
The leave-ins are made of metal so they act like a conductor of heat and will in fact make the area around the probe cook faster and throw off your measurements. Just like when Grandma would stick baked potato spikes through the middle of her spuds to help with cooking. What you ended up with was an outside layer cooked, a middle layer under-cooked and a center that was cooked.
Heat loss from openning the oven door for a quick temp check won't effect the cooking unless we're talking a souffle. Using a leave-in so you can monitor how done the roast seems strange to me. A whole roast chicken in a 400F oven will be 3/4 done in 30minutes so I know that I should be checking with my insta-read starting at 30 minutes and every 5-8 minutes there after.
Leave-ins however are GREAT for putting into your frying oil so you know when the temp is ready to do your French fries or if you need to actually monitor the temp at the bottom of a bucket of soup that is cooling in the walk-in (stcking your hand into the soup is frowned upon even if you are trying to keep with food safe practices).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.302796
| 2012-02-14T04:44:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21338",
"authors": [
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11632
|
What is the glaze on a bakery-style fruit tart?
I am looking to re-create a bakery-style fruit tartlette. I was wondering what the glaze on top of the fruit tarts you find in US bakeries is and how you can create it at home.
I have heard that it's just heated apple jelly, but I imagine that might change the flavor of the whole tart. It seems like it's largely a preservative since I don't see any glaze in home recipes, but I like texture it adds.
The glaze on most fruit tarts is just melted jelly. Given the small quantity involved, you probably wouldn't particularly notice the apple flavour. However, there's no reason you couldn't use another type of jelly if you preferred.
If you take a look at many fruit juice blends, you'll note that the base is usually apple, even when that's not the advertised fruit flavour, so it's obviously not an overpowering flavour when mixed with other fruits.
This Tips for Pies and Tarts page has a couple suggestions at the end for glazes for fruit pies and tarts.
I've seen a lot of tart recipes that call for melted apricot jam/jelly as the glaze. It's similarly elusive flavor-wise to apple jelly, and doesn't stand out as a flavor on its own.
My guess is that in a more industrial setting apple is more likely, though, as it's generally cheaper and more readily available in large quantities.
I generally use apricot jam, works perfectly
It's actually called 'mirror glaze' or 'miroir glaze' (I think that's French). It's quite hard to find and when you do it's usually sold in bulk (e.g. 6kg) as it's only really used by professional pastry chefs.
I am currently making lemon curd tarts and want to get that beautiful glossy finish so I plan on experimenting with something like this (note that it's an experiment!):
Ingredients
- gold gelatine leaves
- lemon juice
- sugar
- water
Bloom the gelatine leaves in some cold water.
In a saucepan, add quantities of lemon juice, sugar and water to your taste and bring to the boil or until sugar dissolves.
Once the above has cooled slightly, add the bloomed gelatine leaves and stir until dissolved. Set aside until mixture begins to thicken, then pour/spoon over filled tarts.
Note that with with gelatine leaves, the proportion is 2g gelatine leaves to every 100mL liquid.
I've seen this in the grocery store:
It seems like it would work for what you want. More details at http://www.oetker.us/en/product/baking-aids/glazes-and-sauces/clear-glaze suggest it's basically starch, and you could use cornstarch and sugar in water, or cornstarch in reduced fruit juice, for the same effect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.303042
| 2011-01-29T23:55:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11632",
"authors": [
"Matt Jinings",
"Mitch Ginsburg",
"PW Kad",
"Tom Bush",
"Winton Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"junedkazi",
"nico",
"user23894",
"user23895"
],
"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
}
|
11762
|
Why does prepackaged deli meat taste better when you take each slice and "fluff" it?
If you take a package of deli meat and remove the slab, place it on bread and add your condiments in never tastes as good as when you take the slab and "fluff" up each piece as you lay it on your sandwich.
Whatever it is it really does make a difference.
If this is true and not just psychological then it can't have anything to do the bread/sandwich, it would affect the flavour of the meat itself.
This deli meat you speak of is generally made of small scraps of mechanically-separated meat that are essentially "glued" together into a solid mass by enzymes that partially break down the tissue. This processed "meat brick" doesn't really have the same texture as an intact muscle tissue, which has individual muscle fibers aligned along a "grain" that makes it pleasantly chewy. Folding/layering/rolling slices of processed meat gives it more of a texture and chew, and tricks you into thinking you're eating an actual piece of animal muscle instead of meat-flavored jelly.
I know this is a bit subjective, but I'm sure the answer has to be related to the texture, as that's the only thing that's really changing here. By the way, I'm having slices of meat-flavored jelly for lunch. Mmmmm...
Oooo... Good call on texture.
Also, having boar's head mustard helps. That makes sense though. I can't eat deli meat by itself, that may explain why.
But it's also true for shaved meats, where there's little cohesion left in the meat, and it's true for roast beef, where it is coming from one large muscle, and not an "amalgameat".
@Bob: It's not the only thing that's changing. The exposed surface area changes. And I'm totally with Joe: this happens not just for real meat, but even thinly sliced vegetables.
surface area - greater flavor transfer to your mouth per volume
Similar to @uncle brad's comment, I would consider that it's related to the air:
A larger amount of air is trapped close to the ham, and hence is scented by it. This means that the ham-scented air is released into your mouth as you bite, which then escapes through your nose, increasing your perception of the ham (as taste is largely composed of smell).
I'm now actually quite hungry.
I suspect that this is a more likely contributor, and not just texture. You might be able to test this one by comparing two otherwise identical sandwiches, but eat them with your nose plugged; if this is a contributing factor, the two should taste similar. You could also compare plugged vs. unplugged nose for the two sandwiches.
@Joe: Science! Hurrah!
one problem...I hate ham. The product in question is Buddig Sliced chicken meat.
I'm not sure why you assume the air has to be trapped. Why does finely shaved zest work better than a big hunk of peel? There's more surface area for the good stuff to get out! Same goes for deli meat, I'm sure. When you eat it, there's air (and perhaps saliva) moving over the exposed surface area, carrying the flavor to your senses, whether or not there was trapped air.
@Jefromi: Actually, I quite like the idea of marinaded air. :) I would suggest that your Comment Question should be turned into a Question Answer, and hence allow the two options to be considered side-by-side, rather than debated in comments.
I think that Stuart has almost the right idea. Rather than trapping air close to the ham, and letting aromas diffuse through that, though, I think that it's simply a matter of surface area.
When you smell something, air flows over the surface area, and picks up the volatile compounds that form the aroma - those are what you smell, and clearly they don't have to have been trapped next to it to get a strong scent. When you eat something, you've got the smelling part going on, plus the food on your tongue - and surface area could easily help there too, letting more of the food come into contact with your taste buds as it's moved around in your mouth.
The best analogy, I think, is citrus zest. Clearly you can smell a whole lot more from finely shaved zest than you can from a hunk of peel, and this is true even without any air being trapped next to it. If you need convincing, just give some zest repeated sniffs, or carefully blow on it to remove trapped air, then smell it.
The increased surface area and air also allow the fat to warm up a little and give more flavor, so you're not eating stacked meat with still 'jellied' fat in the middle.
To fold ingredients to expose them to more air is a well known technique in cooking to ENHANCE flavoring.
The more air that infuses each bite, the better. Oxidation to food is essential to good flavour. So yes! When you make a sandwich, fold the meat to create air channels, if you have or can slice your cheese very thinly, then do the same as well.
If you make a sandwich with three pieces of meat, do not just stack them one upon the other; this is "truck driver" mentality. instead, layer them to enhance the flavour value. This is a well known technique among chefs and gastronomes alike.
I've edited the insults out of your answer (rudeness is not welcome here). I've still downvoted it, however, because while you're right that folding to expose more does enhance flavor (as the question says), I don't think it's anything to do with oxidation. Flavor comes from volatile molecules, which don't oxidize when exposed to air - the key is that those molecules have to make it to your nose and palate to be tasted, and so simply exposing food's surface area lets more of them come off the food and be smelled/tasted.
The Wright brothers where not certified pilots either :p
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.303286
| 2011-02-02T17:10:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11762",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Damkerng T.",
"Joe",
"John Karoshi",
"MVCylon",
"Mark LeMoine",
"Oishi",
"Stu Pegg",
"TFD",
"celeriko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84041",
"notatypewriter",
"s3raph86",
"sepiott",
"user24183",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16993
|
How can I remove mold stains from a pan?
A few weeks ago I made some homemade bread pudding. We had a few servings of it, the weather got hot and humid, and I soon learned that mold really likes bread pudding too. The pan is a stoneware pan.
I rolled up my sleeves, got some really hot water, and scoured it as best as I could but it still has dark spots and a moldy "funk" to it. I don't really want to use it like this. Is there a way that I can clean this pan or is it a lost cause?
I use bleach to remove mold and mildew stains from my bathroom and while the process would be gross, I would think that once thoroughly washed the bleach wouldn't cause any harmful effects to the pan or to future snacking humans.
No more harmful than the chlorine in your pool, or your municipal water.
This is exactly what I would do. First I'd try bleach mixed with water in the ratio suggested by the bottle. If that was not successful, I'd step up to using small amounts of pure bleach and allow it to sit for a 5-10 minute period before rinsing/scrubbing. Pure bleach will do amazing things to mold/mildew. I've seen grout between tiles start out black with mold and look brand new after being treated with pure bleach.
If for some reason you're uncomfortable with bleach, you could also try white vinegar. (Vinegar can be used anyway to remove any bleachy smell -- more of an issue if you're using bleach to clean plastic containers.)
I've used Milton sterilizing fluid for jobs like this - especially tea stains in mugs and even turmeric.
I've had that happen a couple of times. I read that you can boil water and vinegar in a pot to get some of those dark spots loose and easier to clean. Stoneware gets seasoned with use so if you use too harsh of cleaning chemicals food for the next few meals may stick more than usual. If your pan/pot is not something you can put over a direct flame then I would fill it with water & white vinegar and put it in the oven at 200+ for a while. Just keep an eye on it so that the water doesn't evaporate below the stain.
Edit: On my non-porous cookware I use bar keepers friend and it does great. It's mildly acidic.
Bleach does not kill mold. It just bleaches it white and eventually comes back. Borax kills mold and it never comes back!
Welcome to SA! Please be aware that you are answering a question that is over 10 years old, and as such the asker is unlikely to see your answer. Also, this answer could be improved by citations for its factual claims.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.303872
| 2011-08-19T19:04:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16993",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brent D",
"FuzzyChef",
"Martha F.",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Spammer",
"ezhang94",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98051",
"some_groceries"
],
"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
}
|
8597
|
How do I bake chicken breast?
The kitchen queen marinated three whole chicken breasts in the refrigerator today. She left a note saying to bake them. I have no idea what I'm doing. Should I slice them in half to make them thinner? What temperature do I cook at? How long do I cook approximately? What type of dish do I use? Should I cover said dish?
Chef Joe
Was she cooking from a recipe? Also, a "whole" chicken breast can mean "both breasts from a single chicken" - are there 3 of those in the fridge?
There are 3 pieces of chicken. So I think it's 3 single breasts
The exact time and temperature will depend on the size of the breasts and your oven. You should always use a meat thermometer to verify that the chicken is cooked all the way through. For breasts, you want to make sure they're around 160 F on the inside (they're actually safe to eat a bit earlier, but 160 F leaves you with a margin of error). If you don't have a meat thermometer, you'll need to cut them open to make sure they're not pink on the inside, and the juices run clear.
I'd start the oven at about 375 F, and start checking on them after about 30 mins.
We tend to cook our chicken breasts on a cookie sheet wrapped in tin foil for tidiness. Go for 400 degrees and 25-35 minutes depending on thickness. Since they're marinated, you'll want to turn them 1/2 way through to avoid burning of any sugars in that marinade which might cause the chicken to stick.
If you have a meat thermometer, you want the pieces to be 165 degrees in the center. If you don't, my best recommendation is to make sure that the juices run clear and that there's no pink left in the meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304117
| 2010-10-28T00:18:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8597",
"authors": [
"Bhavin",
"Gary",
"Hayden Fennell",
"Joe Phillips",
"Matt Ball",
"Melanie Stegall",
"Vinod Dalvi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/841"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1932
|
How to cook/serve Confit de Canard?
I was in France some time ago and bought some Confit de Canard with me back home. But how do I cook it for best result? And what do I serve with it? Also, what would be a good desert?
I'm thinking of Foie Gras as entrée.
Usually it is removed from the fat, and warmed in an oven. The exact instructions will probably be on the tin, but from memory I think it was about 15 mins @ 180c, as you only really need to warm them through and remove the excess fat.
We have always served it with potatoes roast in some of the fat from the tin. Usually par-boiled, minced garlic added, then shaken in the boiling pan (with a lid on) to mix the garlic in and to rough up the edges so you get some nice crispy bits, then put into a hot tray of duck fat (go on be generous with the fat, it's delicious) and into a hot oven till crispy.
You could also serve it with dauphinoise potatoes, which would also be great.
Accompanied by french beans or broccoli or some other green veg, and some crusty French bread to mop up the fat with. mmmm. Makes me want to go and get my tin out of the cupboard for tonight.
mmmm... fat [mouth waters]
I fry them. Face down for about half an hour, medium heat. You can cook rostis in the duck fat. Makes the top go crisp. Good with a simple green salad and a good burgundy :)
love the sound of those rostis...
How about a cassoulet? Duck confit is a traditional ingredient.
Perhaps, but I'd prefer it with roast poptatoes and vegetables ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304293
| 2010-07-19T08:34:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1932",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Bill",
"Bob Aman",
"Caleb Bell",
"Chiron",
"Frank Pierce",
"Sam Holder",
"Stassii Bali",
"axk",
"dougvk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/877",
"noocyte"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2164
|
How do you cook quinoa?
How do you cook quinoa? I mean what equipment do you use (electric cooker, pressure cooker, stove top)? Do you add spices or vegetables to it while cooking it?
Quinoa naturally contains a bitter compound on the outside of the seed. Usually you have to rinse the quinoa to remove the bitterness but most commercial quinoa seems to have already been rinsed. So, I no longer rinse my quinoa. If you have time, it's nice to heat a pan and add the quinoa and toast it a little (for a nutty flavor and fluffier texture), then add water and salt. I typically bring the water to a boil (2 cups water to 1 cup quinoa plus 1/4 tsp salt), cover and reduce the heat to a simmer for 10-20 minutes (or until the little tails release). Lately I've found that using a rice cooker is a no-fuss way to prepare quinoa. I usually just do quinoa, water and sea salt but you can add spices while cooking it if you want to enhance the flavor. I would add vegetables afterwards. Quinoa is so quick-cooking I wouldn't see the need for a pressure cooker.
I use it in 3 different ways:
"Raw": I put it as a crust for many of my breads, or deep fry coatings.
Boiled: I boil it like couscous and enjoy it that way as a rice substitute.
Flour substitute: I usually substitute it for flour (max of a 1/2 cup).
I generally
cover it with water in a saucepan,
boil it for around 10 minutes,
drain it
and then use it in the same way I'd serve rice. I find it tastier than rice and like the texture. I don't usually add anything, but I'm sure you could.
Good question, Surya. It's interesting to know what kinds of questions others have about quinoa.
Our family cooks quinoa in a plain stainless steel pot. No fancy equipment needed.
We usually throw in some spices while it's cooking. The best for us are garlic, onion, basil, and oregano.
Then when it's done cooking we'll usually sprinkle some olive oil (extra-virgin, cold-pressed) and salt on it.
Finally we serve it with broccoli and peas and sometimes lentil beans.
We give some more details about cooking quinoa on our page if you're interested -- How to Cook Quinoa.
Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304465
| 2010-07-19T21:37:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2164",
"authors": [
"Daud Ahmad Khokhar",
"Shaggy Frog",
"Shiqi",
"Uticensis",
"digitaldreamer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83061",
"jelly46",
"jos",
"ptpaterson"
],
"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
}
|
46786
|
Accentuating Garlic flavour
I keep losing the flavour of garlic when I cook. For example, I chop up a lot of garlic and put it in a baked bean recipe or I make soup. I have been putting an enormous amount of garlic in these recipes and still can't taste it and I wonder if I'm preparing it incorrectly.
I just put on some chicken to go in a soup. Should I be chopping it up and putting it onto the chicken so that the chicken fat interacts with the garlic or wait to put the garlic into the broth?
In general, should garlic be prepared by having it interact with meat fats or should it be put on top at the end or boiled with other vegetables?
Is there a spice that will help make the garlic flavour more prominent?
Simply put, the longer garlic cooks for, the weaker the flavour gets. If you want a super-garlicky hit, put it in at the last minute. Chopping it finer, or crushing it, also increases the flavour because more of the 'juice' is released.
Agree - the lnoger it cooks the more subtle it becomes. Also, some garlic has a more pronounced garlic flavor than others.
Might you know which garlic types have the most flavour... the uh... species or or whatever its called? :)
there are indeed two basic types: hard stem and soft stem garlic, with different properties...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304668
| 2014-09-01T17:31:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46786",
"authors": [
"Angela Herubin",
"Dawn French",
"Ian Melville",
"Ira Patron",
"Steve McSween",
"chrips",
"frank alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60328
|
Why did my Chickpea water congeal?
I cooked a bag of chickpeas in a slow cooker, just water and the peas.
Once the peas were soft I ate them with the water they were cooked in, like a bean soup.
Once that cooled the "soup" congealed like jello.
I didn't know it would do that. Is that good for you...I mean it looked like something that would clog your arteries.
In recent times, people have been using the water from canned chickpeas as an egg white replacement in baking, referred to as aquafaba. I wonder if that could have something to do with the consistency of the liquid.
Chickpeas are starchy, so it's natural that the liquid they are cooked in will thicken when it cools. It will not 'clog your arteries' - food doesn't travel directly to your bloodstream in the form in which you eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304819
| 2015-08-29T02:57:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60328",
"authors": [
"Chelsea O'Neil",
"Daniel Adamski",
"Irene Lindsay",
"Lisa Groce",
"NRaf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"jones tambetabi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61938
|
What can be used instead of cheesecloth?
My father is cooking a soup, we don't have a cheesecloth and he wants to clear the soup.
This question could also maybe help. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50314/fabric-to-be-used-for-cheesecloth
@Optionparty I forgot to say that we want something better than the strainer.
A cloth held in a strainer removes many solids. A coffee filter even more.
Paper towels have worked for me when I've strained cooking oil.
@Optionparty doesn't piece of papers fall?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.304937
| 2015-09-22T11:46:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61938",
"authors": [
"Amelia Ippoliti",
"Ann Ball",
"Bette Slepicka",
"Neil Meyer",
"Optionparty",
"Steven Wells",
"Tom Holland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39470",
"user139316"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24604
|
How can I stop my cheese seizing?
Quite a few recipes require tossing cheese with some hot ingredient until it melts (like pasta), or melting cheese into something (sauce, soup, etc.). Usually this works fine, but sometimes the cheese "seizes", where it balls up into hard, rubbery curds, and won't melt or break down for anything. Further cooking only makes the cheese curds firmer.
I've had this happen both with commercial cheeses and with my own homemade cheeses.
Does anyone know what causes this? Ingredient or process in making the cheese? Type or degree of heat? Something else? I've already ruled out other ingredients in the dish, since I've had this happen with identical recipes, except the brand of cheese was different.
This is a combination of the type of cheese and too much heat. Some cheeses melt more readily (mozzarella for example), but all of them will seize up if they are heated too much too fast - the proteins 'curl up' and separate from the fat and water in the cheese.
To combat this, you should chop or grate the cheese up to speed up melting, and lower the heat a little before adding it. You should also avoid using cheese straight from the fridge.
As Elendil said, this is the cheese proteins denaturing under heat and expelling the fat and moisture which was trapped in them.
For even melting results, you can make your own processed cheese from any cheese, it will stay OK when melted, and taste like the good cheese you started with (unlike the processed cheese in the supermarket, which starts with bad cheese and ends up tasteless). There was a Food lab article on that, will have to search for the link later. Alternatively, melt it fondue-like with some alcohol and starch.
http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipes/Perfectly-Melting-Cheese-Slice
Was it this? http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/09/the-burger-lab-cheese-sauce-for-burgers-fries-and-chips.html
no, http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/09/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-super-melty-cheese-slices-like-american.html
Just commenting to 'bookmark' this. I am not sure if there is a feature for that. Read over the links, and there is some interesting things in there. As someone who would rather have 'plastic cheese' nachos than the gourmet versions, I want to experiment with the recipes above. FWIW, I know of a little stand in my city that will make nachos with fresh made chips, fixins, whatever meat you want (carnitas are stoopid good), and then dump queso sauce on it. That is why I am fat.
@JSM under the vote numbers for each question, there is a small grey star. When you click it, the question becomes "bookmarked" for you. It only works for a whole question, not for individual answers.
Cheese seizes when the proteins decide they would rather stick to each other than spread out and melt into their surroundings. There are a couple things that encourage seizing, including having the cheese clumped up closely together so it's easier for them to tangle, or having too much liquid between clumps of cheese so they don't spread out well, or having the temperature too high (overcooking). In short, the more uneven the texture, the more likely clumping will occur, and the more clumping, the more likely seizing will occur - this is a general principle in cooking, it is easier to mix things the more similar they are, and clumping and such is more likely the more different their textures are.
So, how to prevent it? You need to equalize the texture as much as possible - either thin out your cheese, or thicken what you're melting it into, so the proteins will not clump together but spread out into a melty puddle. To thin your cheese, you can grate or shred, or slice or chop your cheese finely, this exposes more surface area to the surrounding liquid and encourages a more even texture.
You can also moisten the cheese, that helps a lot. If you're melting cheese straight or mostly so, like cheese toast or a decorative sprinkle on top of something, simply sprinkling or spreading water on top will give a bit of encouragement for the cheese to melt instead of dry out. If you're melting a drier, sharper cheese, you can grate or shred it, and let it sit in water for a while to hydrate. These cheeses dry out as they age, so reintroducing some water into them encourages them to melt like younger, moister cheeses - especially if you give enough time for the water to soak in properly.
The second option was to thicken whatever you're melting the cheese into. The classic recipe for cheese sauce starts with a roux for that reason, and adds cheese slowly, because the more stuff floating around in the sauce, the more chances the cheese will grab and mix into the stuff floating around in the sauce, instead of itself. Melted cheese will itself thicken the liquid, so you really just need a bit of something to start - I've used things like gravy mix or powdered cheese sauce or starch to thicken, among other things. It doesn't even have to add a lot of flavor if I just use enough to get started, the amount of cheese outweighs the single spoonful of thickener. Extra liquid should be added closer to the end, when the cheese has already melted into your thick sauce - its easier to make a thick sauce thinner than melt solid stuff int thin liquid.
You can, of course, use emulsifiers like mustard, egg yolk, cream. I tend to think of and use them as thickeners, but there may be benefit out of proportion to amount if you want to minimize the other flavors.
Other notes - overcooking encourages the cheese to seize up, so heat gently and as evenly as possible while the cheese is melting. It can take higher heat after everything is well mixed, if you want to brown the top or anything. Also, remember to stir frequently - some of the clumping or unevenness is simply physical, mixing encourages the melty edges of the cheese to spread out and mix into their surroundings and slowly spreads through and thickens the surrounding liquid. The larger bits of cheese will melt better once they get up to temperature, since the liquid is a bit thicker and they are a bit more exposed to moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.305040
| 2012-06-21T02:44:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24604",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"JSM",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35287
|
What is the difference between apple juice and cider?
I was at the grocery store and saw glass containers of these.
What would be the differences?
Apple cider has two meanings, but they both start with raw, pressed juice from crushed apples.
Soft apple cider (normally just called cider) is simply the pressed juice, bottled. It is cloudy from suspended apple particles, and turns brown from the oxidation, much as apples themselves do when cut and exposed to air. Hard apple cider is an alcoholic beverage made by allowing soft apple cider to ferment.
Apple juice is essentially the squeezed juice from the apples that has been highly filtered to remove the suspended particulates. It is usually pasteurized to have a longer shelf life.
UK Usage: Per ElendilTheTall, in the UK, the alcoholic beverage is called cider, and the other products are called simple apple juice.
See also: MA government article
Just to round this out, I will point out that in Europe, cider is the alcoholic drink, and apple juice is the soft drink, regardless of whether its cloudy or not. There is no such thing as 'soft apple cider' in Europe (ie nothing called that). Just FYI.
I should clarify, no one in the US normally says "soft apple cider"; I was just emphasizing the contrast with hard cider.
Following on from ElendilTheTall's comment, this answer may be dangerously misleading in Europe. Cider is considered by many, not including myself, to have a sufficiently high alcohol percent to engender significant caution. From my experience, 5% to 12%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.305508
| 2013-07-13T20:56:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35287",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"alan2here",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21777
|
How can I flambé ice cream?
For a dessert I recently made, I intended to flame, or burn some alcohol on a quinel of ice cream. Unfortunately, it would not light. I've searched the web a bit since and have come to think it was to cold for the alcohol to evaporate and so burn (bad explanation, I know). Is this why? How would I go about achieving this, ideally with no chemicals as I have a kitchen not a lab.
Thanks in advance!
For a substance to burn, it must first reach its ignition point. For it to keep burning, it must reach its fire point. The ignition point of a 40% ABV liquid such as brandy is 26ºC/79ºF, and the fire point is approximately 10ºC higher than that.
What this means in practical terms is that you need to heat the alcohol a little first before you add it to the ice cream. The simplest way to do this is to put the alcohol in a ladle and heat it over the hob - it won't need much as 36ºC is not a great deal over room temperature. Then light it carefully with a long match, and pour it around your ice cream - if you've got it warm enough it should keep burning until the alcohol is consumed.
Whoa, 80 proof liquor would catch on fire if you left it outside in a Texas summer?
@elendilthetall Just the answer I was looking for +1
@jefromi No, it wouldn't - unless you put a match to it. The ignition temperature is the temperature required for a substance to ignite when exposed to a flame. For a substance to spontaneously ignite (i.e. without a flame) it needs to reach the autoignition point: for ethanol that's 365ºC/689ºF - even Texas summers aren't that hot :)
Oh, okay, I inferred badly from the mention of both ignition and fire point. Never mind!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.305655
| 2012-02-27T07:18:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21777",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Nice Volcano",
"Sebiddychef",
"TarranJones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41646
|
Is Dextrose the same as Atomized Glucose Powder?
I have been making some yummy sorbets and ice creams.
Many recipes call for atomized glucose powder. However, 'atomized glucose powder' is not that readily available. 'Dextrose', however, is commonly available at local heath food stores here in Southern California.
There is some debate if dextrose is the same as atomized glucose. Specifically, look at this thread on eGullet where it is stated:
Dextrose is a type of glucose but is sweeter. Atomized glucose has
what is called a sweetness coefficent of 50 while dextrose has one of
75.
Here are some other data points:
1. Wikipedia states: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose)
Glucose (also known as D-glucose, dextrose, or grape sugar) is a
simple monosaccharide found in plants.
2. Harold McGee in 'On Food and Cooking' states (p. 653 in the most recent edition):
Glucose, also called dextrose, is a simple sugar, and the most common sugar from which living cells directly extract chemical energy.
3. The Culinary Institute of America's 'Mastering the Art of Craft of Baking and Pastry',
2nd edition states in the glossary (p. 914)
Glucose: A monosaccaride that occurs naturally in fruits, some vegetables, and honey. Also known as dextrose.
4. Heston Blumenthal's 'The Fat Duck Cookbook' in the Science section (p. 456):
Glucose: Arguably, glucose is the most important and widespread sugar molecule in biology.
All glucose molecules come in two versions, a left-handed version called L-glucose and a right handed version called D-glucose. D-glucose is the only type produced by nature and the only type used in food.
I am persnickety about using just the right ingredient. Is dextrose powder that you find at the health food store exactly the same as the expensive imported atomized glucose powders that need to be ordered from a specialty pastry supplier? Or is ordering fancy French atomized glucose powder a pain when you can just buy 'dextrose' and substitute 1:1.
Most atomized glucose powder comes from Europe and dextrose is from American sources. Is this just a different term for the same thing?
In normal stores in Europe, you also get dextrose. If there is "atomized powder", then it is probably only available at specialty pastry stores, or it is a name used in countries I haven't shopped in.
I've made tons and tons of ice cream, and don't think I've even seen it in a recipe, so I'm not sure this is an ingredient you need to be at all picky about - just make things that don't call for it.
@Jefromi : there are some diets (such as the low-FODMAP diet) where you're avoiding fructose, so try to use glucose/dextrose instead. (although, some people say it's okay on that diet to have fructose provided it's not more than your glucose intake).
Dextrose is one of the two stereoisomers of glucose, also known as D-glucose. The other is L-glucose. The two isomers are exactly the same except for being mirror images of one another.
In cooking, all glucose you encounter is going to be dextrose as that's the form that terrestrial life is able to produce and metabolize. (A few unusual bacteria can metabolize both). L-glucose was considered as a non-caloric sweetener but is too expensive to produce.
The only differences between ingedients labelled as glucose, dextrose, or corn syrup (not HFCS though) are going to be what other trace substances are present with it and in what quantities, and mechanical differences like grain size or concentration within a syrup.
Of course details like that can be significant to a recipe. If a recipe specifies "atomized glucose" then the specific mechanical properties may be important to the recipe. Consider how you can't use icing sugar to cream butter for a cake, and you can't use granulated sugar to make icing even though both are sucrose.
"Atomized glucose" seems to be primarily a French product, derived from spray-drying glucose syrup. Glucose syrup is best known in America as corn syrup (e.g. light Karo, not HFCS), and is mostly, but not entirely, glucose. Dextrose is pure crystalline glucose. They are not exactly the same ingredient, and probably not interchangeable in fussy recipes.
I have been studying Glucose for more than 20 years, I used to have glucose powder in my drinks, I now have Dextrose powder which is known ad D-glucose, it is Pure crystalline Glucose.
In honey,Glucose іѕ thе undеrlуіng саuѕе оf сrуѕtаllіzаtіоn bесаuѕе оf іtѕ lоwеr ѕоlubіlіtу соmраrеd wіth thаt оf fruсtоѕе whісh rеmаіnѕ іn а lіquіd ѕtаtе duе tо іtѕ bеttеr ѕоlubіlіtу.
Whеn gluсоѕе сrуѕtаllіzеѕ, іt ѕераrаtеѕ frоm wаtеr аnd turnѕ іntо ѕmаll сrуѕtаls.
L'Epicerie - Glucose powder (atomized) Atomized Glucose Also known as Glucose Powder.
Used in pastries, ice creams, sorbets, and confectionery.
Contrary to sucrose it delays sugar re-crystallization and keeps products and preparations from drying up for a better product preservation.
D-glucose does the opposite, it helps crystallize products fast.
If it is delaying crystallization then It is not the same as Dextrose.
So... are dextrose and atomized glucose powder the same or not? You don't seem to answer that question.
No--Dextrose and glucose are NOT EXACTLY the same. Dextrose is D glucose-and glucose consists of two parts the d glucose and the L glucose.This difference is only important in scientific studies and in some cooking recipes
-where Atomized Glucose is called for--as this is not as sweet as Dextrose--but helps keep products from drying up too fast--ie they taste fresher for longer.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.305822
| 2014-01-31T21:00:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41646",
"authors": [
"Cam",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Community",
"Joe",
"Lauren Bradbury",
"Maureen M-T",
"MightyFinder",
"bionesto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97563",
"per",
"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
}
|
14480
|
Which baking dish is best to bake a banana bread?
When I bake a banana bread or cake at home, I always use a square Pyrex(about 20cm in width and 7 cm high) dish. The batter only fill the dish at half its height or less and I set my oven to 350F. I bake the banana bread for 30 min in the middle of the oven and when I check for doneness, the middle part is a bit wet(about 90% done) while the surrounding area is perfectly done.
Is a square Pyrex a good way to bake banana bread and cake or should I get a loaf pan or bundt shape one? Does a loaf pan bake the banana bread or cake evenly in a set period of time? From this recipe, the baking time in the load pan seems to be 1 hour compared to 30 min in the Pyrex.
"Best" is subjective.
The different choices of baking pans will effect texture and baking time. The more surface area the more crust and the faster the baking time.
Recipes call for a bread pan simply because then it looks like bread and is easier to slice. As you noticed, it does require longer to bake.
Muffin pans are also very popular because of the convenient shape and faster baking time.
If you like the shape and texture of your bread in a baking dish then by all means keep using it. I won't criticize you for it.
Agreed on the muffin pans -- it's so much easier for portioning; I also like mini-loaf pans.
I have never tried banana bread in a square pan. I have used loaf pans and it always cooks evenly that way. The center is of course still the last to cook but when it's done the entire loaf is evenly baked and moist.
But the pan might not be your problem. Although Pyrex cooking times are generally shorter, 30 minutes seems too short. I would bet your oven is running hot. Oven dials are usually not very accurate and it might not be a bad idea to invest in an inexpensive oven thermometer, or just try a lower temp and 40 to 45 minutes to see if that gives you a more evenly baked result.
In a regular loaf pan I remember getting a perfect result at more like the 50 minute mark, rather than a full hour as that recipe suggests.
I would expect that the shorter baking time in the larger square pan is actually a function of the shape of the loaf. At the same temperature, the center of a flat item will get cooked faster than a cylindrical (or thick rectangle, like a loaf pan) item of the same volume. So based on the information provided I don't see any reason to assume that the oven is running hot.
@bikeboy389, that's a good point, and my loaf pan is smaller than the square pan, so you're right about the height and a better explanation for the faster cooking time overall. For the undercooked center, I still think a lower temp and longer cooking time might help. Think about it at the extremes. At 800F the center would be underdone with a burnt outside. At the lower extreme the entire bread would stay undercooked :-) The tip about oven thermometer comes from personal experience. Had a few ovens that were quite off.
As Sobachatina said, "Best" is subjective.
There is a significant difference between baking in glass loaf pans (pyrex), standard metal loaf pans, and non-stick loaf pans. All three will require different time adjustments for the exact same item. You may also want to play around with the temperature a bit. When trying to find the right temperature for baking, I drop the oven temp by 25 degrees F, and add about 10 minutes to the cook time, then I check for doneness (if not done, pop it back in for another 10 minutes, check, etc.)
Hope this helped.
Well, there is one difference: adding cooler liquids to a hot glass pan can make it blow apart, but a metal pan will merely make a noise and maybe flex a little.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.306402
| 2011-05-02T14:27:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14480",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Todd Chaffee",
"Will E.",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12589
|
Can I dehydrate multiple different types of food at the same time?
I recently got a L'Equip food dehydrator and have had some good success playing around with it. But I'm interested to know if I can dehydrate different food stuffs at the same time. For instance, could I throw jerky on one tray, onions on another, and strawberries on a third (assuming they all wanted the same time / temp) or would my strawberries end up tasting a bit like oniony beef? What kind of things would cause this contamination?
They would totally end up tasting like oniony beef! In fact your whole kitchen does- that's part of the magic of making jerky.
I can't think of a way to prevent this as the whole idea of dehydrating is to pull water out of the food and blow it away into the air.
If the flavors are compatible (or milder, like fruit) I have done different things together at once. If they don't take the same amount of time, I'll just take the done items off earlier when I check it.
Aside from flavour issues, different types of food need to be dehydrated at different temperatures and for different amounts of time. The booklet that came with my dehydrator listed suggested times/temps for various foods. You could probably mix similar items (e.g. different berries), but I definitely wouldn't mix anything like you suggest.
The temperatures on the dehydrator are more of a guideline than a rule. You can dehydrate anything with no heater at all it just takes longer. Things can be damaged by too much heat. The temps in the booklet then are the maximum temp that those types of foods can handle to dry in the minimum time. You would be fine if you dried two items at the lesser of the two specified temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.306689
| 2011-02-25T18:32:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12589",
"authors": [
"AltonV",
"Gorchestopher H",
"Qantas 94 Heavy",
"Sobachatina",
"ebooyens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25952",
"nathou",
"nurgasemetey"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11203
|
How does a whipped cream charger work?
I recently got an iSi whipped cream container that charges with nitrous cannisters. I don't really understand how the thing works, which I think would help my use of the system. How does this actually whip the cream upon dispensing? What does shaking do that will make a solid foam / mousse? Why does over shaking turn it in to a solid in the cannister?
The cream whipper relies on gas expansion to work.
When you make whipped cream by beating, you beat fine air bubbles into the cream. The cream traps air and becomes essentially a matrix that holds those bubbles--a foam.
Your gas-charged whipper does the same thing in a totally different way.
When you charge the whipper with gas, there's high gas pressure inside with the cream. The cream will actually absorb the nitrous oxide you put in. Because of the pressure, the gas absorbed can be thought of as really really really small bubbles within the cream. So you have a matrix of gas and cream, but because the bubbles are so small, it's essentially just cream.
Chilled liquids more easily absorb gases at high pressure, which is why it's good to use cold cream and keep the whole unit in the fridge. A limited amount of agitation (shaking) exposes more cream to the gas, improving absorption.
When you release the cream from the device, the absorbed gas expands rapidly. The bubbles get bigger, and your cream to bubble ratio becomes more like the foam that we know as whipped cream. It's really exactly the same thing, only with nitrous oxide instead of plain ol' boring air inside the bubbles.
Why nitrous oxide? As I understand it, it's because it's the cheapest non-toxic, odorless and tasteless gas you can get. Carbon dioxide would almost be a good choice, but unfortunately it's bitter. Not a good match for cream.
Finally, why is shaking too much a bad thing? That one I don't know for sure, but I know what happens when you over-whip cream with the mixer. You make butter. Perhaps the gas or high pressure encourages this conversion, or maybe you're just churning it that much when you over-shake. Either way, I'm sure you've essentially made butter when you shook it too much.
And incidentally, this is how beer and sodas are often carbonated. Whether you let yeast make the CO2 or you just pump it in, the beverage absorbs CO2 as the pressure of gas increases in the closed container (bottle, keg, whatever). When you open the vessel or pour a mug from the tap, the gas expands, forming larger bubbles that rise to the surface and make a nice foamy head on top.
Of note is the fact that there are very similar devices that operate on CO2; they're called siphons.
Also, it's surprisingly difficult to make butter by shaking too much. Shaking too little is the more common problem, because the instruction manuals for these things are hyper-cautious. I'm not even entirely convinced that it's possible to make butter with a single charge; it's never happened to me with any amount of shaking.
@aaronut: Good point on soda siphons. I don't know from how hard it is to make butter within a cream whipper, though, as I don't actually own one. I just know how they work.
I used to do demonstrations at some historic houses, and when we'd make butter with the kids, we'd just put some cream in a jar, put a lid on it, and let the kids shake it in turns. It actually took quite a bit of shaking to make butter - 15 minutes or more, depending on how energetic the kids were - but the cream was not particularly useful as whipped cream long before that.
So if the cannister starts to just shoot out basic cream, it's because the NO2 is no longer mixed in with the cream and shaking will reincorporate the NO2 in to the cream?
@yossarian: It depends. If this happens when you're near the bottom of your cream, your problem is most likely that you don't have sufficient gas pressure left in the device to force the remaining cream to absorb some. Putting in another gas cylinder might help there, but there's risk of overpressure for the device. If you're just getting slightly foamy cream earlier on, then yeah--you need to allow more time for the gas to be absorbed, and maybe shake it some to encourage absorption. Don't forget that chilling helps too.
@yossarian: To be explicit about it: The biggest factor in the cream absorbing the gas is gas pressure inside the whipper device. If that's too low, shaking won't help much. Shaking helps some, but it's really pressure that's your friend.
I think it must be encouraging absorption, because this happens early in the process. In fact, on the first squeeze, it was too runny. A couple of shakes fixed the issue. After dispensing for a couple of pieces of pie, it started getting runny again. A few shakes fixed it. So I think it must be encouraging absorption, as there was plenty of cream and pressure in both cases.
It takes quite a bit of doing & forgetting to make butter even in an industrial strength stand mixer.
@JohnDibling From personal experience, an immersion blender does the job quite easily.
The cheapest neutral gas would be air - but you wouldn't be able to pack much of it into the cartridges because N2O (NOT NO2!!! It's POISON!) has considerably lower vapor pressure, so you can pack much more of it into the cartridge (by liquefying it) or pack the same amount into a much more lightweight cartridge (one to hold liquid air would need to be quite heavy-duty!)
The principle is actually very simple to understand if you take the liquid out of the equation, and imagine that you're just charging the dispenser by itself, empty.
If you remember your high school science, you should remember that:
Gases, unlike liquids, are highly compressible; and
A gas expands to fill its container.
A whipped cream charger is a sealed container holding a sizable amount of highly pressurized gas (nitrous oxide). When you screw one into the dispenser, it punctures the charger, allowing the pressurized gas to expand and enter the dispenser. Since the dispenser has much higher capacity (volume) than the charger, basic thermodynamics dictates that most of the gas will end up in the dispenser.
When you beat eggs, cream, or anything similar, you are gradually incorporating air into the mixture. bikeboy's explanation of what it means to incorporate air is a fairly good one. The difference with a cream whipper is that instead of gradually incorporating air into the liquid, you are rapidly forcing the nitrous oxide into it. Because the entire apparatus is completely sealed, when you shake it up, the gas has no place to go except into the liquid.
That's really all there is to it. You're cramming a certain quantity of a liquid into a container with a large amount of gas and forcing the two to mix. They will still separate over time, because the container is not completely full (and the gas would rather occupy the empty space at the top), but shaking it quickly re-incorporates the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.306860
| 2011-01-18T19:10:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11203",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Doubt",
"JAB",
"John Dibling",
"Kamilski81",
"LaterGator",
"Marti",
"SF.",
"Salads",
"Zoe Rothwell",
"abhijeet",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"yossarian",
"z-vet"
],
"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
}
|
10310
|
How warm must dough be in order to rise?
While making some focaccia this afternoon, my wife said, "sure the house is 'warm'; it'll be fine." One hour later, no rising. It may be worth noting that our house is 66F. So we stuck it in a warm oven and it rose just fine. It turned out fine, I'm just glad we weren't trying to get it done for a meal.
So the question is, how warm does dough need to be to rise properly?
Don't worry about a long rise - a long, cool rise is actually better for the bread. Autolyse is a process where starches are converted to sugars and other flavors, but which takes time to proceed.
Optimal yeast growth happens at around 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but dough will rise at any room temperature. As the temp rises, the yeast becomes more active, which is why you'll sometimes see recipes call over overnight rests in the fridge, where activity slows or stops. Yeast dies at anything above 50 C (122 F).
The important thing is knowing the temperature and, if you're really particular, the humidity in the air around your proof. This information is used for the sake of timing consistency, more than anything else.
I should add that there's really no "proper" temperature to rise. Rise is caused by yeast converting sugars into gas (and alcohol), but a lot of warm rises shoot for about 25 to 30 C. Some people say that a slower, cooler rise makes for a more complexly flavored bread, but that hasn't been my experience with straight doughs. (Older yeasts in starters like levain or sourdough, though, definitely change the flavor.)
As other answers have pointed out, most recipes tend to be calibrated to rise times which assume a temperature of 75-80 degrees Fahrenheit. (Professional baking recipes will actually specify a dough temperature after mixing and a temperature for proofing.)
However, the question also asks "how warm does dough need to be to rise properly"? If, by "properly," you mean "according to a recipe," then 75-80 F is a reasonable guess if temperature is unspecified. If the recipe mentions something vague, like "put in a warm place," that probably implies something somewhat warmer than 80 F, but it's always hard to know.
All of that said, bread dough can "rise properly" -- in the sense that it will eventually be ready to bake -- at a wide variety of temperatures. Both natural (sourdough) yeast and baker's yeast become mildly active when you get significantly above freezing, and they don't stop growing significantly until you get over 100 F. (For example, a growth curve for sourdough yeast can be found here.) From a practical standpoint, there's no good reason to go over 95 F or so, because both sourdough and baker's yeast hit their peak growth somewhere around 90-95F. Going hotter will simply slow things down and generally produce less desirable flavors.
Slower rises at lower temperatures can produce various useful characteristics, including increased flavor and better developed structure. Many recipes contain a required or optional "retarding" stage where the dough is placed in the refrigerator from a few hours to a few days for this reason. Yeast growth often doesn't completely stop even then, and some rise will be noticed over a long period.
The question brings up one final concern, since it mentions the timing of the recipe.
If you wish to prepare dough in the allotted recipe time, but your home is way too cool or too hot, what can you do?
There are three general approaches to this problem. Today, professional bakers generally use the first method, because climate-controlled equipment is easy to come by. But the other methods are still useful for the home baker without fancy equipment.
(1) Make use of a space at a more desirable temperature (as discussed in the question and some other answers). There are proofing boxes for home use with fairly precise temperature control, but most people make do with an oven that was slightly warmed and turned off, a microwave closed with a cup of boiling water placed in it along with the dough, simply putting the dough near a radiator or a warm stove, or some other makeshift device. (I sometimes used to cut off the top flaps of a wide but somewhat shallow cardboard box, tape up the bottom to "seal" it loosely, and invert it over the dough along with a cup of hot water, which I'd replenish periodically for long rises. This allows a lot of flexibility for different size boxes to handle everything from small to large batches of dough. Note that humidity as well as temperature can help rising.)
(2) Vary dough temperature. Particularly for a large batch of bread, it will take quite some time for the dough to cool down. Professional bakers have detailed calculations they use to vary the water temperature in order to arrive at an accurate final dough temperature. If you know your kitchen is 66, you might aim for an initial dough temperature in the 90-95 degree range, for example. The dough will gradually cool down as it rises, but on average it might end up with the timing of dough that was kept constant at 75-80. (This is obviously an approximation for ideal temperature, but so is putting a cup of hot water in a microwave or putting your dough near a radiator.) Rising rate can be somewhat regulated by varying the number of folds during proofing: more folding will redistribute temperature more quickly and lead to faster cooling.
(3) Vary the amount of yeast in the recipe. This one is particularly useful if you make a specific recipe again and again, but your kitchen is always too cold or too hot to get things done in the desired timeframe. Bakers often find the idea of varying a recipe to be distressing, since there is a common belief that baking relies on very precise measurements of ingredients. Making yeasted bread, however, is not a precise process unless you're doing it with professional temperature-controlled and humidity-controlled equipment. There's absolutely no reason to consider recipe quantities to be fixed in stone. For home bakers, it's often much easier to diverge a bit from the recipe than to recreate some "ideal" proofing conditions artificially.
Many people have attempted to create a dough model that would predict the amount of yeast needed for given temperatures. Considering the question deals with focaccia dough, this thread shows one person's detailed attempt to create a predictive model for pizza, which is often similar to focaccia dough in terms of hydration and other characteristics. (Here's the graph used to model activity of yeast at various temperatures.) Here's a similar model using sourdough instead of baker's yeast.
However, in the real world, dough rises at different rates depending on a number of other recipe details, from the type of flour to how much salt, fat, and sugar are present (if any). Studies often discuss how long it takes for yeast to double in number during a dough rise. I've seen various estimates that that time doubles for normal dough temperatures (say from 55 to 85 or so) every time you decrease the temperature by 7 to 15 degrees. That's a big range.
In any case, if you plan to repeat a particular recipe, but know your kitchen will usually be at 66 instead of 75-80, I'd try doubling the yeast for the recipe as a first guess. See how long it takes to rise, and modify as necessary. I've made these sorts of seasonal adjustments to recipes all the time -- I basically tend to use about double the amount of yeast on a cold day in the winter as I would on a hot day in the summer. If your goal is to have a predictable dough that can be baked on a specific schedule, this sort of modification may require the least fuss in the long run (unless you have an actual proofing box with precise temperature control).
I believe that the usual quote for rising temperature is between 24-29C (75-85F), though a little warmer than that I tend to use.
It's important that there are no draughts on the area, or you can have problems. My personal preference is to leave it in an airing cupboard, providing it is not too warm.
When making dough, The Bread Baker's Apprentice says to knead it until the dough's temperature (which those of us who are obsessive will actually take) reaches 77-80 degrees F. What you do from there may depend on what you are trying to accomplish.
For a consistent, speedy rise, your warm oven trick is perfect. This works well with sandwich breads and loaves which aren't intended to have big, crusty holes.
For hole-y crumb breads such as Italian bread, you want a cooler rise than a warm oven. This is because those big holes are encouraged by a long, slow rise, a light tough, and another long slow proof. In this case perhaps sticking it on top of your warm oven where it will get some heat or in a corner of the house near a vent where it is in the low 70s is ideal.
Typically, the rate of metabolism, in this case CO2 production, doubles for every 10°C rise (18°F) in temperature.
The Q10 temperature coefficient is a measure of the rate of change of a biological or chemical system as a consequence of increasing the temperature by 10 °C. ... For most biological systems, the Q10 value is ~ 2 to 3.
So dough at 30°C will rise about 4 times as fast as dough at 10°C, and dough at 70°F will rise about twice as fast as dough at 50°F.
Traditionally, doughs 'rose' (or proofed as is the professional term), in proof-boxes, which were nothing more than a set of big wooden drawers just like the ones you keep your underwear in. They are at room (shop) temperature, and have no special temperature or humidity controls. So if you can replicate that, you're on your way.
But is that in a kitchen with oven(s) going? Room temp in my house, 66F, wasn't sufficient to get the dough to rise.
@yossarian 66F is not really warm enough to get it to rise at the speed you want. 75F should be considered the minimum generally, unless you want it to raise very slowly.
I proof my dough at 75 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit (24 to 26 Celsius).
To keep the temperature constant, I place my dough in a large cooler with a 10 to 15 watt light bulb and a thermometer. I can then prop the lid open to various degrees to get the right temp.
Cleaned up some back and forth resulting in editing that's now obsolete. (It was incorrectly flagged as rude, no idea why.)
I grew up on a farm, and when it was sunny, my grandma always placed the bowl containing the dough, covered with a damp towel, into a sunny window. That's the method I've been using for a long time, works without problems for me. Putting it in a warm oven may be your best bet if the sun's not shining or you're in a hurry.
27 degrees C is optimum temperature
But how warm does it need to be to rise? Surely it'd rise at temperatures at least a bit below that?
I am baking Christmas Stollen for 64 years and the rising changed every year. I found, that a heavy dough like Stollen needs a bit more than 100 Celsius. I also discovered that if I put my Stollen into a cold oven, not preheated it will rise quite a bit more. I just have one in the oven and it is rising beautifully. I used to try water at the bottom, but the Stollen gets pale at the bottom. Now I use Saran Wrap
While I trust your 64 years of experience and personally have only about half this time under my baker's belt, 100 C for a yeast-based dough is completely ridiculous. Yeast dies at roughly 50 C. And yes, I fully realize that a butter-heavy dough like Stollen can be slow to get going.
She is not actually proofing the dough in 100°C but using an ascending temperature ("cold oven, not preheated") gradient - which can work for yeast doughs (and will end up killing the yeast and parbaking the dough), but is rather dependent on how the exact oven behaves.
Also, is this a Stollen dough using a Dampfl/Vorteig that is pre-risen anyway?
I can't help but wonder whether the use of Saran Wrap at 100°C is really safe..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.307447
| 2010-12-19T22:54:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10310",
"authors": [
"Anna Nagy",
"Cascabel",
"Jo-Ann",
"Lars",
"Martin Moops",
"Orbling",
"Philip",
"Sam Ley",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Terry",
"chester11",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"krispy",
"mmuzzi",
"rackandboneman",
"tgt",
"user",
"user21132",
"yossarian",
"zacechola"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6744
|
What To Do With Blueberry Hot Sauce
I bought some blueberry hot sauce while on vacation in Maine. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I have no clue what to pair it with. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Hi there, thanks for your question! Please note that questions calling for a list of answers (as opposed to seeking a single "right" answer) should be started as Community Wiki. I've converted the question for you.
I bet it would be delicious with beef. Beef and berries are great together.
Other ideas I just thought of -- use it like you would use jalapeno jelly -- to top baked brie or in a sandwich or spread with cream cheese.
I generally see this kind of sweet pairing with game, like venison. This coming from the vegetarian, but I can't really think of anything vegetarian I would do with it. (Or give it as a gift :).
I agree. Any of the game meats would go well with blueberries. Try wild boar chops if you want something showy on the plate.
BBQ Grilled Peaches: halve and pit peaches, brush with BBQ sauce and grill. Either use your Blueberry Hot Sauce in the BBQ sauce or brush on after grilling. Top with some fresh blueberries and chopped basil.
Chicken would be good in any form with this... shrimp/mussels sound like they would be good too.
What about some of the sweet/spicy applications that seem to be gaining a lot of ground lately. Try it as a sauce for ice cream, drizzle it over a cheesecake (or bake it into your cheesecake), fill vanilla cupcakes with it; let your blueberry dessert ideas go wild here!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.308693
| 2010-09-04T17:10:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6744",
"authors": [
"Eric Goodwin",
"emilecantin",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"lex"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9907
|
Why is there vinegar in the bread recipe?
Yesterday I made bread based on a recipe I found on the flour bag. It contained both rye and wheat flour but also three tablespoons of vinegar. I've never seen it used in bread before, why is it there?
If it contained a high amount of rye flour, an acid would be needed for the bread to leaven. This is because bread with lots of rye rises due to polysaccharates called "pentosans" (if i remember correctly) being sticky and holding in the carbon dioxide bubbles. With heat, an enzyme in rye called "amylase" will start eating up the pentosans, unless the amylase is deactivated with acidity (wheat flour uses a protein called "gluten" to trap bubbles, and its amylase is deactivated with heat anyhow). The acidity is traditionally lactic acid, produced by lactobacilli bacteria in sourdough, but could be vinegar.
If it's mostly wheat flour (i.e. if you have to knead it), the vinegar would just be for flavour.
Another reason you can use vinegar in a bread recipe - to produce a sourdough. Under traditional methods of making a sourdough bread, one keeps a 'sour' (sponge) or a piece of dough from the days previous production, which acts as a starter for the current bread. In many of todays commercial bakeries (grocery stores, etc.), sours are not kept from day to day, and powdered substitutes are used. They are normally just a glorified acetic acid (in a powdered form). So, you can just use vinegar to produce the same results.
Since there is rye in the dough, I could definitely see the intent being to produce a sourdough-like flavor.
Yep, that's right. One thing that most people don't understand is that rye bread is a sourdough bread. It's always made off of a rye sour.
This recipe didn't contain any sourdough starter of any kind, just yeast.
Oh, I never said it did have a sour starter. The vinegar is used as a replacement for the starter.
Then there is something wrong with the recipe. You can't leaven rye with yeast, the enzymes in the rye prevent it. Maybe, if it is a mixed recipe with a high wheat-to-rye ratio, the yeast will still work, but I'm not sure why you would need to imitate a sour taste through vinegar then.
You can't leaven rye with yeast because rye flour contains no gluten. Wheat is the only cereal crop with (high enough) gluten content to facilitate yeast leavening. As I said last year, all rye breads are sourdough breads, the vinegar is used as a shortcut for the 'sour' flavour.
You definitely can leaven rye with yeast. The enzymes in rye cause it's starches to convert to sugar quickly, so it's actually great for yeast. The issue is that since rye relies on gums for structure, it's difficult to retain the bubbles, no matter what's producing them.
When I asked this question - Is there anything I can add to homemade bread to preserve it? - Arafangion said that one commercial bread company now uses vinegar as a preservative. This is his answer to my question:
"One commercial bread company has
switched preservatives... They use
vinegar (I suspect ordinary white
vinegar).
Maybe you could give a little bit of
vinegar a go and see how that works?
You can still smell it if you sniff
and sandwiches do have a faint vinegar
flavour, but it seems to work well
enough for the company and it
apparently hasn't sabotaged the
product line...
Then again, it /is/ commercial
bread..."
Thank you for answering. I'd still like to think that there's another explanation. I've never seen homemade bread recipes that contains something which only purpose is acting as a preservative.
In making faster no-Knead bread Jim Lahey suggest adding 4 drops or up to 1/4 tsp of red wine vinegar to the basic recipe. Improve gluten development and flavor. See the video with Mark Bittman here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/dining/08mini.html?ref=dining
It might also, in addition to something like bicarbonate soda act as a raising agent for some types of bread - the reaction of the vinegar with the bicarb causing gas release causing rising.
This is only a guess however
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.308867
| 2010-12-09T09:24:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9907",
"authors": [
"Callen L",
"CarolinaCook",
"Max Radin",
"Nicholas Giordano",
"SourDoh",
"Wil",
"adela",
"haylem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94320",
"johnny",
"justkt",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho",
"user20324",
"user47550",
"williamsandonz"
],
"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
}
|
9165
|
Can I always use butter instead of margarine when baking?
Some recipes says use butter or margarine, some say use butter and some say use margarine. My question is, can I always use butter or does margarine have some property that butter doesn't when baking?
I have a rule: Never trust a recipe that requires the use of margarine (barring some sort of dietary restriction or allergy).
Margarine has less fat than butter, but it doesn't give quite the same flavor as butter does. You also have to be careful what KIND of margarine you are using. Tub margarine has a higher water content and can ruin your baked goods and the stick margarine can have a lot of trans fats in it. If you really want to get detailed into the differences, check out this site:
http://www.baking911.com/pantry/fats.htm
I agree with everything stated on that site in the fact that butter, in my opinion is far superior in flavor and texture than margarine. I have yet to meet a dish that butter didn't improve the taste over margarine. But there is the thing, it really is a lot about taste. A good quote from the site about margarine:
"Not great for baking: does not allow foods to become flaky, rather more cakelike; does not spread as well as lard or shortening; adds a greasy taste. However, some bake with it all the time and have great success; it's a matter of taste."
The claim that margarine has less fat than butter is simply untrue. At least in the US, the FDA standard of identity for margarine specifies "containing not less than 80 percent fat". This is essentially the same as butter.
Sorry, have found better sources to mostly support SAJ14SAJ's comment... After reading new answers to my question Substitues for vegetable oil spread, there is also a section of the Code of Federal Regulations that states "Margarine" is to "..contain[ing] not less than 80 percent fat.."...
... and also a section of the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with fat content for "Butter", stating that "..the calculation of the percent fat reduction in milkfat shall be based on the 80 percent milkfat requirement..", which seems to allow for Butter varieties with the same, or less fat than Margarine
Hi. I know it's been a few years, but I just went to look at that article and it doesn't exist anymore. I don't know if you need it, just wanted to let you know!
If the recipe says margarine, use margarine. If the recipe says use butter, use butter. It can make a difference in how the recipe turns out. I have a cake recipe that ha to have margarine or it will boil over, it's a disaster. Tried and true.
You can use butter because it gives out more flavour to the cakes. I believe though that in normal sized cakes eg: a birthday cake, u would have to mainly use margarine as it can make a whole lot if difference and it contains less fat that butter however if making cupcakes for example sponge ones, it would be perfectly fine to use butter as it would only be a small amount!
Seems a bit odd to claim that you have to mainly use margarine in normal-sized cakes; most recipes for cakes of any size use butter, not margarine.
If you use butter instead of margarine in a cookie recipe then the cookies will burn on the bottom because that is what happened to me when I was doing a cookie recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.309236
| 2010-11-16T06:43:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9165",
"authors": [
"Barbie215",
"Brendon Boshell",
"Cascabel",
"G. S.",
"Gerry",
"Grace",
"JasonTrue",
"Kayla",
"Martina",
"Nilesh Londhe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"user66001"
],
"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
}
|
13686
|
Pan-fried hamburgers, what temperature?
I am trying to cook hamburgers in a 12" pan on my stovetop. I am attempting to replicate some hamburgers I have had at a "local" place around here (read: 1.5 hours away), where the burgers are not well-formed patties but kind've jagged patties that get nice and crisp and also are relatively thin and spread out, cooked by the burgermeister on a large commercial griddle.
My question is, what temperature should I use for with this type of burger? My thought is that I will roll out 1/3 lb balls of 80/20, flatten out on the pan with a spatula, roughen up a little, then let cook until done. At some point, I'll add some cheese (monterey jack or muenster, no comments on the cheese!).
What I'd like is a bit of meaty flavor, greasy of course, but also crunchy to a degree (but not a lot). Should I pre-oil my pan?
Thanks!
Jared
Jared, you owe me a new keyboard. "Bürgermeister" is the German word for "mayor". I was briefly exposed to the mental image of some conservative Bavarian politician in a three piece wool suit flipping patties and telling pleasant lies to the customers in broken English.
Same difference? No?
To me, it doesn't matter (well, maybe I'll have to explain to the neighbour why she was woken by a seemingly unprovoked laugh burst from my flat). To a stiff CSU politician, it is a grave insult.
On a more burgery note, the temperature is not the only factor to consider when pursuing a specific texture. Read here for another important factor: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/04/the-burger-lab-whats-the-best-way-to-grind-beef.html
Thanks rumtscho, I will owe you a keyboard and a friendly neighbor. :) I am reading your link right now.
The way to make a proper griddled hamburger:
Start with beef that is between 70/30 and 80/20. You need to use a fatty beef because you are going to be doing a few things that will restrict the amount of juice in the burger and the extra fat will mitigate that.
Season your beef and roll into balls less than 1/4 of a pound. Let the size of your patties be determined by the size of your pan, you need them small enough that once you smash you won't be touching the sides of the pan.
You then want to preheat your pan. You want your pan to be as hot as possible. A commercial griddle can range in heat between 375 F and 650 F, so the temp here can vary quite a bit between places, I find hotter aids crust formation and allows the interior stay closer to medium.
Do not use oil. I can't stress that enough. Your beef will put out plenty and oil will fry the burger instead of allowing a seared crust to develop.
Place your balls of meat on the pan and smash them flat with a spatula. You might need a second spatula to remove the patty from the smashing one, as you lack the space space to heat it like you would on a griddle to prevent sticking. Allow it to cook about two to three minutes, then flip and top with cheese, if desired. Two more minutes and remove.
As an added bonus, you can toast/fry some bread in the beef juices to create a patty melt style burger that will be oozing beefy goodness. You can drop the bread in right after the flip and it will be perfect by the time the patty is done.
For one, don't rough your burger up - do it gently. Don't pack it down so tight that you get hockey pucks and don't flatten the patty with a spatula - you'll press out all that good juicy flavor. Treat it like a steak. When you eat steak you want tender and juicy surely you want the same from your burger.
You'll need a drop of olive oil if you don't have a non stick pan - if you do, don't worry about it. The fat from the burger will create it's own grease anyway.
Gently make your patty a little bigger than the bun you'll be eating it on, maybe a 1/4 of a inch.
Get your pan to a haze which is when you can see faint smoke rolling. The water drop technique is a good way to see if it's hot and trust me you'll hear it if it is.
A good 6 oz patty you should cook 4 to 5 minutes on each side. I prefer to cook the meat slowly between a medium high so it locks in more flavor but you can cook on a ridiculous temperature and have it quick. But remember - a great burger only gets flipped once.
When it starts cooking, wait until you see the sides start to brown - that lets you know it's gold on the bottom and has that crunch you're looking for.
Flip it, let it go for another minute and throw your cheese on the burger and it cook for another few minutes.
After 10 to 12 minutes you should have a medium burger that will rock your socks off. Another thing is - don't go crazy with stupid seasonings. Salt and pepper my friend and be generous about it. If you want a juicy, crispy burger follow what I just said. Trust me.
For a thin patty, I'd go for a fairly high temp. Medium-high. You need a three step approach. 1. Make sure the pan is hot by shaking a drop of water in the pan. If it evaporates immediately then it's hot. 2. Put some oil in the pan (just coat the bottom). 3. Make sure the oil is hot. When you swirl the pan around and the oil shows ripples, it's hot. Then add the burgers.
The oil is needed for heat transfer.
It's a generic electric stovetop. Hot as it gets, or just hot enough to instantly boil water? Also, by coat the bottom, do you mean hot or cold? I have peanut oil.
If you are going to use a pan that hot, make sure you use a high smoke point oil like peanut oil.
Your comment came up just after I finished mine :) Peanut oil is excellent. Add the oil after the pan is hot.
How much? And how often? I have eight burgers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.309527
| 2011-04-02T22:16:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13686",
"authors": [
"Ann Clark",
"Jared Farrish",
"Stephanie Lee-Davis",
"dopiaza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5530",
"letsgetbaking",
"michael",
"ppr",
"rapidxd stoddart",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16850
|
What sauce could I use for haddock?
I'm doing fish fries tonight, and my wife doesn't like breaded fish.
The thought was to pan sear hers and finish it with a sauce. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time finding sauce ideas for haddock. What flavors/base would go well with haddock? I want to avoid tartar sauce for a pan seared fillet.
Well, turns out that the wife just didn't know what she was talking about, she enjoyed the battered haddock and I didn't have to spend additional time on a different method plus a sauce! http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerofun/6041167391
Voting to close because this question does not meet current standards: it is an open ended "what goes with X" question. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1645/should-we-close-questions-structured-like-what-compliments-does-not-work-with
Yep, as the accepted answer says, this list could be endless. Mild, white fish is even worse than a lot of cases; so many things go with it.
Compound butter is a very nice accompaniment for fish.
"Compound butter is a mixture of softened butter and at least one other ingredient. Some ideas for compound butter are: herbs, spices, citrus zest/juice, honey, fresh mint, soft cheeses (like goat), fresh or dried peppers, and nuts…you get the idea – this list could be endless!"
You can cook the fish on its own and then put the compound butter on top to melt over it. While soft the butter can be put into a piping bag and piped as rosettes and refrigerated until ready to use. Makes for a nice presentation.
Another common accompaniment to fish is mango salso or a combination of tropical fruits (mango pineapple for example).
This seemed like a good link for ideas for sauces for Haddock:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-different-types-of-sauce-for-haddock.htm
Thanks for the link! I've made compound butters before for steak, never thought to extend them to fish.
If I was eating it, I'd simply squeeze some lemon juice over the fish on my plate. I've also had haddock with a white sauce or a cheese sauce. I'd suggest making a cheese sauce using philly cream cheese and some milk.
An alternative to pan seared would be to bake. There are lot of suggestions for baked haddock in google.
Simple is always best isn't it?
Mayonnaise, sweet mustard, curry powder and a dash of some salty seasoning. Blend and eat with rice. Roll the fish in wheat and spice with salt and lemon-pepper.
A bit late for your specific meal, but I've always found that mustard goes very well with fish. I usually do a roux using flour and butter, pour in some cream or milk to slightly thin it, and then add some hot mustard to it, and season with salt & pepper. To give it more texture and colour I add some coarse grain mustard if we've got it, but this isn't a must. Together with boiled potatoes and some lemon juice drizzled over the fish, I think it's delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.310011
| 2011-08-13T14:03:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16850",
"authors": [
"Alicesusan",
"Andrea ",
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Glorfindel",
"Jim Lane",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Smapdi",
"V Maharajh",
"aso muhammed",
"azurefrog",
"elgoyo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75342",
"jay armstrong",
"user36322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15137
|
where can I purchase a "wonder pot"?
The "wonder pot" is a type of stovetop bakeware that seems to have been popular in Israel during a period of austerity. I'm looking for a (preferably USA based) supplier for a new one.
Here's a link to a page with a photo of the item in question.
Effin' A.... Wikipedia is now referring to SE :)
My mother had a similarly shaped pan with a lid that she'd use for baking coffee cake and such when camping. It was all aluminum and much less complicated (and likely not as useful) as what your talking about. The closest thing I found is the Omnia Oven.
It looks they may be had for about $50.
That seems a bit pricey for just a stamped aluminum cookware, but this is exactly what I was looking for. The only difference I see is a lighter weight heat diffuser on the bottom. I'll give everyone a few days, but this looks like the best answer.
Here's what looks like an actual consumer-made video of the pan in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTxWY8-3IvI (looks good for car camping/RV/canoe trip, but a bit much for a 4 person weekend backpacking group)
It looks like Optimus (known for camping stoves) marketed the same thing in the 70s as the "Mini Oven" http://www.base-camp.co.uk/Optimus/minioven.htm (in original blue:) http://www.bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=forum.thread&threadId=241263&forumID=18&confID=1
After trying and failing to purchase the Omnia Stove from a bunch of online sources, I contacted the company (contoure.com). They told me that they discontinued the Omnia Stove. Does anyone know of any other sources that may be available?
I don't know if it's useful (probably not), but in a lot of cheap kitchen utensils shops in israel you can buy the wonder-pots. I bought one last week for about 40 shekels (~10 dollars).
My company now distributes the Omnia Oven which is a modern version of a wonder pot. These are available at http://lunatecgear.com/products/travel-gear/omnia/ and Amazon.
You are welcome to contact us if you have questions about Omnia. 858.653.0401
Cheers,
Nick
I don't see why the answer gets so many downvotes and flags. While product promotion (especially self promotion) is mostly frowned upon, the question was specifically for a supplier, so in this case, the self-promotional content seems to be a direct answer to the OP's question. Unless this product is not the same as the product the OP is asking about? (I cannot judge this because I have never seen a wonder pot).
@rumtscho It's the same product as in the accepted answer, so it's definitely on-topic. I can understand people downvoting because it's perceived as a duplicate answer, but agreed, not spam.
I tried my darndest to find a good answer for you, but I'm honestly not convinced that these are still being made! Here is a link to an antique one on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Antique-Wonder-Pot-Aluminum-Cooking-Baking-Israel-1950s-/350452375571?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item519896e013#ht_6415wt_1088
I found nothing on ebay, even expired auctions, so you did better than I did. Still $70+ is a bit too much to allow for my food pr0n hobby. If this is a good "baking on a stove" tool, I would think the backpacking crowd would have adopted this as a solution. Maybe that heat spreader is too heavy? Anyway, great pictures in that auction.
for those wanting to buy a wonder pot, like me. i found this today. wonder pot is being sold in israel (jerusalem and tel aviv), sharing the link.
http://www.carine.co.il/htmls/page_683.aspx?c0=13572&bsp=13800
i plan to have one shipped to singapore before december. will keep you posted how this turns out.
I'm a librarian and I found this thread because I have a patron who is also looking for one of these. It looks like they sell them here:
http://www.seadogboatingsolutions.com/omnia-stove-top-oven.html
Hope that helps!
-Kate
In regard to the Wonder Pot, this item is made in Israel and it is imported to the USA by Weiss Gifts Ltd. in Brooklyn NY
Can be purchase by there site at www.weissjudaica.com
Hear is the direct link to this Wonder Pot: http://www.weissjudaica.com/system/scripts/results_big.cgi?product=100
Of course we still make wonder pots! You can get one on http://www.planero.co.il/item.asp?cn_4320 (a supplier in Israel). But I don't understand why you would want it, here it is considered a choice for people who can't afford anything better.
You can try looking at gelatin moulds, savarin moulds, tube pans, angel food cake pans or pound cake pans, they look the same as the lower part of the wonder pot:
This one has handles, others don't, and you could put them in a pot with a lid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.310285
| 2011-05-30T13:42:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15137",
"authors": [
"Alison Marley",
"Cascabel",
"Dayan Cameron",
"Deano",
"Deirdre Arvidson",
"Eleanor Berg",
"John ",
"Menachem",
"OpenID-test2",
"Xuan hoan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9460",
"jonatr",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11208
|
What ingredients will allow me to make a foam with a whipped cream charger?
So I have an iSi whipped cream charger. There are a series of recipes that sound really interesting, but I don't quite understand what ingredients you need in order to make a stable foam / mousse. Some common ingredients seem to be cheese, cream, and gelatin. But I've also seen recipes with chocolate and water (melted and combined), lecithin, or even scrambled eggs with sous vide eggs, skim milk, and butter.
So what ingredients are a must for making a foam? How do they work?
I must admit, I'm more interested in the "how" than the "what". The what seems to be pretty well defined in the list or recipes, but I want to be able to create my own culinary treats and understanding the process is invaluable in making things up.
A foam is just a liquid with plenty of air incorporated into it. You can incorporate air into any liquid; in order to be able to create an actual foam, however, you need to be able to incorporate the air faster than it escapes.
What makes a liquid able to hold the air you're incorporating (and hence form a foam) is a foam stabilizer, also commonly called an emulsifier1. I know of no specific taxonomy of stabilizers, but the vast majority are hydrocolloids AKA gelling agents and belong to some family of protein.
Agar, carrageenan, alginate, xanthan, and pectin are all types of polysaccharide;
Lecithin is mostly a random collection of phospholipids;
Gelatin is denatured collagen, i.e. animal protein;
Whey protein is the prevalent protein in dairy products;
And so on. Really almost any emulsifier will do. Basically everything in your list either is, or contains, one of the the additives mentioned above:
Chocolate is almost always emulsified with soy lecithin;
Eggs contain high amounts of lecithin;
Milk and cream contain whey protein;
Most "supermarket cream" also has emulsifiers like carrageenan already in it.
...you get the picture, I hope. The most basic answer I can give to this is that if you want to make a foam, you need to either use something that's already an emulsion (milk, butter, chocolate, etc.) or use an emulsifier/stabilizer additive (such as gelatin, lecithin, etc.)
If you want a relatively complete list of all of the food additives that qualify, you'll want to look at the E number, and specifically E400-499 (thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers).
1. As commenter Erik very correctly points out, an emulsifier is not the same thing as a foam stabilizer. However, by convention, the terms seem to be used interchangeably all over the place, to the extent that I get blank looks when I refer to a "stabilizer" as opposed to "emulsifier". So, know the difference, but don't get too hung up on it.
How much of a gelling agent do you need to add? I assume you don't want to add so much gelatin that the liquid actually sets. Is there a guideline to how much I should be using? What role does temperature play in a foam holding?
+1 Awesome answer as usual. One tiny nit to pick: although functionally a foam stabilizer is the same as an emulsifier, the two words don't literally mean the same thing - as you say, a foam is air (or any other gas) in a liquid, an emulsion is a liquid in another liquid (into which it cannot dissolve). It's just that the chemical processes keeping them together are the same.
@yossarian: Every single gelling agent has completely different properties. The hydrocolloid recipe collection has a partial list of foaming/gelling concentrations for the most common ones. In addition you may need to take certain preparation steps (i.e. heating) before they'll work their magic. It all depends on the specific additive. With gelatin, you need a 0.5-1.5% concentration (by weight), you need to bloom it first, and you need to heat it to at least 50° C to dissolve it properly.
@Erik: The confusion between terms actually drives me crazy, but unfortunately, everybody out there refers to foam stabilizers as "emulsifiers"; immersion blenders even come with "emulsifying blades". I considered trying to emphasize the difference but I was worried I'd just end up creating more confusion.
There are many, many methods to making a mousse. From simply folding melted chocolate into cream, to making a ganache and then folding that in, to making italian meringue and folding that in.......Normally, it is always something folded into a whipped cream.
My favourite way to make a supple, nice, flavourful mousse is to prepare a bombe, and fold that in.
Thanks for the answer, but I'm specifically interested in foams being formed by a whipped cream charger like the iSi. The down vote wasn't me, but I assume that's the cause of it.
Fair enough, apologies that I wasn't specific. I realize that you were looking for specifics, I just wanted to put in my two cents. I guess in that case, I just need to leave a little comment on the bottom of the original post (I'm still fairly new at this).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.310686
| 2011-01-18T20:18:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11208",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Erik P.",
"ariadnep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mrwienerdog",
"user19665",
"user22973",
"user6123723",
"user7829",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5638
|
Why did my coppa get spicier after being microwaved?
I wanted to put some spicy, crispy, crumbled coppa over a pasta dish. I put it in the microwave and it crisped up very well. It was however much spicier after cooking than before.
Why did it get spicier?
The microwave caused heat which released oils from the coppa's spice blend, including capsaicin.
My guess is water evaporated from the coppa and the flavors got more concentrated as a result. The same thing happens when you cook tomatoes, for example. They develop a stronger taste as a result of the water being evaporated during cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.311164
| 2010-08-20T13:26:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5638",
"authors": [
"Craig",
"Darstek",
"Jason Gritman",
"Joannie",
"Juergen Hartelt",
"SerraRain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11225"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10876
|
How to lighten (or make less dense) pizza dough
We're currently using
500g strong flour
1tsp salt
1tsp yeast
325ml water
This produces a usable / edible dough, but we're finding it very "dense" or "heavy". It's very filling when eaten, and has little to no air pockets. It's pretty hard work eating it, even when made thin.
How can we alter the dough to make one with more air? A lighter, easier to eat dough.
Is your yeast still healthy? Also, how long (and at what temp) are you resting the dough after the first kneeding? Does it have enough time to at least double in size?
Yeast is new. Leaving for 30 mins in warmish oven covered with slightly damp cloth (turn oven on for a few mins then turn off once slightly warm). It didnt double in size though. Didnt really change size at all ;-/
if it hasn't doubled in size, something is wrong. How did you proof your yeast (or did you use instant?). What temperature was the water? Did you consider using oil?
water was "lukewarm" as in recipe. It was "active yeast". Just said to add to water. - used a little oil before cooking and after, if thats what you meant.
You really need the dough to double in size for it to not be overly tough.
30 min might be enough time under some conditions, but it's not always; if you're in a rush, you might be better off making a biscuit dough rather than a yeast dough.
To ensure a good rise, I'd recommend the following:
Make sure to use warm water. I run the hot tap 'til it feels a little warmer than body temperature. (I check it against the inside of my wrist).
If using a metal bowl, pre-warm it by filling it with hot water, then dumping it out.
Proof the yeast to make sure it's active -- Add the yeast to the warm water (possibly with a little flour or sugar) and wait 'til it foams up before adding the rest of the flour and other ingredients (especially the salt)
Allow to rise in a warm, but not too warm place. Sometimes, a low oven is too warm and will kill the yeast. In the summer, I leave it in a sunny place, in the winter, I put it on top of my radiator. If you don't have radiators, but you have an electric heating pad with a low setting, you might try that. Rather than turning on the oven, you can also put it in there, but rather than heat the oven, boil some water separately, and put it in the oven and pour it into a shallow tray to add some thermal energy.
If the dough has doubled, and it's still coming out too tough for your liking, you can try:
Add some oil (olive oil or neutral flavored oil) to the dough. Try a tablespoon or two. Add it before adding in the water, and just mix in what water you need for it to form a dough.
Switch to an all-purpose rather than a bread or strong flour, or a blend. (or a blend of whole wheat and bread/strong flour)
I no longer use "quick" yeast. Standard dried yeast is slightly cheaper, the effort of activating as Joe describes is negligible, and it's reassuring to be able to see your yeast is healthy before you mix the dough.
There are a few factors that can cause any dough to be dense.
First, your proof (or rise) may happen at too warm of a temperature. Cool rises help form gas bubbles in the dough as the yeast converts sugars to gas and alcohol.
Second, any gas produced during a rise may be expelled when you roll it out, so it's often suggested to not use a rolling pin on pizza dough, rather press it by hand into the shape you want and then let it rest.
Third, cooking temperatures greatly affect the spring of the dough in the oven. Cook on as high a temperature as you possibly can to cause the maximum amount of yeast activity before it dies from the temp.
Jeff Varasano has an extremely in-depth look into New York-style pizza doughs if you have the time and are interested.
My pizza dough is pretty light when rolled flat. I use an egg white to add a bit of protein, 1tbs sugar, 2tsp yeast. I usually mix the flour and salt separately from the egg/fat/sugar/water/yeast, using room temperature water. Once the yeast is nice and active, I add the wet ingredients to the dry and knead. Typically I rest a dough for two hours, or overnight in the refrigerator.
This doesn't make a good dough for hand-tossing but it works well for thin crust.
Are you kneading the dough well enough? That is one of the most important factors. It is during the kneading that gluten will form in the dough. Gluten is what makes the dough elastic, but it is also the gluten that will allow the gas generated during proofing to be captured in pockets.
I would say for 500g of flour, knead for at least 10 minutes if kneading by hand (maybe more).
You also need a flour with a high amount protein (at least 12g of protein pr. 100g).
Next thing is proofing time. 30min is very low. I would say, at least one hour, then scale the dough, and then another half hour. But normally I proof my pizza dough overnight (using just a small amount of yeast)
And finally, shaping the pizza. Do it by hand instead of a rolling pin. I have found that when I shape the pizza using a rolling pin, then it becomes hard because I degas it completely.
When shaping the pizza by hand it is also here that you find out if the dough was a success. If it was, you can stretch out the dough to a nice thin Italian style pizza. If not, the dough will tear apart. It here again the gluten that will keep the pizza dough together. But you can still use the rolling pin if shaping by hand fails.
And finally, if you want to be good at making pizza (or any type of bread) practice, practice, practice. I have made lots (perhaps 50-100) of pizzas before I got really good. Experiment with different types of flour to see if one creates a better dough than another, try different kneading times, practice shaping the pizza by hand, etc. By practice, I have learned to tell if the dough has been kneaded long enough just by feeling the texture of the surface.
This recipe has never to failed to make light, bubbling dough for me:
Makes 4 thin-crust pizzas:
10oz (285g) strong white bread flour
2oz (60g) all-purpose (plain) flour
1tsp (5g) running salt
4fl oz (125ml) milk
6fl oz (175ml) water
2 sachets (15g) dried yeast (about 25g fresh)
1tsp sugar
The liquid should be hand-hot, so if you use cold milk, add hot water. Add the yeast and sugar to the liquid and after a few minutes it should have started to bubble. Meanwhile sift the flours into a large bowl, add the salt and whisk a little to distribute. Salt kills yeast, so never add salt to the liquid.
Add the liquid to the flour, mix with a wooden spoon or hands, and add more flour (if necessary) to enable you to bring it into a coherent ball. Transfer to floured surface, knead for ten (yes ten!) minutes, adding flour as necessary. You should try and keep the dough sticky; it should threaten to stick to the board, in fact.
Return to the bowl, cover with plastic wrap or a clean towel, and leave to rise for a couple of hours until the dough has doubled in volume. Divide into four and shape (I find lightly rolling out with a rolling pin does little harm). Leave for 20-30 minutes to 're-rise'. Meanwhile pre-heat oven to absolute maximum. If you have a pizza stone (HIGHLY recommended), put it in.
When ready, slap a pizza onto the hot stone, add toppings ASAP, then return to the oven for 5 minutes until bubbling, golden, and generally delicious!
Here is a great light, crispy Whole Wheat Sourdough Pizza Crust recipe. On the page is also a link to a place to get FREE sourdough starter. The recipe for the crust is pretty foolproof and makes 3 pizza crusts...the best part is that the dough freezes perfectly, so you'll always be just a short defrost from excellent homemade pizza.
welcome. I see the link you posted is to an entry on the site you list as your site. Are you affiliated with the site? If so, then you should disclose your affiliation as per our FAQ.
Thanks...that is my site I linked to and I should have read your FAQ page before posting. I didn't intend it to be self promoting (just informative), but I can see how it could be interpreted as that. I will be more careful about any self promotion in the future...it won't happen again. BTW, I'm really happy I discovered your site...it's incredibly informative.
Of course there's FREE sourdough starter floating around in the air wherever you are :)
Hey Slim...It is pretty easy to make your own, but this starter has been around since 1847 and is very hearty. I've had a batch of my own going for about 10 years now and it never fails to produce a great bread. Here is the link to Carl's Sourdough to request a free envelope of their dried 1847 Oregon Trail Sourdough Starter (btw, I have no affiliation with this site) with directions on how to revive the starter. You should give it a try!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.311270
| 2011-01-09T10:21:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10876",
"authors": [
"Cookhacker",
"Joe",
"Leotsarev",
"Lindsay",
"LucasS",
"Nick Stauner",
"Panagiotis Panagi",
"Saad Rehman Shah",
"Sirex",
"StackExchange What The Heck",
"Vinny Giambalvo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"slim",
"user22759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8352
|
Is cheesecake a cake or a pie?
Is cheesecake technically a pie or a cake?
I'm curious as to why. Are there solid definitions of what makes a dessert a cake or a pie?
@daniel: Interesting, I never would have thought this would be subjective.
I like pie better than cake, and I like cheesecake, so that must mean cheesecake is a pie.
@Bob - my spouse loves fruit pies and dislikes cheesecake, so there's your counter.
Or is it a baked custard?
In the United Kingdom this kind of argument has ended up in court. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vfoodmanual/vfood6260.htm
Alton Brown and an Elvis impersonator called it a custard pie.
Bump also for the Alton reference, but ya gotta help folks out who haven't seen that show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycxKlc4aYy0
Oh no... They took that video down! It's one of the most important videos on YouTube?!
In my opinion, cakes rise, pies have crusts that are filled (and do not rise).
By those loose definitions, I would consider it a pie.
edit: Wikipedia says it's neither.
Many types of cheesecake are essentially custards, which can lead a novice baker to overcook them, expecting them to behave like true cakes.
@stephenmcdonald - I've seen an NY-style cheesecake rise more than some white cakes in my own oven.
@justkt - interesting...I must be making some other style of cheesecake then :) Did it taste lighter and fluffier than a regular dense cheesecake?
@stephenmcdonald - it was pretty light and fluffy - first time I've had a recipe that was explicitly NY-style. And definitely yes to the wikipedia quote about overbaking!
@justkt what is the [rising/leavening] agent? Does it just rise from the heat?
@mfg - for this cheesecake, the sugar was beat into cream cheese, providing an air bubble structure (this is a best guess).
@justkt, that sounds delicious, do you by any chance have a recipe link handy that I could try out? If not I can just find one on my own but figured I'd ask first!
@stephenmcdonald - just be warned that we got our results partially by messing with the heat (had the overcooking problem wikipedia mentioned because the custard concerned us), although it still came out great. It was the NY cheesecake from the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook, which means any NY cheesecake from CI/ATK will do (google should help find one, pick your favorite).
@justkt - thanks for the info, sounds like a nice weekend experiment: a "normal" cheesecake the way i normally make it and the NY style from ATK side by side. I'm sure my wife will be very upset at having to help me taste test!
Custard is the filling, which is what makes a cheesecake a cheesecake as opposed to an apple pie or an apple tart. However, there's a crust, and the crust obviously is not a custard -- the custard and crust combined are clearly either a pie or a tart.
Cake
Straight sides
No fruit (except as an optional topping)
Holds its shape when sliced
Pie
Separate crust
Not frosted
Doesn't rise (except temporarily while baking)
No crumbs
Conclusion
Who cares, let's just have some cheesecake. :-)
plenty of "rustic" cakes (ex: buckle) contain fruit.
In some parts of the world, the mince pie (ground beef), is "frosted" (iced) with piped mash potato
Virtually all bundt cakes lack straight sides.
It is neither; it is a unique dessert category, the cheesecake.
It has structural similarities with pies (a custard based body, a mechanically separate crust).
However, in the US for whatever reason, it is referred to as a cheesecake (you will note that rarely will someone say, for example "I will bring a cake" and show up with a cheesecake).
The unique label doesn't mean that it is a cake in the same way that a pound cake or an angel food cake are, but we have lots of inconsistent labels.
While it has texture and body of cake, I would argue that cheesecake has more pie-like qualities.
It has a discrete crust.
It is more a filling than a batter.
It does not need to be frosted.
My vote is "pie."
Cheesecake is a filling and flavor, like chocolate. You can make it into a pie with crust, you can add it as a filling between layers of cake, or even have an entire cheesecake round as a layer of the cake. Cheesecake does not require a crust for proper preparation.
In the US Cheesecake is most often served as a pie with a crust on the bottom, so many will claim it is a pie, but there is nothing about cheesecake itself that makes it a pie, any more than pudding or mouse is a pie merely because they can be served as pies.
My mother made several cheesecakes and cheese pies as I was growing up; there is a distinct difference.
A simple cheesecake and a simple cheese pie have, more or less, the same basic filling: everyone knows the flavor/taste. But even these two have a subtle difference (and an obvious one). Obvious: The cheesecake stands taller and is square on the sides (as mentioned elsewhere here).
Subtle: A simple cheese pie has more of a custardy texture, whereas a cheesecake is very rich and thick.
Beyond that, a cheesecake can be made into many more varieties that a cheese pie typically does not: ice cream cheesecakes, mocha swirl cheesecakes... Cheese pies do not have the body to allow for some of the structures that a cheesecake can offer. This is because cheesecakes are best made with a springform pan, which allows for many different varieties.
Please peruse this book if you get the chance. It was my mother's bible as I grew up, and I use it today.
Cake in its origin is a form of bread, or break like food, so it must be a pie despite its name!
The definition of cake is a sweet dessert made from flour, eggs, sugar and other ingredients that is round or square and that is baked. CHEESECAKE IS A CAKE!
So you're saying that 'no-bake' cheesecakes are pies?
Also, it's a massive overstatement to imply that cheesecake is made from flour. Purists don't add any flour, and those who do add it (as "insurance") will use only a tablespoon or two.
I think cheese CAKE means that it has to be cake... look at the name for goodness sake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.311955
| 2010-10-20T16:27:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8352",
"authors": [
"Anthon",
"AtkinsonCM",
"Bob",
"Bronsen",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Cyber-Logic",
"Daniel",
"David Marshall",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Josephine Moeller",
"Marc Frechette",
"Marti",
"Niki Khalashi",
"Paul Biggar",
"Phillip Barela",
"Roman Zabicki",
"SourDoh",
"Stephanie Simon",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93554",
"jason",
"joce",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user17275",
"w88lives56 spam"
],
"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
}
|
14402
|
How to make apple pie stay intact
I made an apple pie just the other day, and everything came out fine. The only problem was that the filling didn't stick to the crust (home made butter crust if it makes a difference). Is there anything I can do in order to make the filling stick to the crust?
Yes, please clarify what you mean by "filling stick to the crust". Do you have a gap? Is it too runny?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by having the filling 'stick' to the crust, but if you mean that the filling slides out, then you probably haven't added enough thickener (usually flour or cornstarch) to your apples, so the juices that leak out during cooking are too thin.
Different brands and batches of flour/cornstarch, and different apples, will have different levels of liquidity - a bit of practice and experience is necessary to get consistent results.
Flour sounds like a strange ingredient for apple pie filling; usually it'll be corn starch or tapioca starch. I suppose flour could work but you really only want the starch, not the protein.
My apple pie recipe comes from Bubby's in NYC: they seem to do pretty well using flour...
And a quick survey of recipes turn up plenty that use flour... http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/2052/ultimate-apple-pie
http://www.delish.com/recipefinder/deep-dish-apple-pie-recipe-8927
http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/old_fashioned_apple_pie/
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/bobby-flay/apple-pie-recipe/index.html
Unless we compare every recipe known to man there's no way of knowing that for sure. Anyway, the point is, whatever thickening agent you use, if your filling is sliding out of the crust after cutting it needs more!
I've no doubt that he (and you) knows his stuff. Nor do I have any doubt that cornstarch is used to thicken many a pie filling. However, I also have no doubt that flour is as well, and that it is impossible to say objectively that cornstarch is used in more recipes than flour.
Edited to reflect the variety of thickening agents used in pies...
Haha, don't use me as a source @daniel, my "usually" comment was just anecdotal (although I'm pretty sure the part about protein is correct). Sorry Elendil, didn't mean for it to turn into drama, but the edit should put any concerns to rest regardless.
Firstly I would like to thank you all for your response, you were right to assume that i meant that the filling falles out when i cut the pie. I use cornstach as a thickener but i guess i could try flour as well, but any how i will try to add more of the thickener and will post the results.
You're welcome. Stick with the thickener in your recipe just increase it a little at a time. You don't want apple glue pie!
So much of making good apple pies relies on the apple type. You will never get the problem if you use Bramley apples, if you can't get those try to find Granny Smith apples.
Eating apples are really only good for making the sort of tartes the French make. If you are making pies, look for cooking apples.
I disagree. Cooking apples usually result in an apple mush. A nice eating apple like a Braeburn softens nicely but still holds its shape and thus provides some texture.
Though I would say I have seen a few recipes that use a mix of cooking and eating apples.
Bramleys keep texture if you bake them uncooked in small pies. They go mushy if you try to think large. My favourite is Wingate Wonder but that is a local thing - only get them from a local farm shop. Cooking apples with texture.
I would describe Granny Smith as "eating apples" (they are the kind I eat) and those were also the kind that I was taught to make apple pie with. Bramley are OK too, but I wouldn't use a true soft-and-sweet "cooking apple" in an apple pie, because as Elenedil says, they have a tendency to turn into mush and also become almost sickly-sweet.
As far as apple types go I will try the Granny Smith apples and will see how well the fare in my pie.
Thank you all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.312484
| 2011-04-28T21:28:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14402",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Michael Hetton",
"Yoni Erez",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21826
|
What if anything make a liquid a good candidate for a reduction?
What if anything makes a liquid a good candidate for a reduction? Often you see things like wines and fruit juices called to be reduced for recipes. Why are they so common? What specifics about them make them so?
If I am wanting to play around with making different reductions is there anything I should look for and what are the expected results of the liquid having that content (i.e. high sugar content, does acidity levels have an effect on the reduction).
Reduction will strengthen the flavor of anything, since it removes the neutral water. What you can't reduce are things where heat does more than just evaporate water and concentrate flavor; things where proteins denature and coagulate etc.
If you care to expand a little with some examples you probably can turn this into a pretty good answer.
The most important reason reductions exist, is because they intensify the flavour, so that's the first point you should pay attention to. Will the flavour accommodate the rest of the dish? White wine is often used in reductions for fish, red wine more often for meat. Everything that you think will fit, can be a good fit (other (stronger) liquors, vinegars (but don't use too much), ...). That's why you won't see liquids as coffee appearing in reduction recipes.
Wines and fruit juices give a fruity, softer taste, so they are a good fit with a lot of things. They also are largely water, so easy to combine with.
I must confess that I don't know how sugar content or acidity level will effect the reduction, but I do know that sugar and vinegar/lemon juice can be a component of reductions.
Besides a flavor concentration are there any secondary benefits that might be gathered from reducing a liquid and does the make-up of the liquid play any part in those. Will reducing a vinegar increase its acidity/harshness? I am looking for all the things you might want to consider before you reduce. Like Max mentioned in his comment might something denature and coagulate?
@tastefive Example: don't try and reduce eggs, it will coagulate instead. (Though, who knows, maybe someone has found a way… vacuum chamber, perhaps?). If you can't boil or at least simmer something, you probably can't reduce it either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.312798
| 2012-02-28T17:53:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21826",
"authors": [
"Max",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13697
|
How to prevent pizza dough from stretching back
I have a problem with my pizza dough. I start to shape it but it is somewhat difficult to make it bigger and thinner because the dough stretches back to its initial form.
Any ideas?
Your dough probably stretches back because the flour has a value of p/l≈1. I wrote this answer for another question on Pizza specific flours should have a value of p/l≈0.5.
If you can't get a flour with p/l≈0.5, you can try reducing the dough's strengh by:
Leting it rest a long time.
Resting for 2, 4 or 6 hours doesn't sound strange to me. I usually rest for 8~12 hours at room temperature, but I use strong flours (and usually, but not always, with a "right" p/l value).
Add some acid to the dough
And old proffessional baker once told me they didn't have consistent flours in the 70's. Sometimes they were too strong, sometimes too weak. When it was strong, they added vinager to make it "less nervous" (sic). I'd preffer let it rest longer than doing this to my pizza dough.
Another chance could be that your pizza dough balls are still too cold from the fridge, and therefor too stiff.
If this is the case, you can take it out of the fridge earlier to let it reach room temperature.
For a softer and easier to work dough that still performs fine in a very hot oven. Use 100% wholemeal flour and process in a food processor with a chopping blade (this trick doesn't seem to work as well for bread)
The food processor will eventually form a lump of dough and will put huge centrifugal strain on the machine, so don't use you flash brand new one. I have an old sunbeam "Big Oscar" for this job
Let dough rise as normal, punch down an knead briefly, rise again. Shape, with the pull, smear, turn technique (it will stay put). Let rise again briefly before adding topping and cooking
Ascorbic Acid which can allow the gluten to relax by acidifying the protein structure breaking the intermolecular protein bonds in the tertiary protein structure reducing the tightness of the gluten; it also contribute to dough relaxation.
You can find Ascorbic Acid in Vitamin-C powder you only need a small small portion of it or a drop of juice from pineapple or kiwi fruit. Other reducing agent's can also be used
Acetic acid is vinegar. Vitamin C is ascorbic acid, not acetic acid.
Here's a trick I found in My Father's Book Of Southern Italian Peasant Food: To prevent your dough from shrinking back, coat your pizza pan with Crisco, then spread the dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.313098
| 2011-04-03T20:48:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13697",
"authors": [
"Jeff King",
"Madame Chef",
"NSGod",
"Nigel Touch",
"Thaoden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65180",
"jainam"
],
"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
}
|
13405
|
Why do my pizzas get such hard crusts?
I usually buy ready made pizza base and use it for baking pizzas. All of my pizzas get a very hard and crispy outer crust. Why so?
I thought of brushing some oil on the pizza base before I bake it but no help. I use a convection microwave oven.
I hope you mean that you have a hybrid microwave/toasting oven and use it on the toasting setting with microwave radiation turned off? You cannot bake dough in a microwave, it turns dough to a brick.
No, its an LG Microwave oven, this is the closest I could google right away,http://www.lg.com/in/home-appliances/microwave-oven/LG-MC-8080PRR.jsp I can Bake, Roast, Toast, Grill and Microwave food. And it comes with a pre-set option for Pizzas
Are you using the convection setting? The pre-set option? Is the pre-set pizza option convection (if you are using it)? Does it match the instructions on the crust?
Well I am confused now, I purchase pizza base from store, these bases are like breads, I simply need to add toppings, sauce and cheese, even the preset option in uWave wants me to use a ready made base. And then, as I said, I use preset option.
Are you sure that it turns the grilling part on? I've got a microwave oven that can do the same things (Not an LG though) and the pizza option does not turn on the grilling.
The way you describe it, it sounds as if your oven uses microwave radiation while you are baking the pizza. This is obviously a bad idea, but a manufacturer could just add "pizza setting" as a selling point, without making a reasonable implementation. Or maybe the oven is OK, but the user interface is confusing and you somehow don't switch on the right setting.
First, try to find out if the oven is supposed to turn off the radiation while baking pizza. If this isn't described clearly in the users' manual, call technical support and ask them. If it is not supposed to turn it off, your last chance is that the oven has the possibility to manually override the setting and turn off the radiation. Else, this oven is not suited for pizzas or any other kind of dough.
If the oven is supposed to turn the radiation off, and you are sure you have selected all the correct options for it to do so, but your crust is still too hard, then the oven is probably defective and radiates microwaves when it shouldn't. Sadly, I don't know any way to test for that (theoretically, you could put a small piece of metal in it and look for sparks, but you risk damaging the oven that way.). Maybe if you have a friend with access to a physics or a sepcialized photography lab, they could find you some microwave sensitive film, but the probability is slim.
If you somehow find out that the microwave definitely isn't nuking the pizza, the only other problem I can think of is that it probably gets too dry when baking. You could try baking a thicker pizza (put two pure bases on each other and roll them a bit with the rolling pin, they should combine) and/or adding more sauce and fluid toppings/cheese. Or reduce the baking time. But it would take a lot of drying to make the crust unpleasantly hard, so I am 90% sure your problem is caused by microwaves.
well I have to agree with you, my psychic engineering skills tell me the same. But I could bake a walnut brownie and it was good if no the best. I will try to bake pizza manually, w/out using the preset option and last question, will moistening the pizza base will help?
I know of one microwave oven that had not only a "pizza" setting, but also a "party pizza" setting. It was during my student days, and when making pizza we strictly used the party pizza setting for parties, and the regular pizza setting for other occasions. We never noticed a difference between the two, but then again, our pizzas were pretty bad to start with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.313327
| 2011-03-24T06:12:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13405",
"authors": [
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Kumar",
"Martijn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"justkt",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13205
|
Is it possible to make vegetarian 'prawn' toast?
As a vegetarian for over 15 years the only food I continue to miss is prawn toast. Does anybody whether it would be possible to make a vegetarian version and what alternatives to prawn could be used?
This recipe seems to be something close to what you are looking for!
http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=21443.0
Tofu seems to be a reasonable substitute.
However you can also find a vegetarian shrimp substitute through this company:
http://www.vegieworld.com/cart/product_pages.asp?id=667
One of their suggested preparation methods is for toast!
ooo that looks promising! I'd have to leave out the kelp seasoning. Do you think it would be possible to make with actual egg not egg replacement? Also are green onions the same as spring onions?
Nope, spring onions and green onions are different! http://www.harvestwizard.com/2008/05/spring_onions_green_onions_and.html Sorry, I changed my post at the last minute! I mention a site above that sells vegetarian shrimp substitute. Hope it helps!
Thank you that's really helpful. That website has a minimum order of $50 so I'm going to have to find a different source (and somewhere with UK delivery) but at least I know it's possible now!
@nixy: The kelp seasoning will probably be a large part of "the sea" taste.
That's a really good point, I haven't even heard of kelp seasoning before though so I may struggle to find it
There are a lot of vegetarian mock meats out there, but the availability is probably quite variable. May Wah has the largest selection of frozen mock meats I've ever seen and includes prawns: http://www.vegieworld.com/ You could probably use those in your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.313650
| 2011-03-16T20:41:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13205",
"authors": [
"BanksySan",
"Danny Armstrong",
"Nathan Carter",
"Orbling",
"Rosalind Hughes",
"Vecta",
"Wjdavis5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57207",
"nixy "
],
"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
}
|
5215
|
How long will live lobsters last in the fridge?
My parents just got back from Boston. Since we were looking after their dog, they bought us 2 live lobsters as a "thank you". We've named them Pinchy and James. They were bought Saturday afternoon and flew home in styrofoam with ice and wet newspaper over them. The guy that sold them to my parents said they would last till Monday night if they were kept in the fridge and covered with wet newspaper. Is that right? When should we cook them? We have dinner plans already for Sunday night. What can we do to make sure they stay alive / fresh?
+1 for the title alone. I wanted to say something witty in response but I'm simply dumbfounded by the extreme awesomeness of this visual.
@JN Web, Pinchy died inadvertently in the bath tub. James was named after my brother.
They should be fine until Monday. Do just as he said...keep them in the fridge covered with damp newspaper. Cook them tomorrow or Monday.
If you can't/don't for some reason have time to cook them then just stick them in the freezer alive. They'll freeze and you can then cook them another time in the future.
They lived to tell the tail, as it were. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.314069
| 2010-08-15T02:34:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5215",
"authors": [
"Dinah",
"HtoG",
"KingOfHypocrites",
"Melanie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"steve",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1722
|
Over-stirring muffin mixtures
In muffin recipes, the instructions often say to stir the mixture till "just combined".
Why does over-stirring the muffin mixture result in tough muffins?
And how do you know if you did too much stirring?
Aronut, but I don't want @Sam to lose 15 points as a result of merging :)
@AnishaKaul I merged the question, I am sure Sam will get points from other questions and answers, he is doing very well. He just got 10 p from my upvote.
@rumtscho I think Sam's answer is better than what's accepted here. You could have merged this thread with mine. Anyway, it is mod's call.
Does this answer your question? Mixing liquid ingredients to "just combine" to dry ingredients for muffins
The easiest way to tell if you've over stirred muffins, quick breads or cakes is the texture when it's baked.
Correct, and it's all even. Over stirred, and you'll have a series of larger bubbles in the cake, called 'tunneling', where it looks like worms have burrowed their way through your cake or muffin.
Stirring develops gluten, which is essential to trap in bubbles for most yeast breads, and to give it a little bit of chew -- but not something that you want in a typical quick bread. (muffins, cake, etc.)
The main reason behind the claim is that muffins don't want gluten formation. Gluten in a chemical leavened product like a muffin would make it tough, rather than light, since the protein strands are so sturdy. The sturdy structures that are desired in crusty bread are a problem for muffins and other chemical leavened products.
Gluten is formed when dough is heavily mixed or kneaded, or when the dough remains wet for a long period of time. Avoiding mixing it too much is one way of preventing gluten formation.
Lots of mixing can also cause the chemical leavening (baking powder) to go flat. Baking powder is a mix of sodium bicarbonate, which will release CO2 when in contact with an acid, and an acidic salt, such as cream of tartar (or others). They are inert when dry, but when water hits them, the acid activates and starts bubbling the soda. This reaction doesn't take long to run out of steam, though, so too much mixing can pop or shake out the precious bubbles.
What seems to be subject to some superstition is the exact way to get the "right" amount of mixing. Some people say, "ten stirs only" or other little tricks, but the point is that you just want to integrate the ingredients together, and no more, and to add the liquid to the dry ingredients as close to the actual moment of baking as practical. Dry lumps in the batter are fine - they will hydrate quickly in the heat of the oven.
beautiful and very helpful answer, Sam. thanks very much. :)
Sam, if I mix the batter fine but "quickly" within seconds, will that work? I mean is the "time" problem? or the problem is "fine mesh" irrespective of the time?
Both issues are important, I don't think I could say which is a bigger deal. I know I have success when I mix just before placing in the pans, and not mixing heavily. The hard part is that words don't do a good job of explaining things like texture. For that, pictures are better, and experience is better still. Check out this episode of Good Eats - Muffin Method Man (which is an excellent show for learning cooking techniques) covering muffin preparation: Part 1 (http://youtu.be/J-D7zwa1vUk) Part 2 (http://youtu.be/XZJBXftTnms).
Thanks Sam, that was helpful. He mixed it 13 times in all with a large spoon. :) I'll try that and post back soon. :)
Just to add, if you overstir what will usually happen is you'll end up with massive cavities inside the muffin due to gluten formation, surrounded by tougher dough. If you stir appropriately you'll have lots of small little cavities which will have a nice tender structure when you bite.
The first claim is true and scientifically correct. If you over mix a muffin batter, in fact any batter or dough containing flour, it will become 'tough' or 'breadier'. This is because in flour (obviously not non-gluten flour) there are gluten molecules (a kind of protein, when the dough/batter is worked the gluten becomes to form strands and microscopic cross-links creating a chewer texture. It will also create a denser texture as chemical leaveners (ie baking soda) cannot rise as well in the tougher batter. Some flours have higher gluten contents, pastry flours have a lower gluten content for more tender baked products such as cakes and pastry, bread flours are produced from hard wheats. And have a higher gluten content and create chewy, breadier product. This links go into more detail:Wikipedia - gluten.
As for leaving the batter lumpy, I've heard this too, however only that it appears lumpy not with pockets of dry flour. I wouldn't advise this as this can result in a muffin with pockets of raw floury just horrible flour. Leaving the flour lumpy but moistened is fine as it means the starch in the flour has moisture to absorb, whilst if undermixed the moisture is unable to reach all of the flour and it stays raw. I don't have a link for this to back it up unfortunately after looking however I've given an opinion from my experience.
Thanks, I'll look out what is a gluten, and which flours have it.
All wheat flours have gluten, and most related species like barley and rye. Gluten is formed from two proteins that are naturally occurring in the grain, gliadin and glutelin. Moisture and movement cause these proteins to combine, and string together in long, sturdy strands. Sometimes this is good for your food (nice chewy breads and pasta), and sometimes it is a problem (like in your muffins). Most baking processes and ingredients are about either creating, inhibiting, or otherwise harnessing gluten. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten
Because you have overworked the gluten in the mixture. Same reason why you rest a pastry or pizza dough before you roll it out.
Expanding on this... gluten combination occurs as you move the mixture about. Kneading, stirring, rolling, anything that moves the mix around causes gluten combination. The more you work the dough, the more combines, and the tighter it clumps. For muffins you want some gluten (to hold it together), but don't want it tightly bound. Stirring until almost everything is wet is what I do. Lumps are just fine. Works for me.
I think detailed answers (with reasons) are better than the one liners.
My experience suggests that you can mix a cake batter or a brownie as much as you want, till you are satisfied that all the ingredients are mixed well. The only trick is to not whip the batter or mix it too quickly. Be gentle and your baking powder will work exactly the way it should.
This is simply not correct for quick breads; additional mixing will develop gluten and create a tough or rubbery texture. Even standard cake or brownie batters will eventually be affected, although fat and the way it is combined inhibit the process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.314222
| 2010-07-18T11:02:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1722",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Buck",
"Dan Davies Brackett",
"Daniel",
"Luciano",
"Marcin Gil",
"Matthew",
"Pinaz Dama",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam Ley",
"Svish",
"galex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"jathanism",
"rumtscho",
"sysadmin1138",
"user48326"
],
"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
}
|
6869
|
Why can applesauce be used in place of oil?
In many recipes, mostly desserts, it is suggested that you can substitute oil with applesauce to reduce the fat content. But why applesauce?
Is there something special about applesauce or are there other ingredients than can be used?
Fundamentally, the reason for this substitution is that applesauce contains pectin.
In baking, the role of oil is to coat the flour, preventing it from combining with the water (or other wet ingredients) and developing gluten. Gluten is what causes dough to rise, and also gives elasticity to the final product - what most people think of as "chewiness."
When you're baking, for example, a cake, or even a pie crust, you want to limit the amount of gluten that develops. A cake or pie crust should be moist, light, and fluffy, not tough and chewy. When you bite into a cake and find it very dry and bread-like, that is because it has developed a lot of gluten. A good amount of oil or other fat leads to a lighter, moister, less-glutinous result.
The pectin in applesauce can also, to a certain extent, help to inhibit gluten formation in a dough, but the similarities end there. I cannot stress this point enough, and I've seen many other online resources get this dead wrong: Pectin (applesauce) is not a straightforward or foolproof substitute for fat.
The mechanisms by which pectin and oil work in this context are completely different:
Oil is a lipid. Lipids bind to starch (including the ~75% starch in flour) and are hydrophobic - the traditional example of this is dew drops forming on the surface of grass or plants (the latter being the hydrophobe). In a sense, oil forms a protective "shield" around the flour molecules.
Pectin, on the other hand, is a gelling agent, and specifically a polysaccharide. Pectin is not hydrophobic and does not actually protect the flour molecules. In fact, pectin is of the same family as starches, which are also polysaccharides. What's really happening here is that the pectin competes with the flour for water. That means less water overall reaches the starch and gluten-forming proteins (giladin and glutenin) in the flour, and because of this, it is not able to develop as much gluten or gelatinize much of the other starch.
What does all of this actually mean for you, the baker? Quite simply, it means you have to be very careful with this substitution:
Too much pectin can turn your recipe into a jelly-like consistency.
Too little pectin will fail to prevent glutenization (in other words, you'll get bread).
Pectin has the property of syneresis - meaning that once it starts to gel, it also starts to expel liquid, and your dessert will dry out or deflate over time.
Pectin is actually water-soluble at high temperatures (technically, it forms a colloid), it just happens to absorb a lot of water along the way. Baking for too long, or at too high a temperature, will cause the pectin to break down and dissolve completely, making it useless.
There are also several other problems (or at least "gotchas") when making the apple sauce substitution:
Applesauce is not just pectin. It has a good deal of water and various proteins and acids, and even a certain amount of lipids. The exact quantities, however, depend on how the applesauce was made, so it is very hard to get precise control over the amount of pectin, and the textbook 1:1 substitution ratio is almost never correct.
Another thing that applesauce contains is sugar - even unsweetened applesauce. You will almost certainly need to reduce the amount of sugar elsewhere in your recipe. This may be difficult, especially if the bulk of the sugar is used as a dry ingredient.
Applesauce behaves somewhat similarly to oil, but do not even try using it as a substitute for any other fat. Butter, in particular, contains milk proteins which act as natural emulsifiers; pectin does have certain stabilizing properties but is a rather poor emulsifier compared to butter[citation needed]. And it goes without saying that the flavour is substantially different from that of applesauce; oil is "OK" to substitute for because it has very little flavour of its own.
If you plan on using applesauce as a substitute for oil in a recipe that does not specifically explain how to use it as a substitute, then I strongly suggest you do two things:
Don't substitute the entire quantity. Use 1/2 oil, 1/2 applesauce, or maybe 1/4 oil and 3/4 applesauce. You will likely also have to lower the total quantity of oil/applesauce to approximately half of what it originally was (give or take 1/4).
If you can, try this substitution on a small scale first, and experiment with the quantities of oil, sugar, and applesauce, before going all-out and putting it into the oven while your guests arrive. It's very likely that on the first few attempts, you'll end up with something that's palatable, but nowhere near the quality of the oil-based recipe.
Ignore these disclaimers at your own risk!
Good advice. I know this is old but there is an inconsistency in the wording here. "That means less water overall reaches the starch, and because of this, it is less able to develop gluten." Starch is not gluten.
Quite right, I'm not sure why I was using the terms "starch" and "flour" interchangeably. Obviously, it's the proteins in flour that are responsible for gluten, not the starch.
Gluten isn't responsible for the dough rising. It is as you say responsible for the chew and elasticity but it does not make it rise, that is the yeast producing gas through fermentation. The gluten matrix helps to trap these bubbles and therefore the dough rises but the gluten alone does not rise a dough.
@Aaronut Is that you, Alton Brown? :)
How about deep-frying in applesauce?
@NickT: Not a chance, you'd just evaporate all the water and burn what's left. Deep frying needs a temperature of 175° C or more.
A few tips I have found although it says strictly, do NOT use applesauce as a substitute for butter!
Although fats add richness and texture, the primary job of a fat
in a recipe is to keep the flour protein from mixing with the moisture
and forming long strands of gluten—a reaction that would give cake the
texture of rubber tire. That’s why it’s so important to keep the
liquid and dry ingredients separate until the very end, and to mix
them together very gently by hand. When you substitute applesauce,
it’s even more important to work the batter gently, and as little as
possible, in the final mix.
Use unsweetened applesauce, or reduce the amount of sugar in the recipe if you use sweetened applesauce.
Measure applesauce in a liquid measuring cup.
Use a hand or stand mixer to thoroughly combine the applesauce with the other liquid ingredients (egg, flavoring), then blend the liquids with the sugar. With a large spatula, carefully fold the dry ingredients into the mixture until just combined.
The finished product will be moist. Don’t alter the time for cooking because low-fat recipes dry out when they’re over-cooked.
Courtesy of http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/blogs/dinner/archive/2007/10/30/how-to-substitute-applesauce-for-oil-or-butter.aspx
That doesn't at all answer why applesauce can be used, nor what is special. You're answering how, which wasn't asked.
lol I suppose hobodave, I suppose. " the primary job of a fat in a recipe is to keep the flour protein from mixing with the moisture and forming long strands of gluten—a reaction that would give cake the texture of rubber tire"
Applesauce is not fat, though; basically the underlying question here was "why does applesauce [sometimes] behave like fat?" This is all very good advice; it's also tangential.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.314796
| 2010-09-07T00:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6869",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrea",
"Apeirogon Prime",
"Brendan",
"Chris",
"David",
"Dmitry Ledentsov",
"Jim",
"Lillian Auspitz",
"Maggie",
"Mr. Squig",
"Nick T",
"Rawish salmon is best",
"Savannah Martin",
"Simon",
"Sobachatina",
"Thomas",
"Zeta",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69328",
"naumcho",
"user537137"
],
"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
}
|
3142
|
What is a good use for lots of fresh cilantro?
I have a few recipes I like to make which call for fresh cilantro, but when I buy it at the store it's usually in large bunches and I have a ton left over. What's a good use for the leftovers?
Mulch. (for those of us who just can't stand cilantro)
This question's being temporarily grandfathered as it was created before we had the culinary uses guidelines - however, it does not currently meet any of those criteria and may be closed at some point in the future. (Fair warning to anyone who might want to ask a similar question!)
I've found it freezes quite well — I simply wash it, chop it roughly, and then freeze it in a small plastic bag.
Interesting idea.
I may start doing this as I always have some portion of it go bad before I can use it all.
I do the same thing with parsley and chives. As long as you're using them in cooked foods (rather than as garnish), nobody will be able to tell the difference. Do make sure to dry the herbs well after washing them, and remove as much air from the plastic bag as you can manage.
Use it to make pesto, super easy and you can use the pesto when ever you need cilantro flavor in a dish.
You just need a food processor or even a blender, place the herbs inside and blend while slowly pouring oil into the mix. I normally make mine two handfuls of herbs to a cup and half of oil but you might need to play with the ratio to get a mix that tastes good to you. I also try to use canola oil instead of olive as I find I don't always want to add those olive flavors to whatever Mexican dish I happen to be cooking. The pesto also freezes great so it's great to bust out duing the winter.
When making pesto with Cilantro I like to use toasted walnuts instead of pine nuts.
Anything Thai. There's a particularly fun Thai green curry that you make with fresh Cilantro (though I daresay we call it coriander over here), lots of garlic, some hot green peppers, and about 6 different spices. I don't have the recipe on hand, but Google is your friend. If you're making this, add the flesh of a fresh mango, it's incredible.
Anything middle-Eastern. A taboule salad will do you good service in using up coriander leaves, though it takes spearmint and parsley too.
Cilantro lime rice! I eat it on burritos, or by itself. I'd link you a recipe, but I haven't made it in a while and can't remember how I do it. It's basically:
Rice
Cilantro
Lime Juice
Salt
Cilantro's also interesting in salads (like everything green).
Chimichurri sauce: Good on chicken, pork, shrimp, beef. Usually about 3 cups of loosely packed leaves, a combination of cilantro, parsley, and basil. Add garlic, 1/4 cup red wine vinegar, 1/2 cup olive oil, salt and pepper to taste. Put it all in a food processor.
Cilantro is also great in homemade hummus! Use lime juice instead of lemon, add some cayenne pepper if you like it spicy.
Recaito.
It's a sort of chutney/sauce of Hispanic origin that's (more or less) a paste made from onion, peppers, oil, salt and lots of cilantro. I've had it made with some lime in too. It's used more as an ingredient (like for making green rice) than as a condiment, but I can vouch for it being kind of nice served over something like a nice hot grilled chicken breast.
Salsas
Cilantro is a great ingredient in both red and green salsa. While prime canning season is over in most of the northern hemisphere, you may be able to find quality versions of the rest of the ingredients for either fresh or cooked salsa.
How about a chutney? As far as Indian food in the US goes, one of the two common chutneys is a green one chock full of cilantro (the other is tamarind). I've only made it once, and I can't remember the recipe, but googling for green chutney, cilantro chutney, or hari chutney results in quite a lot of hits.
Guacamole.
I understand your frustration. I like it fresh, but I don't use cilantro in large enough quantities to go through the smallest amount they are sold in at the local grocery store before it rots. So I bought a jar of dried cilantro for the occasional times I want it.
You could try putting some clean, dry cilantro in a sealed container of oil, and letting it rest for a few weeks before straining. I'm not sure about the shelf-life, but it's a great way to capture the flavor of an herb/spice to use for later.
It's a great additive to a cous-cous salad.
I just made a macaroni salad and had some left over cilantro that I added it to and my family loved it!!
Umm... what isn't a good use for fresh cilantro? Anything Mexican, anything Asian, or soups might be a good start. My wife always uses it in her 'taco cassarole', stir-fry, and in black bean soup, for some examples.
But just give it a try. As long as the dish isn't overly sweet, you can hardly go wrong with cilantro.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.315540
| 2010-07-25T00:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3142",
"authors": [
"A Lee",
"Aaronut",
"Alkimake",
"Baim Wrong",
"C26",
"Darin Sehnert",
"EmJ",
"FumbleFingers",
"Joe",
"Jones Pearl",
"Konrad ",
"Marti",
"Nikolay R",
"Tersia Williams",
"TommyD",
"Tony",
"VoutilaD",
"Witek",
"ashes999",
"hitch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94535",
"iamserious",
"proximus",
"rec.thegeom",
"studiohack"
],
"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
}
|
3299
|
Culinary uses for lavender
I have some lavender bushes in the garden. They last well and smell wonderful. I have always considered lavender a herb, but can't think how it is used in cooking.
If people have any good recipes for lavender I would love to know.
Thanks for all the responses so far. I don't think there is one right answer so I will keep this open. See what else pops in.
I know this isn't a culinary use, but I keep a bag of lavender from my garden under the sink, and use it to clean bad smells out of my garbage disposal. Very handy when we don't have any lemon or lime peels around.
First, a couple of notes on cooking with lavender:
-The leaves as well as the flower blossoms are edible.
-If you don't grow it yourself, make sure that you only use lavender that has been produced for culinary usage (often found in bulk form at health food stores). If it isn't sold in a food store, don't use it (such as that in craft stores).
-A little goes a long way. Too much and your mouth will taste like it was washed out with soap.
Now for some of the items I have done with it:
Lavender ice cream (Lavender & Honey even better!) is a common use. Infuse the cream with the lavender buds by bringing it to a simmer and then take off the heat and cover, letting sit for about 30 minutes.
Lavender orange sorbet (infuse lavender buds into the orange juice).
I've also used lavender and thyme in an herb past rub for roasted lamb.
"English Garden Madeleines" using dried lavender and rosewater in the madeleine batter.
I did a presentation on culinary uses of lavender a dozen years ago and don't quite recall what else I did with it but should be able to pull out the recipes I mentioned above.
If you'd like the recipes, email me at: [email protected] and I'll forward them to you.
Lavender & Honey ice cream is so good
Lavender goes well with apples, bitter citrus fruits, honey, basil, and coriander. If you buy it instead of growing it, be sure it is food grade, since ornamental growers tend to spray lavender with pesticides.
Some dishes using herbes de Provence assume that you are using a mixture containing lavender, so searching for herbes de Provence should also help find recipes. A simple thing to start out with may be lavender lemonade
The TGRWRT blog event asked readers to combine lavender and apples in a dish. The results of the TGRWT event contain several new recipes that use lavender, some sweet, some savory. I participated in the event, but later modified a recipe from the very talented Witt Sedgwick to create an apple lavender risotto.
I had a lavender lemonade at a wedding recently. I'm not sure if they did anything more complicated than throwing a sprig of lavender in the glass to use as a "stirrer." The light infusion and the lavender smell definitely brightened the drink.
one of the best cookies I've had was a lavender shortbread cookie.
A note of caution: If you didn't plant the lavender in your garden and consequently don't know if it's been treated with pesticides, you shouldn't use it in your baking and cooking. I use lavender in herb crusts on meat, in baking a variety of breads and cookies, and in jellies and sorbets. It's also delicious in some tea blends (from which I make ices in the summer).
The only time I've ever eaten lavender (apart from in Herbes de Provence, as papin has already mentioned), was in a Lavender Creme Brulee.
I'm not particularly fond of Creme Brulee, and I wasn't expecting to like it at all. But it was delicious.
Try swapping it for rosemary when roasting a leg of lamb. To roast lamb I usually make about 20 incisions in the lamb, and into each press an anchovy, half a clove of garlic and a spring of rosemary or lavender, seal the slash with some butter. Roast in a tray with a good glass of white wine and some oil, basting it a few times while it cooks.
I use it when grilling pork chops or steaks. Just cut 4-5 sprigs per chop, and drop it on top when you add the meat to the grill. it will burn up as the meat cooks, but it imparts a nice subtle flavor to the meat.
As mentioned above, the lavender lemonade is wonderful. However, to make mine, I use a bit more than just "a sprig" and I mix it with chamomile flowers and honey with a few lemon balm leaves thrown in (as well as the lemon juice of course) for that fresh, 'grass-y' hint and steep that for a while, strain it and pour it over ice. Sometimes I add a splash of cognac.
One would think of heaven...honestly! I've made lemon-lavender butter cakes as well that were lovely. The lavender french sables are the best! I've founf that it pairs fairly nicely with either rosemary and/or thyme for lamb as well.
DIY Herbal Tea: 1 cup or so of boiling water, 1 tsp dried lavender, honey and/or lemon to taste. Steep 5 minutes then strain.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.315988
| 2010-07-26T13:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3299",
"authors": [
"Britt Wescott",
"Ernesto Miguel",
"Grey",
"Howard",
"Ian C.",
"James",
"Jeremy French",
"Just Will",
"Marcel Jackwerth",
"Matt Wilko",
"Pål Brattberg",
"Rei Miyasaka",
"beggs",
"cdbitesky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6156",
"msh210",
"stephennmcdonald",
"tugberk",
"user5987",
"user6156",
"usmanali",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
2610
|
What is coriander root and where can you get it?
I mentioned the book Thai Food in an answer to another question. This reminded me of one of my longest running quandaries with it. Many of the recipes mention “coriander root”. I am aware of being able to buy the seeds (whole or ground) or the leaves, but I have never seen for sale anything calling itself coriander root.
Has anyone managed to source this, or am I missing something obvious?
It's the root part of the coriander ("cilantro") plant. Supposedly the root is considerably different from the leaves in flavor (and the seeds are another thing too!). You can't really cook the leafy part without it tasting weird, but the root isn't like that. I've never seen the stuff, unless it's been at an Asian market, labeled in Vietnamese or Thai!
It is just the root of the coriander plant. Certainly at least here (UK) you can buy living coriander plants in the supermarket; you could pull one out of the pot and use the root from that.
Apparently you can also subsitute 2 stems of coriander for every piece of root called for in the recipe, but I've never tried this.
I had never thought of trying that with a living coriander plant. Doh!
In the US, the leaves and stems are known as Cilantro and the seed is known as Coriander. But its the same plant.
In the USA, Coriander is referred to Cilantro, when used in context of herb/green.
Possible sources (to purchase Cilantro aka Coriander with root):
vendors at some farmer's markets (this is where I get mine)
"South East Asian" or "Latin American" grocery stores
"Indian" Grocery stores
If it's not carried in a local Asian market (and they won't order it) then try asking at a local Thai or Asian restaurant. If they're using it they might very likely be willing to sell to you or order from their supplier.
The following is a quote from the Blue Dragon website, I hope it helps:-
Coriander roots are notoriously difficult to come by (even in well stocked Oriental supermarkets), as in the UK coriander is sold rootless. This isn't much good for budding Thai cooks!!
To get the same intense coriander flavour you would get from one root, use ten stems stripped of the leaves and pound to a paste in a paste and mortar. Use in the same way as you would have done with the root.
N.B. Many supermarkets in the UK stock live coriander plants growing in small pots but as previously observed the roots are to small to use.
Hello and welcome to the site! Please mark external sources as such (simply put a > in front of the paragraphs or use the icons above the text field). Adding a link to the website you quoted is a good idea, too. But thanks for actually copying the essential information here, this means this answer stays useful (+1) even in case the link goes bad.
"Cilantro" is actually a stage of growth of the Coriander plant; it is when the leaves are broad and light green, prior to flowering (aka Bolting). If the plant has flowered the taste becomes increasingly bitter and should not be used in recipes calling for coriander.
I would second the suggestion to buy a live plant and simply take the root. I've also been told that you can use the stems as a substitute but haven't tried it.
"you can use the stems as a substitute" -- The roots actually taste quite different from the stems.
@joyjit: Any other alternative would taste more different!
The only place I have seen coriander roots thick enough to be used in cooking is in Thailand. The coriander we find in Europe has roots so thin you can't use them. The roots are much more fragrant than the leaves and yield much better flavouring results when used for cooking.
According to Thai Supermarket Online - http://importfood.com/ - 'A fine quality coriander seed can been used in various curry pastes and other condiment recipes as an excellent substitute for corriander root'.
The best way of getting coriander root is to grow your own coriander on a sunny windowsill; don't bother trying to use it for your cooking as it'll go from scrawny and unable to offer up any leaves, to suddenly it's bolted if you turn your back. Just leave it, you'll then get seeds that you can dry and great roots. I've grown the Calypso variety from seed, because it claimed to not bolt (didn't have any luck with that), and got really good sized roots. You do need to leave it to really get good and beefy. You also need to take ages to clean them as the compost gets into every nook and cranny, but if you're wanting coriander root it's worth it. And I personally just froze it afterwards.
Traditional Thailand we use coriander root as a flavoring.
You can use stems and some leaves for substitute or you can use MSG.
It is the tap root of the coriander plant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.316436
| 2010-07-21T14:18:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2610",
"authors": [
"Arafangion",
"ArielJoy",
"Carla Garlock",
"Chris",
"Chris-Top",
"Daniel Bingham",
"DarenW",
"Garden Goddess Ferments",
"Jeremy French",
"Jim Skopi",
"LauraRose Hisrich",
"Mike Steder",
"Morvader",
"Pointy",
"Sarah Dyas",
"Stephie",
"ccarmelg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73653",
"john tallyman",
"joyjit",
"matt wilkie"
],
"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
}
|
2754
|
Secrets of Gumbo
I like the idea of Gumbo, but I have had limited success in making it. . It seems to be a very varied dish and two recipes which call themselves gumbo can seem to have little in common.
So I am wondering what is Gumbo and what is the secret to making it good?
Gumbo is a creolized (blending of different cultures) dish that was really a way of making use of many whatever might be on hand. The word "Gumbo" itself comes from the African Bantu tribal language which uses the word "Ngambo" for okra. In the plantation culture of the south "ngambo" became "gumbo" and eventually came to be the word for a soup containing okra. In the deep south of South Carolina and southern Georgia it typically has Okra in it to provide thickening from the mucilaginous substance secreted from the okra.
As people moved westward toward the Louisiana region they adopted the Choctaw Indian method of using ground sassafras leaves (gumbe file) as the preferred thickening method in that area. Sidenote: Gumbo file is considered to be the only indigenous north American spice.
Without knowing what it is that you've been disappointed with, it's difficult to make suggestions. As with so many regional dishes there are certain consistencies but more often than not...more variations. This is one of those items where there isn't necessarily ONE primary method.
Some gumbos use a roux for added depth of flavor, color, and thickening while others are more broth based.
The main consistency is that it is typically served ladled over rice.
Great mention of gumbo filé. I'd add that it should be sprinkled on before serving, and not as part of the actual cooking. Also of note is that some filé powders contain other spices, so be aware of the taste impact before using those (I prefer a plain version).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.316883
| 2010-07-22T12:07:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2754",
"authors": [
"FarFigNewton",
"Jginger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4890",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6481
|
How can I use roses in cooking?
I have some very pungent roses in bloom at the moment, on smelling them my first thought was that they smelled like Turkish Delight. My Second thought that was it should be possible to use them in a pudding of some sort myself.
I have seen rose water in some recipes, is this the only way to use roses in cooking? What is a good way to get the flavor into food?
as this asks for a type of list of uses, you may want to alter this to a community wiki that involves uses of roses in cooking.
Rose petals are edible. If you look for rose petal recipes, you will find many creative uses of them, including rice pudding with roses - so your pudding intuition was correct. During colonial American times they were considered a treat. You can candy rose petals with egg whites and sugar - typical cautions about appropriate raw egg white useage applies.
Before using your rose petals in culinary applications, make sure to remember what chemicals you used on them. If they've been sprayed with pesticides, you don't want to be eating them.
If you're making a Persian dish with rice, then add some rose water to the cooking water. The rice then becomes very fragrant. I like it with slightly sweet pork dishes.
This raises the question of how to make rose water from rose petals. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing you could just put them in a (clean!) cloth bag and add that to the water instead.
You can use them to make marmalade, or (with a slightly more complex process), you can perform steam distillation of the petals and extract the essential oils, which you can use as a very pleasant aroma (after dilution) in ice creams and popsicles.
Remember that it's very important to have pesticides-free petals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.317058
| 2010-09-01T09:00:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6481",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4002
|
How can I fix an unpleasant color in a dish?
Last night, I made a Peperonato pasta sauce. It was delicious, but when I added the balsamic vinegar at the end of the dish and then cooked it off (leaving a sweet reduction) it left the whole sauce a rather disgusting brown color. It was just me and my wife, so it didn't matter too much, but it wasn't appetizing to look at it, and I'd have balked at serving it to guests, even though it tastes great.
How could I have fixed this dish? More generally, how can I correct unpleasant coloring in dishes?
There are things you can do to tweak the colors, but generally it's easy to move towards brown and dark, and hard to move towards a pure shade and light.
You can use food coloring, spices with a lot of color (like turmeric). You can lighten with cornstarch, flour, and dairy. (thanks satanicpuppy)
If presentation is important to you, you can buy ingredients that make it easier to get the colors you want in the final product. For instance, next time you make the dish you could use white balsamic vinegar and a little more sugar.
Ooh yes, the thick brown ooze on a plate syndrome - been there a few times... :)
Well, another possibility is to not try and fix the color directly, but rather use a garnish to bring some other colors in to play.
There are a lot of really great dishes that if placed in front of you without garnish would look pretty dismal.
Take for example, Chicken Curry... Often this can be any shade of brown, yellow or orange-red. So, after you plate, sprinkle on freshly chopped Coriander (Cilantro) and maybe some flaked Almonds... Voila... you'll be amazed how much better it looks.
For your dish, immediately before taking to the table, I'd sprinkle roughly chopped Basil, Parmigiano-Reggiano, a grind of fresh black pepper and a drizzle of good olive oil. Since your dish is spicy, you might also consider a few flakes of dried or fresh chili pepper (not too much).
I forgot, maybe also some sprinkles of freshly diced tomato.
Everything Tim Gilbert said, plus dairy. Obviously with an acidic mixture like you're describing, cream is not the best option, but for many other dishes you can lighten the color (and often improve the taste) with the addition of some cream/sour cream/yoghurt/milk. (Yoghurt tastes good, but don't add it to a hot (high temperature, not spicy) sauce, or it will denature and get disgusting).
One thing which I've been known to do with weird-looking pan sauces and reductions is add a bunch of mushrooms...Obviously it changes the whole character of the dish, but since they're dark colored anyway, the coloring passes without comment.
I totally forgot about dairy. Good point.
Paprika works as well..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.317217
| 2010-08-02T13:58:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4002",
"authors": [
"Bruno Reis",
"Jim",
"Justice",
"Mark",
"Tim Gilbert",
"ajlane",
"elbicho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7544",
"octonion",
"user14763",
"user7538"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75000
|
How do I adjust a bread recipe for long, cool proofing?
I've got that recipe that calls for 21g of fresh yeast for buns that shall only rest for one hour: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.chefhansen.de/2013/10/07/the-golden-october/&usg=ALkJrhjEB2ncHCn-QroNukS7DWPli2tLBA
If I want to proof the dough overnight or for 24 hrs, 48 hrs etc: how do I need to adjust the amount of yeast to use? Is there any rule of thumb to apply?
Edit:
The ingredients for the buns are:
250 g Hokkadio Pumpkin
50-75 ml of milk
21 g cube fresh yeast
150 g wheat flour type 550
360 g whole wheat flour sifted, remove the bran for later
1/2 tsp caraway seed
1/2 tsp fennel pounded
2 tsp salt
60 g butter
Seeing the recipe now, my only advice is: don't.
Long proofing is something which is done with white wheat bread to add some aroma. And it depends on the yeast having very good growing conditions.
What you have here is a quite complicated dough. It has a ton of pumpkin in it, and most of the flour is whole wheat. And then you are adding spices, which have yeast retardant properties of their own. This is a dough which will have trouble rising. Keeping it alive for 24 hours won't be too easy, getting a decent rise out of it will be worse, and getting good added taste instead of some off tastes with this mixture is in the stars.
And even if you managed to proof the dough well in a long process, you won't get the effect you are hoping for. In pure wheat, a long fermentation gives you subtle fermentation aromas, but nowhere as strong as sourdough, and a very specific texture which people tend to seek out. You can forget the texture in this overloaded dough, and the spices will cover the taste change pretty much.
Just use the recipe as intended, and if you want long-fermented bread, take a recipe which is meant for that, there are enough of those around.
Don't adjust the amount of yeast.
Yeast is not just a raising agent - it also provides a large amount of the flavour in yeasted doughs. Some doughs require a lot of yeast to rise, some just specify a larger amount because the yeast is desired to be a much more prominent flavour.
Why do you want to make your dough up to 48 hours ahead?
If you were wanting better flavour development, try looking at using a poolish or pate fermentee in your dough
If it's simply about saving time and planning ahead, use the full 21g of yeast, then after your dough has started to rise, transfer it to the fridge. This will ensure that the yeast is activated, but the fridge will stunt its development significantly, without killing it
Yes, my aim is better flavour development. Poolish or pate fermentee would be fine for me, however I still need instruction for how to introduce it in the recipe.
Can you provide the quantities of the other ingredients in the recipe?
I disagree here. The "flavor of yeast" depends not on the initial amount of yeast, but on the conditions under which the yeast grows. If the OP wants the flavor which is achieved by long raising, they absolutely have to change the amount of yeast used, else the dough will overproof and be ruined. Sure, some people like the thiolic taste of "lots of yeast risen quickly" but the question here asks for the opposite.
@rumtscho I disagree. Dough that is refrigerated carefully will not overprove. At the bakery I work at we do this frequently to avoid throwing away unused dough (or baked goods) - especially for smaller bakes that will stale quickly. You're right that the flavour profile of the yeast depends on the proving length, but the strength of the flavour depends a huge amount on the amount you put in (consider the brioche - not proved longer than most breads, but has a strong flavour due to the higher levels of yeast needed for the dough)
Bakeries tend to use less yeast than home bakers, so I can imagine that your dough can keep some time well in the fridge. Standard home dough, which is full of yeast (I've seen recipes with up to 10% fresh yeast! but even if we forget the exceptions, 4.5% are common, baker's percentages) will go aceton-stinky and flat after a first rise outside and then 24 hours in the fridge, I've seen that happen frequently enough. And the brioche is a very different case, people are not looking for developed yeasty tastes there but relying on the added ingredients to make it yummy.
@canardgras: updated question with ingredients
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.317464
| 2016-10-25T11:59:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75000",
"authors": [
"canardgras",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11263
|
What can I use to flavor savory chicken stuffing instead of onion?
I made the mistake of thinking I had more onions than I did (those orange bags filled with old onion skins look fuller than they are), and now I don't have any onions left for my savory dressing. Can I use onion soup mix (with those little dehydrated onion flakes), or would this goop up when I mix in melted margerine? What about onion powder for the flavor? I have some mushrooms. Could I combine this with onion powder?
My concerns are that the chicken will be lacking in onion flavor, that the drippings might be bland, or powder substituted in for moist onion might dry out the stuffing.
The recipe* calls for Breadcrumbs, summer savory, margarine/butter and diced onion. When it's put into the chicken carcass and cooked it absorbs the chicken's essence. It makes a nice stuffing, but the onion tends to be a key part of the flavor.
Also, I don't have shallots or any other reasonable onion alternative.
*by recipe, I mean "mix them together until it looks/feels right".
Update: I ended up using the onion soup mix and a bit of celery I had left over. It started out goopy when I first mixed it togther, but the end result was flavorful and moist.
My gut tells me that you'd be okay with powdered of some form ... but it might be worth adding other vegetables if you're concerned about the moisture. Celery's the only other common vegetable I can think of that'll release a similar amount of liquid, but too much could throw off the flavors.
Good point about the liquid/flavor balance, @Joe. I'll give it a try!
Interesting using summer savoury instead of sage, I hear that is a common substitution on the eastern side of Canada. Never tried it.
@Orbling, you're right about the region, I am in eastern Canada (Newfoundland, actually). Summer savory is much more common here than sage.
Dried chopped onion is preferable once reconstituted as compared to a powder, but you do have the same moisture difference.
@Peach: I grow winter savoury in the garden, for use with pulses, I think I have some summer savoury somewhere growing, but have not used it much in cooking. Apparently it complements sausages well, as one might expect if it is a good sage substitute. Sage is used plentifully in English cookery, so I guess we have not had the exposure.
I use dehydrated onion soup mixture as a substitute to many preparations calling for onions. I have never stuffed chicken with it, but I would do it without any doubt.
The trick is to get to the appropriate moisture and salt point. I use both water and some other sweet liquid (7up, sprite, coke...) to rehydrate and reduce the slight salty taste of the dehydrated onion.
For your case, besides the sweetening, the soft drink will as well add some carbonic which may also help in aerating a bit the stuffing.
Use onion powder in a pinch. It'll give off a mild onion flavor and you won't taste the slimy onions that I couldn't stand. Or extra garlic, celery or mushrooms.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.317931
| 2011-01-20T00:58:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11263",
"authors": [
"Andrew Latham",
"Camille",
"Gyuri",
"Joe",
"Lachlann",
"Orbling",
"Peach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"snowpicnic",
"thatdude38",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96237
|
How far ahead can I prepare this coleslaw recipe?
I'm making a coleslaw to accompany dinner tonight which consists of:
1 Apple, julienned
1 Carrot, grated
2 spring onions, sliced
1tbsp Mayonnaise
10ml cider vinegar
10g chipotle paste
1/2 red chilli, de-seeded and chopped
Juice of half a lemon
1/2tbsp tomato puree
1 garlic clove, minced
1/2tsp dried oregano
1/2tsp olive oil
All the ingredients (bar the apple, carrot and spring onion) are combined thoroughly before adding the remaining two ingredients.
As there's lemon juice in the mix, I'm not concerned about the apple browning, but I am concerned about the dressing splitting or spoiling the veg in some way.
I've not made this ahead before, is there anything in the recipe that would prevent it being prepared several hours ahead of consumption, or make the end product less desirable if that's done?
That looks to me to be a lot of 'wet' to 'dry', so without really having a definitive answer I'd have 2 considerations.
How far you want your fresh garlic to 'mellow' [I really don't know the correct term for leaving crushed garlic so the sharpness goes off a bit.]
How much water is going to be pulled from the apple.
1 could be affected by simply making up the dressing part early, then leaving it to mellow.
2 might be a bit trial & error, but that's the one I can't think of a way round other than 'leave it out til late.' Better crunchy than soggy with a runny dressing.
Carrot [& most other things in regular coleslaw - cabbage, onion etc] I'd give one to three hours in the dressing before serving, but even that may come down to personal preference. The standard coleslaw I'm right now going off to make will be eaten in about 3 hours ;)
The coleslaw ended up being made an hour in advance of consumption and was fine. It was also perfectly fine when what was left was served with lunch the next day with no noticeable deterioration in texture of the carrot or apple
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.318193
| 2019-02-09T17:15:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96237",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105938
|
Can self-raising flour be used in lieu of plain flour when making a roux for a bechamel?
I have plenty of self-raising flour (which will easily take me until its best before date to use) but am running very low on plain flour which I use predominantly for making a roux and then ultimately a bechamel. Given the current circumstances it seems appropriate to use up things I already have in the cupboard, rather than purchasing more if I don't need to.
Will the added raising agents in self-raising flour (the flour I have is from Sainsbury's and contains Calcium Phosphate and Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate, apparently) affect the production of a roux and then ultimately a bechamel sauce from the roux?
I'd say go for it. I recently accidentally made one with cornflour & it came out 'acceptable' if not perfect. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33227/flour-alternatives-for-roux?rq=1 for more alternatives.
I think it'll just end up a little more salty than a usual bechamel. You might get some puffing up when first added, but this should disappear over time I think
I used some gluten-free flour (mainly rice) and it needed a little more than if I'd used plain. The effect of the raising agents may be a little different to the effect of the source of strach though. (@Tetsujin)
@bob1 - I'm just going round the site correcting this - UK self-raising flour does not contain salt. US self-rising flour does.
@Tetsujin - the salt taste comes from the sodium in the bicarbonate component in the baking powder. This is irrespective of the source of the flour, though it seems you are correct - the US version does contain extra salt. I'm not from the US (though recently worked there) and wasn't aware of the difference between the US and UK versions.
Since you will only be using 1.5 tablespoon of flour for more than a cup of milk, it shouldn't impact the flavor. Also as there is no salt in the Sainsbury Self-raising flour, you will not need to adjust for salt. However, the alkalinity from the Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate as it heats and breaks down into Sodium Carbonate might impact the flavor. But, the acidity of the milk and butter should counter that, so it wouldn't be noticeable.
The bicarb should react out to form bubbles of CO2, which shouldn't cause a problem
This is the thermal decomposition reaction, 2 NaHCO3 → Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2 @ChrisH That is the absence of an acid, but the lactic acid will cause an acid base reaction and just lead to CO2 like you said.
I'm we;ll aware of the thermal decomposition reaction, having used it myself, but as you correctly state both milk and butter are (slightly) acidic, so we should have an excess of lactic acid, with which the bicarbonate (or carbonate if it thermally decomposes first) will react to form sodium lactate. It's not a matter of the acidity counteracting the flavour of the alkaline raising agent, but causing it to no longer exist
@ChrisH Perfectly said, speaking of flour its so hard to find any in the UK
In terms of thickening this should work, but keep in mind that you're adding salt* and baking powder which will affect the flavor of the roux. You should do a side-by-side test with AP and self-rising flour and taste both, then finish your béchamel sauce and try both and post your results here.
*Note: salt is included in self-raising flour in the US and Canada but not in the UK.
Thanks for taking time to answer, but.... "try it yourself and tell us what the result is" doesn't exactly answer my question; particularly as I'm at pains to point out in the question that this is because I'm low on plain flour and have plenty of self-raising. For info; I haven't seen plain flour in my local supermarket(s) for the best part of two weeks (hurrah for people panic buying!) and I'm loathe to buy what others may need when I may have alternate options. Now is not the time for me to waste by trying =)
I believe I did answer the question. It's just flour with baking soda and salt, so you'll need to adjust your recipe to account for this (e.g. reduce the amount of salt in the béchamel). If you make the sauce with your self-rising flour it would be useful to others if you post your results which is why I asked that you do so.
Where are you that there's salt added to your SR flour? Here it's (fortified like most if not all) flour plus raising agents. Why would anyone want salt added as bought?
@ChrisH — all the SR flour I find on line has salt (e.g. https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/what-is-self-rising-flour/), and all the recipes I find to make it also have salt (e.g. https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-self-rising-flour-232729). Where do you live that they deprive you of salt? I don't use SR flour myself.
I'm in the UK (like the OP) and here we're free to choose whether or not to add salt to our cakes (as that's a major use of it)
Interesting. In principal I'm against base ingredients like butter and SR flour containing salt. Like you, I'd rather add it myself and know how much is in it. I guess we have to let the UK win once in a while. ;o)
P.S. Spruce Eats says: "Self-raising flour is a common ingredient in recipes from the UK.... It is made with a bit more baking powder and no salt, which differentiates it from the self-rising flour typically found in the United States and Canadian markets."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.318377
| 2020-03-22T09:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105938",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93823
|
Does double-frying French Fries in an air fryer make it crispier?
I didn't find this question asked on this site, and didn't find it being answered anywhere on the Internet.
I've tried the recipes that are given online. They're all more or less the same where they ask you to single fry the potatoes (and they all stress on shaking it in between).
There's got to be a better way. I'm sure that there exists another way to make the fries crispier. My question is focused on double-frying rather than "how to make fries".
I have gone through the other questions on this site and come to know that the normal process of making crispy french fries is to fry them twice (and freezing them in-between).
However, what about the case when we're making them using an Air Fryer? Should we follow the same procedure of frying them once, freezing them, and then frying them again after a few hours?
If not, then how can I make crispy french fries using an Air Fryer?
Welcome to the site @Mugen. Have you tried anything yet? If so please edit and put in the method and the result.
A quick google for videos on air fryer got me quite a few results on how to make fries.
@GdD Yes. I've tried the recipes that are given online. They're all more or less the same where they ask you to single fry the potatoes (and they all stress on shaking it in between). There's got to be a better way. I'm sure that there exists another way to make the fries crispier. My question was supposed to be focused double-frying than "how to make fries". Please feel free to edit my question if you think you can improve it to bring the attention to double-frying. Looks like people are missing the point as of now.
I tried out the following procedures with Air Fried french fries and concluded that the best way to make them is to cut, wash and air-fry.
Note: Any kind of "frying" here refers to air-frying. Also, the potatoes were picked from the same batch, they were cut in exactly the same way with the same width, using a cutting tool.
Blanching in water, freezing in the refrigerator overnight, frying the next day:
Resulted in slightly sweet french fries. I don't prefer them sweet.
Blanching in water + salt + vinegar, freezing in the refrigerator overnight, frying the next day:
Resulted in slightly sweet french fries. I didn't notice any difference in texture or crispyness as compared to #1.
Blanching in water + salt + vinegar, deep-freezing overnight, frying the next day: Resulted in much sweeter french fries
Resulted in exactly the same kind of french fries as in #1
Cutting the potatoes, frying them immediately after that:
Made the fries stick to each other. Also, the edges of the fries were burnt.
(Best) Cutting the potatoes, washing them with water to remove the surface starch from the potatoes, frying them immediately after that:
This made the best result, IMO. It was almost the same as #1, except that it wasn't sweet. The fries were not sticking to each other and crispy.
Cutting the potatoes, frying them in one batch. Waiting for 15 minutes so that they cool down, and the moisture escapes. Then frying them again:
The fries felt half-normal, half-hard like crusty cheese. I had to throw the ends of the resulting french fries because they were difficult to chew.
My two cents:
French fries cooking methods from oil-frying don't exactly port over to air-frying.
Air-frying is much quicker and faster. However, it doesn't reach the crispiness of oil-frying. That said, considering the health-benefits, I would go for air-frying any day.
The best way to fry is also the quickest way. Cut, wash, drain, and fry. I've also noticed that adding the spices after they are fried results in better french fries.
The strategy for making crispy fries in an airfryer is really similar to deep frying:
You need starchy potatoes for making great fries.
Dehydrating the fries, before browning is a must, this you can achieve by frying multiple times. You need to first fry them at 110C for 15 minutes for the starches to set. Then when it’s cold to the touch, 140C for 15 min and then 180C for 7 min to finish. Remember to coat in small amounts of oil in between everystep.
If you want a better result, instead of frying at 110C, you can parboil them in a salt+vinegar+water solution. This would help getting rid of the surface straches, and fortify the outer layer of the fries, so you get get a better crisp and the iconic yellow/golden-brown color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.318784
| 2018-11-12T06:12:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93823",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"GdD",
"Mugen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95808
|
Does anyone know what this dark red colored discharge is from this grilled chicken?
I'm grilling marinated chicken (I'm following a Tandoori chicken recipe which involved marinating the chicken in lemon, curd, Ginger, garlic and some other spices for 3 hours in the refrigerator).
While grilling them I see a dark red color discharge coming out. I'm not sure what that is and whether it is a normal thing. Here's a photo of what that looks like:
And here's another image before I turned it over and zoomed in.
Since, I'm a complete beginner in cooking chicken I'm not sure whether this is a normal thing or not. Can someone please help me out with this?
@pb2q is right, it's blood. This happens during processing. When the meat isn't allowed to bleed (i.e.; drain blood) long enough, then some of the blood remains in the muscle structure and cooks along with the chicken. It might look odd, but it's not a concern as far as eating it is concerned. It won't "hurt you".
If it bothers you (as it might for some people), just remind yourself not to buy that brand of chicken again. If one bird from this company was rushed during processing, there's a reasonable chance that they always "rush the process". Easiest solution might be to just switch brands... but please, don't thrown out the Tandori Chicken. I bet it's... delish!
Thank you for identifying this! I'll switch brands immediately. And yes, the chicken was delicious. The blood solidified into a really dark maroon, crispy part after sometime. I broke it off from the chicken and threw it at the time of eating. I thought that this was related to "juices run clear", malcogen or a similar name of the enzyme. So you don't think it was the protein enzyme being released?
"Juices run clear" is an old-school way to judge how cooked (chicken) is. If you pierce it with a fork, you want the "juice to run clear". If there is any pink tinge, cook it longer.
It's the chicken losing some blood during the cooking process.
No need to worry, I hope the recipe was a success!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.319109
| 2019-01-20T06:53:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95808",
"authors": [
"Mugen",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102713
|
Why is my cake rising sideways while baking?
Here is what my cake looks like:
I'm using the following ingredients to make the cake:
1 egg
wheat flour
milk
some kind of flavour essence like vanilla essence
pinch of baking powder
pinch of baking soda (though I've tried without it)
powdered sugar or jaggery
I've noticed that the cake tastes good but it tends to rise sideways.
I'm not sure what's causing that but from the look of it it seems that the uppermost layer formed a crust that wouldn't move and the insides had to forcefully burst out because the crust was so tight. Not positive here though. I'm following everything that's written in common recipes.
Edit: Since everyone is commenting on the oven, I used an Air Fryer actually at 160 degree Celsius (which is supposed to be the recommended temperature for baking the cake).
Edit2: Observations on the way the cake has burst through sideways.
The way it has risen - it's as if the top part solidified and formed a thick crust. The structure in the middle tried it's best to rise up but the top crust didn't allow the rising up nor did it allow bursting. The middle part had no choice but to keep pushing until one edge of it gave way. I find it strange that the top crust didn't burst anywhere. Rather the side burst and the middle part leaked out from there. The top is so strong that in spite of the sideburst it still retains its shape. Makes me feel like the top is "suffocating" the middle.
In fact, when I take out a slice I see that the top layer is so strong that it gets easily separated like it were a cloth piece. The middle part is squishy kinds.
The structure of the cake makes me feel like something is wrong with the ingredients due to which the top formed such a strong crust. Could it be something to do with fat in the milk? This reminds me of the time when milk is boiled and the round layer of fat is formed at the top. As the milk boils it doesn't allow the bubbles to escape and starts "suffocating" the liquid underneath instead of bursting.
Perhaps we need to use skimmed milk for the cake? Also, I didn't use any water at all. Only milk. Could it be that I need to use 50% water + 50% milk so that the top crust isn't so strong and it becomes more "burstable". That way the middle structure can jump out from whichever direction it wants? Perhaps that would make the bursts happen in different areas and create a more "normal" cake. Or am I wrong here?
Are you greasing the sides of the pan?
Was the rise sideways in the oven? Or towards the fan (if it's a fan oven)? Some of my cakes rise towards the heat.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13167/67 . (although that one's more about doming, I suspect that it's possible it might come from similar causes ... I'd also make sure you well greased & floured the pan).
@Spagirl Yes I am greasing it with oil and then sprinkling a thin layer of flour on top of it
I baked it in an Air Fryer because I don't have an oven. So the fan was directly on top of the cake. The rise was towards a side then.
Note that this recipe is not a typical cake recipe, much closer to a pancake or a waffle. So it is unlikely to behave the way sponge cakes do, creating a nice even sheet.
@rumtscho If possible could you please point out what is the difference between this and a normal cake? Do you mean the eggs + butter? So eggs + butter is what make a cake spongy is it?
@Mugen there is no one thing that makes a cake spongy, it is the whole recipe, with ingredients and ratios. Your recipe has ratios quite far removed from a sponge cake. If what you want is a sponge cake, use a sponge cake recipe. If you are happy with this one, you can continue using it, just don't expect your crust to be like a sponge cake's.
A cake baking uneven to that degree makes me thing the heat source is really uneven. One side of the oven is hot, the other is much cooler. I've seen a fan oven cause some uneven baking before but never to that degree.
Make sure your oven is pre-heated for at least 10 to 15 minutes before baking
If you have fan oven and you have no non-fan mode try putting a piece of aluminum foil between the fan and the cake to deflect the hot air around it so the heat is even
If you are not using an oven make sure that the heat is even around the cake
EDIT: It's come to light that an air fryer was used to bake the cake. Air fryers come in several types, but they all work on the principle of blowing very hot air over food inside. This hot air comes from a vent, so the reason the cake is so uneven is that the side right by the vent is getting a blast of hot air while the other is relatively cool. I would suggest putting a piece of aluminum foil between the pan and the vent to deflect the blast of hot air and force it to circulate. Be sure not to block the vent though, you don't want to overheat the machine!
Turning the cake is one option, although it could cause the cake to lose lift and collapse. I would try foil first and then try turning if you still get a very uneven result.
I used an Air Fryer actually at 160 degree Celsius (which is supposed to be the recommended temperature for baking the cake). Also, now that you mention it I think I've seen the cake rising up towards the right side each time in the Air Fryer. Perhaps I could open the box in intervals of 25% time and turn it around? How does that sound?
@Murgen, see my edits.
This answers my question quite well. However, I feel that there is one part of this cake still unanswered. The way it has risen - it's as if the top part solidified and formed a thick crust. The structure in the middle tried it's best to rise up but the top crust didn't allow the rising up nor did it allow bursting. The middle part had no choice but to keep pushing until one edge of it gave way. I find it strange that the top crust didn't burst anywhere. Rather the side burst and the middle part leaked out from there. The top is so strong that in spite of this it retains its shape...(1)
..(1) . In fact, when I take out a slice I see that the top layer gets easily separated like it were a cloth piece. The middle part is squishy kinds. The structure of the cake makes me feel like something is wrong with the ingredients for which the top formed such a strong crust. Could it be something to do with fat in the milk? This reminds me of the time when fat is formed when milk is boiled. Perhaps we need to use skimmed milk for the cake? Also, I didn't use any water at all. Only milk. Could it be that I need to use 50% water + 50% milk so that the top crust isn't so strong and....(2)
...(2) it becomes "burstable" so that the middle structure can jump out from whichever direction it wants? Perhaps that would make the bursts happen in different areas and create a more "normal" cake. What do you think? I'm going to try out the answer that you suggested but I'll have to try turning the plate because I don't have an aluminum foil. But it'll take me a week to try that out because I'm done with the cake baking for this week.
@Murgen, it's impossible to answer that question without details on the quantities and method of your recipe.
@Mugen, if you can adjust the oven temperature then try also turning it down. What's happening is that the top is being cooked by fast direct heat, but the inside is being cooked by slow conduction. By reducing the temperature you will get a more even bake. Alternatively, forget baking altogether and try steaming.
@PeterTaylor That sounds like an answer, you should write it up as one.
A piece of foil deflecting the air will also keep the top from forming a crust so quickly.
@PeterTaylor That's a pretty good solution! You definitely should write it up as an answer. :)
I tried this out yesterday and it worked out fine! Thank you @GdD for providing this solution! I covered my cake with an alumium foil and added a few holes into it. The baking time rose from 15 minutes to 30 minutes + 8 minutes of additional baking without the foil (which I later regretted). I should have used aluminium foil throughout the process or max 2-3 mins without it. Nevertheless, there was no more doming on my cake. So it worked great! :)
That's excellent @Mugen, I'm glad you got a useful answer on this site!
I agree with GdD's answer but will add that your oven might not be level. If you have an oven that is not level you wont notice when roasting food but is a nightmare for baking.
The asymmetry of the rise can only be explained by the asymmetry of the heat source, as explained in GdD's answer. However, you commented that you didn't think that answer explained why the crust on the top was so strong, and wondered whether the recipe was wrong or the ingredients were bad.
I think that the heat source of your particular "oven" explains this too. It's always the case with baking that the outside is heated differently to the inside: it's heated primarily by conduction from either the pan or the air, and maybe to some extent by direct radiated heat from the element. The inside is heated by conduction through the cake mix. As I understand your air fryer, hot air is being blown directly across the top of the cake, so the top is being cooked much faster than the rest, and I'm pretty sure that's why it forms such a strong crust.
If you can turn the temperature down, the top should cook slower. GdD's suggestion of trying to redirect the air would also help to even things out so that it cooks from the sides and bottom about as fast as from the top.
If you can't find a solution which works with the air fryer, an even more extreme option would be to forget baking altogether and steam it instead. It doesn't work for all cakes, but yours looks like a sponge and steaming sponges is nothing new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.319315
| 2019-10-04T04:17:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102713",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mugen",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21902
|
What happens when you mix whiskey and water?
It is sometimes said that to best experience the flavor and aroma of a good whiskey (or whisky), one ought to add a bit of water. This practice is said to release flavors somehow.
Is there any truth to this?
Assuming that there is, what is going on?
@uncle brad: i'm not so sure - i've read to literally add a few drops of water.
Whisk(e)y has some crazy chemistry going on inside of it, due to the complex interactions between water, alcohols, oils, esters and other compounds of various complexity. The profile of these chemicals will vary between different whiskey/whisky styles, but the overall chemistry is similar.
Simple effects of dilution
Adding water, or serving on the rocks, has a number of simple effects, such as diluting the ethanol a bit (ethanol anesthetizes your taste buds a bit), and cooling it (making your taste buds slightly less sensitive to certain flavors), but the fascinating part is what happens to the oily flavor compounds during dilution.
Dilution masks some flavor compounds
Oily hydrocarbons are somewhat soluble in high-proof whiskey. There are long-chain esters and short-chain esters of many varieties. As you add water, the whiskey becomes more polar, and the long-chain esters become supersaturated and start to precipitate in the form of micelles, microscopic "droplets" of esters that have clumped together. In some liquors like absinthe or ouzo, these droplets can get so large that they become visible, and visibly cloud the drink (an intended feature of absinthe preparation). In whiskey, these droplets are usually microscopic and don't visibly cloud the drink, because most of the oils have been removed during chill-filtration.
However, these droplets do something important, in that short-chain esters, being more soluble in the droplet than they are in the diluted whiskey, enter the droplet and become trapped inside. These compounds are now less available for tasting or smelling. Fortunately, these compounds are the oily, grassy compounds that many people do not like in their whiskey, and masking them is considered an improvement.
Dilution releases other flavor compounds
There is another type of micelle "droplet" that forms in whiskey. Ethanol, in high concentrations in water, forms it's own clusters, as ethanol molecules gather up with one another. Interestingly, warmer solutions cause more clustering of ethanol molecules, as do higher concentrations. Like before, these micelles trap compounds that are more soluble in ethanol than they are in water, volatile flavor compounds. However, unlike the oil droplets, these flavor compounds are desirable. Cooling the solution and diluting the solution both serve to "pop" these ethanol micelles, allowing them to release their trapped compounds for aroma and flavor.
So cooling and adding water can have the effect of both masking certain flavors by forcing them out of solution, and enhancing others by promoting their release back into solution. In the end, the result of the changed flavors is a matter of taste, which is why some people prefer neat, with water, or on the rocks, but one cannot deny that real chemical changes are in play.
References
Scientific Paper: Release of distillate flavour compounds in Scotch malt whisky
Blog posts: New perspectives on whisky and water
Article: Tasting Whisky
Wikipedia: Scotch Whisky
Excellent, first-rate! I really appreciate the detail regarding the mechanisms taking place in the admixing of water with whisk(e)y.
Only one note: this answer makes it sound like all whiskeys are chill-filtered, and most are, but not all.
This answer is specific to scotch whisky.
In the process of making scotch whisky, distillers traditionally burn bales of dried peat moss to stop the the barley. The peat smoke produces "phenolic" compounds which give the scotch its smokey flavor. That's why smoky scotches are also called "peaty" (or have "high phenols" or "high PPM").
Phenols are highly water-soluble, moreso than some of the other chemical compounds in scotch. By adding a very small amount of water to your scotch, you can increase the volatility of some compounds while reducing the volatility of the phenols. In the process you are actually changing the chemistry (and flavor!) of the drink without diluting it. The peaty flavor will lighten up, but other flavors will become more intense.
Naturally, adding too much water just dilutes the entire profile - but a little bit of water can make a huge difference to the flavor without diminishing it at all. For a typical lowball, I would recommend using a bottled water bottlecap and pouring 1 caps-worth into your drink. Alternatively you can toss in an ice-cube and notice the flavor change as it melts, but this has (potentially negatively) cool the drink.
The effects are not the same in every scotch. I highly recommend trying as many scotches as you can get your hands on, though perhaps not all in the same night...
This article has a good read about touring a scotch plant from a chemistry student's (?) perspective.
This is great--exactly what I was looking for. I especially like the discussion of solubility of esters and phenols toward the end of the article.
Yes, it is true. By 'a bit of water' one means 'a few drops'. Too much water is not good.
The adding of the water starts a process that enhances the odor and makes the flavor a bit milder. It also makes the subtler flavors more noticeable, by diluting the stronger ones. If you add too much water (or ice), assuming the temperature of the water is below that of the whiskey, the coldness will inhibit the flavor.
This is a nice link (it's about whisky, but I think the same reasoning applies).
@unclebrad with what? Looking into the process? Feel free to help, but don't feel obliged :)
Whiskey is whisky, they're just different regional spellings of the same thing.
The difference in spelling also depicts the country of origin. But I'm sure it doesn't matter for this question.
My understanding is that whisky is considered the proper term when referring to Scotch, whereas whiskey is preferred for liquors originating from North America. But you are right, my question was intended to refer to either
@Ray: That's reasonable correct, although the "Whisky" spelling is also used for Canadian, and "Whiskey" is also used for Irish, so... it's not cut-and-dried.
What the stuff is called depends on the local food and drink regulations, and on local TM regulations. In the EU, whisky can only be used for Scottish and Spanish products (yes, the Spanish have the authentic sherry barrels, so Gonzalez Byass can make whisky legally). O
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.320118
| 2012-03-01T23:53:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21902",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Mien",
"Ray",
"SevenSidedDie",
"bye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8849",
"klypos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12253
|
Fluffy matzo balls
It's that time of year. The seasons are changing and I've got myself a cold, for which there is no better culinary cure than matzo ball soup.
I can make a pretty mean chicken stock, but my matzo balls leave something to be desired. The Manischewitz directions yield something to eat with a knife and fork. I've tried seltzer water, but it hardly seems to help, and I miss out on the goodness from the stock. How do I get my matzo balls to be light and fluffy?
Follow-up: While boiling yesterday, I realized what my problem was. I tasted one part-way through cooking and it was still hard as a rock. I let it simmer into oblivion. I ended up boiling them for about 40 minutes and at that point they were finally light and fluffy.
I have seen some recipes that incorporate a small quantity of mashed potato into the matzoh ball for added fluffiness.
Everyone gave thoughtful and helpful answers, but when I went to get to cooking this weekend, I discovered that the problem I've been experiencing was actually another issue altogether. My problem was undercooking, plain and simple. I did incorporate Dani and ChernoffDad's techniques, and I can't say that they didn't help. However, the samples I tasted partway through cooking were not unlike my typical results. It was after extended cooking that these guys really softened up to my liking.
The key to fluffy matzo balls is very simple. The density is directly related to the egg/matzo meal ratio. Too much matzo meal makes a golf ball. So, what you should do is add matzo meal according to whatever recipe you use less 1 or 2 tablespoons; mix and then add matzo meal a little at a time until you just "feel" the mixture change to a slightly stiffer mix. Ultimately, the mixture needs to be just thick enough to form a ball after refrigeration.
Then refrigerate for 30 minutes and make the balls and boil away.
The biggest problem with making matzo balls is that different matzo meals behave differently. Therefore a recipe with an exact amount may not work; therefore the need to adjust by "feel."
nice answer, but to be complete I would add that cold balls need to be added to boiling water. Balls won't fluff if they are brought to a boil.
Very true and even tastier if boiled in chicken stock instead of water!
Don't have enough points to up-vote ChernoffDad's answer, so posting it instead: he's absolutely right, as I just A-B tested it. My first batch was a drier mix and I got golf balls. Second batch ws borderline wet, but the time in the fridge allowed the mix to firm up enough to form balls, and they came out great: soft, fluffy, balls that puffed up >3x in size.
i'm no expert, but it sounds like you may be handling the balls too much (heh heh). try to compress them as little as possible. i usually refrigerate the batter before forming to help it stick together a little better without my hands touching them too much.
I actually like the dense ones better (I know, heresy to some), but I've seen a number of suggestions for how to make fluffy ones.
In addition to using seltzer, some people recommend:
Adding baking powder
Refrigerating longer
Separating the eggs and beating the whites
Adding extra oil
As Dani suggested, handle them as little as possible
Try any of these you need, and send the dense ones to me! (Why is it that you always end up making the ones you don't like? Mine always turn out too fluffy for my tastes.)
Appreciate the list of suggestions and links.
Follow the recipe, roll the refrigerated matzoh mixture with oiled hands and make SURE to boil for 45 minutes covered. Better if boiled in chicken stock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.320992
| 2011-02-16T19:31:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12253",
"authors": [
"Bob Tway",
"David LeBauer",
"Inanc Gumus",
"Lil Bil",
"Mark Pattison",
"Monstermushroom",
"Popup",
"Ray",
"Steve Chernoff",
"beth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9744",
"user25246"
],
"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
}
|
11724
|
What brine ingredients are effective?
I frequently brine chicken and pork, and mostly it's just salt and water, sometime sugar, and occasionally garlic.
But I've seen all sorts of other "goodies" people add in, like spices, herbs, sometimes oils, alcohol, acids, fruits, vegetables, etc.
The question is, what actually makes it into the meat? Salt and sugar seem to make sense, and acid or alcohol may affect texture, but I have difficulty imagining that the other brine ingredients are adding any more flavoring than on the outer surface of the meat.
The great benefit of brining is that it opens the fibers of the meat and allows the water, and what is dissolved in the water, into the meat. I suggest you convince yourself of this by adding a fragrant herb such as rosemary to a chicken breast brine, and comparing it side-by-side with an unbrined breast. The difference, deep into the meat, will be noticeable. It is not large chunks of the herbs that find their way into the meat, but the oils and dissolved parts. That is why you heat and steep the water before cooling it for brining.
The distinction between chunks of herbs and dissolved volatiles makes sense. I will definitely do the sort of experimentation you suggest
I would suggest some Espelette pepper. In basque cuisine they use it to marinate pork fillets after having it marinated in salt.
I don't know whether you could find some of it in your country however as this is quite rare.
Benoit, I've not seen Espelette peppers specifically, but we do have many varieties of chili peppers in the US. Do you find that the pepper flavor penetrates to the interior of the pork?
In brines, I like to use any combination of the following: beer, peppercorns, juniper berries, bay leaves, garlic powder, onion powder, and rosemary.
I've been doing turkey breasts with the above ingredients added to the brines, and they have been fantastic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.321325
| 2011-02-01T16:41:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11724",
"authors": [
"CatintheHat",
"Deena",
"Marcy Timmreck",
"Ray",
"adipro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"tuxnani"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25874
|
What counters astringency?
I've been attempting to make green smoothies lately as part of a health kick. The way I've been doing it is to use a normal smoothie recipe, but to add handfuls of spinach.
In general, the results haven't been bad, and certainly better than I expected, but I do find the spinach to add a bit of undesired astringency the smoothie.
Now I know that certain tastes can counteract the perceived effect of other tastes. For example, sweetness can counter sourness, or salt can counter bitterness.
I tried experimenting a bit with adding (separately) honey, lemon, and salt, but none of these seemed to make a difference in the astringent feeling the smoothie left in the mouth. What taste, if any, can counter astringency?
a handful of frozen mixed berries covers up the strong aftertaste of raw greens. my mom has gotten me to drink frightening concoctions this way... even hid the -blech- raw garlic. If that fails: chillies! guaranteed your mouth or eyes or nose won't be dry then, lol
Many leafy and dark green vegetables have high tannic and dicarboxylic (including oxalic) acid levels. Though these are weak acids, they have a powerful astringent effect. Some of the main tricks to hiding and/or removing these are soaking in:
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C, lemon juice)
Fats
Food grade lime
Milk
So if your smoothy is milk based you will be extracting the maximum tannin from the spinach :-)
A pre-soak in a small quantity of milk and then discarding that milk, or a pre-soak in lemon juice and then a quick fresh water rinse are probably the simplest "fixes" of the spinach's astringent effect
In the case of black tea, astringency is much reduced by adding a small amount of milk to the brew.
Unfortunately this is not a simple case of taste perception; astringent compounds in the tea bind chemically with proteins in the milk. I don't honestly know if a similar chemical process will occur in the case of spinach since the astringent compounds in tea and spinach are not identical.
I generally add milk to smoothies anyhow. Worth a try?
This is only a guess, but cucumber might help (of course you'd need to peel it), or melon - they both work well in spinach salads.
I thought about alternatives to spinach - how about trying rocket or coriander?
Green apples.. Really look for smoothies that actually use leafy green veggies in them to avoid them tasting bleh. Or use green apples instead of milk.
Green apples are themselves a rather adstringent ingredient?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.321542
| 2012-08-27T11:28:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25874",
"authors": [
"Arty Roger",
"Cindy",
"David Carter",
"Donna Forehand",
"Gargee",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73503",
"rackandboneman",
"swirlybuns",
"user73503"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11738
|
Tricks for removing sausage casing?
I often find myself making a sauce or a garnish for pasta using sausage meat that I am really just using more as a cured/seasoned ground meat - I remove the casing, then break up the sausage in a skillet until it returns to the formless chuck from whence it came.
Lately however, I've had huge amounts of trouble with the de-casing - it shreds, sticks to the meat, and just is a pain in general to remove.
I realize that this technique is easier with uncooked sausage than with pre-cooked, but does anybody have any overall tricks or tips for an easy way to de-case the sausages without broiling or cooking them first?
I wonder if blanching might work, like you'd do for a tomato.
I'd worry about the sausage getting cooked if I went with that, any experience?
Quite often companies use artificial casings for their sausage rather than lamb or pork casings. If the casings are real I don't think that you would having this problem.
I usually just slice down the whole length with the tip of a sharp knife, and peel the casing back in one piece.
that's how I do it, too ... before cooking the sausages.
@Joe Why would you cook the sausage?
Take the sausage when it is still frozen, run a few seconds under hot water, take the end and start sliding casing down. Perfect sausage and ready to go. If the sausage is thawed out it will break. Works and sausage is so much easier to eat.
You can also make sausage patties after casing is removed and thawed out. Fran
Running it under hot water for a few seconds an then start at one end with a small cut and pull the rest off. works for me every time
This is nearly identical to an answer given a year earlier.
Kitchen Scissors work best for me. I do the same thing when making my version of Chili. Instead of using ground beef , I go and get the spicy Italian Sausage and take it out of the casing.
Or as the other guy said, a paring knife should do the trick.
I freeze the sausage then peel it with a vegetable peeler. Some of the sausage is wasted but not as much as when you peel it after it is cooked. lots of the meat is wasted if you peel it after cooking - a lot of meat sticks to the casing and is very difficult to seperate.
I have been buying some kielbasa that is notoriously hard to peel. What works best is freezing the links for about 15 - 20 minutes, then peeling the casing off cold.
I saw a video where a guy wrapped the sausage in a wet paper towel for several minutes, then sliced the casing open lengthwise, then peeled it off. Looked like a snap1
I wondered if it would be easier with the sausage frozen so I bought frozen sausages and it was an absolute doddle! Just peeled the skin off like a banana, brilliant!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.321816
| 2011-02-02T00:39:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11738",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Betterthan Kwora",
"Bruce",
"Dave",
"Frances H.",
"Gigabyte Sahel",
"Joe",
"Matt Enright",
"Sobachatina",
"brendan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90172",
"louise mason",
"user1271772",
"user24165",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14185
|
What material is best for a pour over coffee brewer?
Pour over coffee will be my next venture in the coffee world, and I'm trying to decide between ceramic and plastic. The ceramic devices are much more expensive, and I'm hoping to understand if there is a justification for the extra expense.
Ceramic will - if preheated - prevent some cooling of your water, but plastic filter-holders don't have much heat capacity so you don't lose much with them, either. Plastic filter-holders and paper filters have the advantage of not costing much so you can have one at home, one at work, one anywhere else you want...
As with most coffee preparation, a good grinder is paramount and getting freshly roasted coffee is also extremely important.
You may want to consider glass. I am a big fan of the Chemex coffeemakers. The integrated design is also a plus in my book.
Not sure about its heat retention capability but I find that pouring water that is just short of boiling produces the best aroma.
Chemex is actually my next venture after the basic pour over. Specifically, a chemex with the metal kone filter that that Coava Coffee created. I had one of those last week at a little coffee shop in Salem, OR and...wow! But it's a good deal more expensive than even a nice ceramic pour over.
There is a good reason why ceramic is more expensive. It is the best choice, because it helps maintain the temperature better than plastic. I pour boiling water through my Hario (with filter) to heat it (and the coffee cup) first. Then I put in the freshly ground coffee, and wait 30 seconds for my water to get to the desired range of 195-205 degrees.
And you feel the extra heat retention gives you a better cup of coffee?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.322142
| 2011-04-20T20:35:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14185",
"authors": [
"Averil",
"Carmine De Luca",
"J Quinn",
"William",
"dmn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4782",
"mthorp",
"xiaobao12"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16922
|
Replacing butter with olive oil
This is more of a food preparation/health question since it's after the food has been cooked. Recently I've been substituting butter with olive oil. For example, baked potatoes, instead of butter and sour cream, I use olive oil. I've also added olive oil to noodles and in place of gravy in a few meals and also in place of teriyaki sauce in rice bowls.
In most cases the flavor is enhanced. With the potatoes, you taste a bit much of the olive oil but it's still good.
Is it ok to continue doing this? I'm assuming that it's going to be better than butter and other "dressings" such as gravy.
If this is a safe practice, I would like to get my family more into it, but I doubt they will enjoy the natural flavor of olive oil. I've been adding different flavors of Ms Dash seasonings (no salt) which give it nice hints of this and that depending on the type. What else can I do to enhance the flavor so they will enjoy it?
The question which version is healthier is off topic here as per [faq]. The rest of the question is quite ambiguous. Why wouldn't it be OK? Safe against what? Spoilage? Ruined meal due to texture problems? Or did you mean safe in the sense of "healthy"? And "enhance the flavor" is one of the broadest possible things you can ask a cook, especially when there is no dish mentioned, with all answers equally valid (bounded only by the taste of your family, about whom we only know that they dislike the natural flavors preferred by foodies). I will reverse my close vote if you can make it specific.
I seem to recall someone telling me that there was something that cooked significantly different in butter vs. oil ... I think it was onions. I don't know if the water helped to mellow the cooking by lowering the temp, if so, clarified butter and oils should cook similarly.
I can understand subing olive oil for butter on health grounds. I do the same substitution for some bread mixes. However don't understand your other substitutions. Surely gravy is mostly water and teriyaki sauce is primarily soy sauce and a little sugar. I worry that in these two cases your actually increasing the amount of fat you consume rather than improving your diet.
@Rincewind42 For the gravy and soy sauce, I substitute for improved flavor (IMO) but mainly for sodium. Different reasons for the substitutions.
It's certainly safe. Butter, Oil, whatever, it's more about taste than anything else. Some people even push lard and butter as the "safe" options, because they require less processing than oil, and much less than margarine.
One thing which you should be aware of in regards to butter vs oil: butter has a significant amount of water in it, so you shouldn't substitute 1-to-1, or you will have a stronger flavour (and more fat) than perhaps you want.
If you're accustomed to salted butter, adding some salt will help ease the transition. If the flavour of olive oil is off-putting, there are plenty of more neutral flavoured oils that have a similar fat composition, or you can simply avoid extra virgin olive oil*.
*extra virgin olive oil in the U.S is largely a scam. In most of the world (countries that adhere to the IOC standard) this signifies "First Cold Press" olive oil. In the US it signifies "lamp grade olive oil with green food coloring". There are no restrictions on the use of terms like "extra virgin" in the US, so you can't guarantee that's what you're really getting just because it's on the label.
I too am unclear what 'safe' is supposed to mean here so I'll just address one of your questions. Replacing butter with olive oil in gravy will affect the consistency of the sauce as the milk solids in butter act as emulsifiers (as well, it will thicken as it cools on the plate). Also, given how different types of olive oil can have vastly different flavours even though they're made from the same thing means you have to take this into consideration: a sharp peppery oil may have an edge of bitterness that could ruin the sauce you are making. Using olive oil as the primary cooking oil when you begin sauteeing things at the start of a recipe generally won't make much of a difference but when it comes to finishing sauces etc then I would think carefully before making substitutions. The primary consideration I make when choosing to add or change something in a dish is whether it will make it taste better or not.
Not in cooking, just preparation of the plate afterwards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.322320
| 2011-08-16T16:08:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16922",
"authors": [
"Dan Hennion",
"DustinDavis",
"Joe",
"Martha",
"Rincewind42",
"Samantha smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lathspell",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15162
|
How do I remove turmeric stains from metal/plastic cookware?
As much as I value tumeric for its rumoured cancer-battling qualities, I find its tendency to stain anything it comes into contact with (including 'stainless' steel) discouraging to the point that I use it much less than I would like.
In a previous question regarding a tumeric-stained marble mortar and pestle, it was recommended that bleach be used to remove the stain. Is this recommendation applicable across the board? Pots? Pans? Plastic colanders?
I hope there is some other way to remove these stains because I am starting to accrue tumeric stained clothing that I can't bleach, as recommended.
Cancer-battling qualities? I use it for its yellow-coloring qualities. (And flavor of course).
For a mortar and pestle, I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you're not mashing up medicines in it (thanks a lot mom) the residue isn't a big deal. Mine is a complex arrangement of every dry herb, seed, bean, and nut known to man. It forms a nice patina, though if your mother uses it later to grind up horse meds, you should throw it away (no matter how expensive it had been. goddamnitsomuch).
@Sobachatina if tumeric wasn't being hyped as an anti-oxidant I would never use it, because of its yellow-colouring qualities.
Aside - one almost certainly won't be able to remove stains after microwaving plastic in contact with an oily dish which contained a highly powered colorant such as turmeric or paprika.
For hard, chemical-resistant surfaces such as marble, bleach or peroxide cleaners will help. On things like counters, pots and pans, a Magic Eraser will often take off the stain. Sometimes a harsher abrasive like Comet or Barkeep's Friend will be needed.
Softer or porous materials, including cloth and many plastics often CANNOT BE UNSTAINED. In my kitchen we treat turmeric like a dangerous chemical -- isolate, contain, and plan ahead to limit exposure. It's just that destructive.
You might as well tie-dye or bleach white any clothing you get turmeric on; it India it is used as a dye for saris because it will semi-permanently tint cloth. You can brush off the dry powder harmessly, but when it is moistened and allowed to sit for a moment, the color is pretty much permanent.
Edit: UV+peroxide: I saw a patent for removing turmeric stains from upholstery using UV light and hydrogen peroxide. You might try soaking fabrics in peroxide or Oxyclean (which uses peroxide) and leaving then out in the sun. Can't hurt right?
Edit: strategies to manage turmeric without making a mess
Plan ahead where you'll use it, and which utensils and vessels will hold it, so you don't mess up anything you don't need to.
Re-use already turmeric-stained items so you don't wreck anything new
Mortars and pestles, tupperware, wooden and soft plastic utensils are a lost cause. At least the stain is purely cosmetic?
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS wear an apron.
Keep spilt powder dry (it won't stain) and brush it off with a paper towel into the garbage. Brushing away promptly keeps you from inadvertently spilling liquid on it, or wiping it with a wet towel during cleanup. That is, unless you want a neon-green counter and towel?
Whenever you spill something containing turmeric, promptly wipe it off, to reduce staining.
Hard ceramic and porcelain are immune to staining unless the surface is rough. Try to use these for storage. Glass will stain. Stainless steel is resistant but not immune.
With these strategies, I find I can use turmeric regularly without problems.
Having learned to remove turmeric stains from clothing from Indian folk wisdom found online, I recommend leaving the items out in the sun until the color turns slightly pinkish, then washing normally. Peroxide might help, as well, but I've never needed it once the color turned to something other than bright yellow.
Anonymous commenter: "*Put/hang stained dishes/clothes outside in the SUN for an hour. * Tumeric will disappear. Indo-Fijian solution!!!"
Sounds like another vote for UV as a solution to bleaching out turmeric stains.
Add: Do not use knives that are too delicate in the edge region to take a scrubbing sponge :) Especially not rough finished carbon steel, it doesn't just become discoloured but sticky. Same solution as for rust spots works, though: toothpaste...
Read this thread after trying a NYT recipe for roast pork, that turned out nicely, but left turmeric stains on a non-stick baking sheet. (The baking sheet had been in the oven under the roast.) In my case all sorts of products did NOT work, including chlorine beach. What finally did the trick was a spray solution of OxiClean applied to the cookware, with the cookware then placed in a 180 degree oven for an hour or so. Much, much more effective than OxiClean left at room temperature for days. Stain is gone completely, and the great thing is that the non-stick coating survived unscathed. Hope this helps someone else. My guess is that, for stained cloth, presoaking with OxiClean in near-boiling water would work.
Soaking in a solution of washing soda is often enough - the colour is mostly soluble in alkali. It can take time with a cold solution - overnight is good.
The bleach treatment works because it bleaches the colour, but also because bleach is strongly alkaline (it is stabilised with caustic soda). Washing soda is a milder option, and better for plastics.
Vanish can get rid of stains on clothes - you may find the stain is still there when washed, but expose the mark to sunlight on a washing line and it magically fades away.
Polypropylene (♷) and high-density polyethylene (♴) are both quite bleach resistant, as long as you're not heating the bleach. Indeed, if you check the bleach bottle, its probably HDPE. Polycarbonate (♹=other), not so much. Found this site: http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/chemcomp.asp
try oxiclean - i swear by it. if it can remove red wine from whites, surely it can remove this. i am continually amazed at the stains i find it can remove where nothing else works.
works best if combined with the UV from sun -- see my note about peroxide + UV.
We were making turmeric tea and we had to shred it. stained everything. "Ready to use oven & heavy duty cleaner" works for cleaning. This is the spray that domino's uses for cleaning greasy stoves. The turmeric turns copper red in an instant and is easily washed away! Amazing.
who told you that set in tumeric cant be removed? Just use tide to go!
My tupperware, wooden mixing spoons, several kitchen counters, a mixing bowl, a couple dish cloths, and some clothing all told me. Although the color has gradually faded over time, they're definitely not the tint they started with. I think that speaks pretty loudly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.322719
| 2011-05-31T20:26:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15162",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Dev",
"Doug",
"JasonTrue",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"jmicrobe",
"rackandboneman",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18418
|
How to slice smoked salmon really thinly?
I have recently decided to try to home smoke fresh salmon (FYI using a half-size school locker). Once I have the product, though, I am not sure how to slice it thinly, as it is commonly sold commercially.
I have a half-baked idea that I could freeze it, then run it through a slicer, but I am afraid the freezing (not to mention the cutting) might damage the flesh.
Is there a best practice for this?
I've never done this before, but there is a really good youtube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ET3rPJYpY
You are planning on cold smoking the salmon, right? A hot smoke (200F) will not get the same results as what you buy at the store.
This is an even better vid
Both videos are cool. Forget about freezing, no need. Just need the right knife and practice. I haven't done smoked salmon, but have sliced marinated salmon and it wasn't that hard.
First off, chill it in the refrigerator overnight. Preferably in the coldest part of the refrigerator (the bottom). After that put it in the freezer just long enough to get stiff enough to slice thinly, but do not let it completely freeze.
The initial chill will help keep any ice crystals that form inside the cells small, thus decreasing the risk of the meat getting mushy.
It has taken 3 years for me to acknowledge it but baka, you are the respondent with the info I was looking for. Kudos!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.323371
| 2011-10-17T19:58:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18418",
"authors": [
"Albin",
"BaffledCook",
"Broklynite",
"Doug",
"MamaOf2",
"Manako",
"Reven",
"Stef Vidal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7551",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11997
|
Cooking polenta: is stirring for 30 minutes really necessary?
In every polenta recipe I have ever seen, the authors insist that the polenta has to be stirred over low heat for half an hour or so before it is thoroughly cooked. When I worked in an Italian restaurant, I would follow this process (commonly making many portions at a time).
However, when making it at home in small portions, I find it tastes just the same if it is whisked over low heat for just enough time for the grain to absorb the liquid.
Why the insistence on cooking small portions (4?) for half an hour?
Please note that I am talking about normal fine grain polenta here, not some sort of 'quick' polenta.
It definitely does not need to be stirred continuously. Fairly frequently, yes, to avoid burning on the bottom, but not constantly. Cooking for more or less time has more impact on texture than flavor. Cooked briefly, you get more of a grain-like cream of wheat texture. Cooked long, you get a creamier, smoother result. Both can be good, but the creamy style is more traditional.
This also explains why, in my pro days, the cooled polenta could be cut into triangles, etc., and fried, grilled, etc., without breaking apart. With the short cook method I have outlined, the pieces fall apart.
Cooks Illustrated, in the March 2010 issue, tackled this problem in their usually obsessive fashion. The full recipe is behind their paywall, but they found that a pinch of baking soda added to coarse-ground degerminated cornmeal resulted in a shorter cooking time over low heat (about 30 minutes total), with whisking needed for the first minute, about 5 minutes in, and then right at the end when you add butter and Parmesan. The other things of interest in their recipe is the 5-to-1 water to polenta ratio, and covering the pot during cooking.
You definitely don't have to. In fact Alton Brown's recipe calls for only stirring 3-4 times during the cooking process -> http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/savory-polenta-recipe/index.html
I use a double boiler and it cooks for ~1.5 hours with only a few stirs. I got the method from Lynn Rosetto Kasper and it works great. No muss, no fuss. Link: http://splendidtable.publicradio.org/recipes/misc_polenta.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.323535
| 2011-02-09T20:58:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11997",
"authors": [
"Bloke Down The Pub",
"Doug",
"DrTyrsa",
"Neil Sarkar",
"Wit Wikky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"raju"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10995
|
Why did my mozzarella turn out like ricotta?
I bought my wife a mozzerella kit for christmas, and we tried to make it last night. We followed the directions pretty closely. I supposed we could have removed a bit more whey at some early steps. It also got up to 112F instead of the called for 105F before letting the curds form. But it never came together or reached the shiny smooth consistency that the directions called for. It would not hold together well enough to pull / stretch. It ended up like ricotta. It was good, but it wasn't what we were aiming for.
When doing my Christmas shopping, I noticed that some of the kits were for making mozzarella or ricotta, so I assume that the two have the same ingredients and a slightly different process. So what's the difference in process for the two? I'm thinking that's where we went wrong.
The result actually looked a lot like what this cheese making site says will result from using UHT milk, but I checked before making the cheese, and it was just pasteurized (and I just double checked, and it still just says pasteurized).
While not a duplicate, you might be helped by the answers in How do I make paneer firm and chewy like in the restaurant
Thanks, @justkt, but that doesn't really answer my questions. Michael's link exactly describes what happened, but I didn't use UHT milk. I updated the question with a link.
I would like to ask the same question but would probably get closed as dupe. I'm not using UHT milk. Specifically the milk says it was pasturized at 60c for 30mins (vs all the other milk in the store which was 170c for 2 seconds). I'm not getting a solid "tofu like" curd. Instead I just get cottage cheese like substance. I've tried 3 times. The first time I did get a cuttable curd from the first step using lemon juice and veggie rennet but it still didn't hold together. The 2nd/3rd times I tried citric acid and more rennet but it didn't even get solid, just cottage cheese like. Help
I have the same problem and went through 3 different brands of milk, thinking they were UHT. However, after some experimentation I determined what I was doing wrong.
In my case, after cutting the curd, and while the water was heating back up to 105, we were stirring too much.
The key is very slow gentle movement. Just enough to slightly move the curds, and not disturb them.
"Stirring" will cause you to end up with a nice tasting ricotta, but not mozzarella.
I had the same problem and bought a pH meter at which point I discovered my milk didn't have enough acid so I added 2 t citric acid and problem solved. The milk should get thick like cream prior to putting in rennet. pH should be around 5.2.
this is similar to my question: how do I make my goat cheese creamy?
I would suspect that bringing the temperature higher than directed would cause your problems. In my case I ended up raising the temperature because my cheese wouldn't separate, which resulted in a crumbly hard cheese, instead of something creamy.
According to playing with fire and water, the key is raw milk - not pasteurized at all. The author says that she tried several times to make mozzarella and it always turned out like ricotta, until she switched to raw milk.
It's also very important to let the curds acidify, which essentially means letting it sit around for a while. If you don't do that, the curds won't spin, and if they don't spin and stretch, then you can't make a firm cheese, it'll just stay like jelly. The curds are acidified when they spin (stretch without breaking).
My sister makes mozzarella all the time with pasteurized milk, and hasn't had any problems. Raw milk might make it easier, but it's not required. Pretty much all sources say ultra pasteurized is right out, though.
It's possible that it's not the pasteurization of the milk that's the problem, but the homogenization. In the US, the only way to get non-homogenized milk is to get raw milk, while (for example) in Hungary the only way to get homogenized milk is to get the UHT stuff - the regular milk you get in bags is pasteurized, but not homogenized.
@Marti - That's not entirely true. I can buy milk from a local diary that is pasteurized but not homogenized, and I live in the US. Look for local brands, Google for local dairies. You may find someone making simply pasteurized milk.
Raw milk is very hard to get hold of in the UK, it's illegal to sell it in Scotland and in England it is only legal to sell it "direct to consumer" by the farmer, so farmer's markets sell it to the general public, and farm shops, but no supermarket is allowed to carry it. Health risks are deemed too high.
@bikeboy et al, I am honestly not experienced enough to go into great detail beyond what I've read and would welcome further contributions as to the science behind this. All I know is that several very reputable and well-known chefs and cooking enthusiasts seem to empirically corroborate the claim that you need raw milk, and that yossarian (the OP) claims to have gotten the same sub-standard result even with non-UHT (but still pasteurized) milk. Perhaps it's possible to make mozzarella with pasteurized milk but you need a different technique.
As a bit of a science geek, I think the PH meter is a great way to go. All research I've done confirms that you can make mozzarella with all milk types except UHT. I tried to make mozzarella for the first time the other night and it came out like creamy ricotta. I believe it to be my stirring technique and temp. However, there is no way to rule out PH without knowing for sure. So to not have the headaches and be able to consistently make the Caprese Salad I like so much, it's well worth it. Thanks everyone for your help, I'm going to try again soon. :)
Mozzarella cannot be repeatedly made from a recipe since milk differs in pH and protein content from cow to cow. I have been making mozzarella successfully for more than 10 years. I have run hundreds of experiments and can tell you that. Buy a pH meter, that will make your life less stressful and your mozzarella will be consistent.
It's not the pasturization that is the problem, it is the homogination which breaks up the casen molecules in the milk. These molecules are required for the curding proccess and when they are damaged, the milk will not curd. I know some add calcium chloride to the milk which apparently helps the curding proccess, but I have never tried this. I normally use raw milk to make mozzarella, but I have also used pasturized non-homogenized milk with no problem. I saw that someone posted not to stir the curds too much or you will end up with rocotta, this simply is not the case. If the curd is right, it is firm enough to stir with no problems at all. Furthermore, you have to stir occasionally to keep the curds from sticking together.
Another thing I would like to say is that there are two different ways to make mozzarella, which is using citric acid or using cultures. I have done both and I can say that using cultures is more fun and has a much better flavor. I have used different cultures over the years and have found that Kefir cultures has the best flavor. I recently created a instructable on making mozzarella cheese, Click Here to view. If anyone tries my method of making mozzarella cheese has further problems, please E-mail me or post on my blog what kind of problem occurred, and I'll point you in the right direction.
I kept experiencing the Ricotta thing and decided to change the milk I used. Living in a city, far away from any dairies, I went online looking for powdered-raw-milk. Needless to say, there is none. I did find some powdered goat's milk online. I went to the company's website and used their store locator and found a place close that sold the powdered goat's milk. After striking out with cow milk, I thought goat's milk may give me better results.
When I arrived, I found the powdered milk and I also discovered that the store sold raw milk, from both cows and goats.
I would suggest doing an online search for producers of: powdered goat's milk, almond flour, kambucha, etc. and use the "Store Locator" or "Where to Buy" features. Chances are, these products are sold in places that also offer raw milk.
Of course, after using the raw milk, the ricotta texture went away. I now have real mozzarella cheese.
You cannot have powdered raw milk. Powdering the milk involves heating it.
It is possible to make powdered milk without heating it. It could be powdered by freeze-drying for instance. http://www.wikihow.com/Dry-Milk lists 3 ways to make dried milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.323761
| 2011-01-13T13:43:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10995",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Minton",
"Carling",
"Eileen Goldenberg",
"Eva Van Orman",
"Instance Hunter",
"Krissy Redding",
"Lance",
"Lily Sondos",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"bikeboy389",
"carolyn kuhnz",
"daglmu",
"emmychan",
"gman",
"gues name",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69861",
"justkt",
"rumtscho",
"user22553",
"user2821719",
"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
}
|
25436
|
Why was my Danish pastry dough so wet?
I followed this recipe for a quick "Danish" dough, at http://www.ezrapoundcake.com/archives/11051; scroll down to food processor dough.
The ingredients were:
1/4 CUP WARM WATER
1/2 CUP MILK, AT ROOM TEMPERATURE
1 LARGE EGG, AT ROOM TEMPERATURE
2 1/4 CUPS WHITE BREAD FLOUR
1 PACKAGE (1/4 OUNCE) RAPID-RISE YEAST OR 1 TABLESPOON FRESH YEAST
1 TEASPOON SALT
1 TABLESPOON SUGAR
1 CUP (2 STICKS) UNSALTED BUTTER, COLD, CUT INTO THIN SLICES
After following the recipe, when I went to roll out my dough it was quite wet and sticky. Even with moderate flouring on my counter and rolling pin, the dough was very spongy. It was not even close to something I could fold, as the recipe called for. I added at least an extra cup of flour in the end.
I am a beginner baker, so please bear that in mind.
What might I have done wrong? One thing about the recipe that troubled me is that the recipe said to let the dough get to room temperature after refrigerating overnight, before rolling out -- this made the butter softer so that when rolled it melted into the dough, but the even before the melting the dough looked way too wet.
(For what it's worth, I measured my flour packed so if anything I would have expected the dough to be a little too dry.)
I would direct your attention to the last line of step 6 - "Expect to have a gooey mess with some butter lumps pebbling it." By this I would assume that the dough would be extremely wet and that is what you describe. When I'm rolling pastry I use a lot of table flour and then I have a soft brush to whisk the excess off after it's rolled. That way the dough doesn't stick to everything but you don't have a lot of dry flour in your layers.
Side note: What's quick about this recipe? (it calls for a 24h resting period).
@djmadscribbler Thanks for your response. Do you think roughly a cup (which is about 50% of what the recipe originally called for) would be an outrageous amount to add? I'm not sure what a "lot" means here, since I have only rolled dough a few times. I am worried that unless I fully incorporate the extra flour, and only (heavily) flour the counter and top and the rolling pin, then the inside will be far too moist to be able to fold.
Different flours (both in terms of brand and even batches of the same brand) have different levels of absorbency, so you often have to experiment a little with new baking recipes. I always need much more water than the recipes in my favourite bread book call for, for example.
The best thing to do is add more flour gradually until you are happy with the texture, then you will have a better idea next time of how much you will need.
Next generation flour packaging: "Now 60% more absorbent!"
New Pine Fresh Scent!
Weigh the flour before and after adding and then subtracting will give you the amount of flour added. Eg. you start with 1kg and end with 750g, so you've added 250g.
When you have to deal with gooey dough, the thing that usually isn't mentioned is that the dough is easiest manipulated between two sheets of plastic film. Before clingfilm, they used polythene sheets, before that waxed paper. Cheffy secrets!
I don't get why this isn't working for you, the proportions look about right. I get the feeling that the dough should be left at room temperature to rise a little, but there's nothing to say how long to leave it or how much to let it rise.
I never liked Nigella's cooking anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.324435
| 2012-08-02T23:01:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25436",
"authors": [
"Annette Andrews",
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hannah Grace-Parker",
"Jesseb_USA",
"Piper Barrett",
"Roy",
"Sobachatina",
"Zola",
"cypherabe",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49237
|
Why did my chocolate icing exude its cocoa butter?
I tried making Corriher's "Luscious, creamy chocolate icing" for the first time.
340 g milk chocolate (I love Hershey's)
225 g semisweet chocolate
28 g light brown sugar
a pinch of salt
5 ml vanilla extract
45 ml light corn syrup
366 g sour cream
In a mixing bowl, stir together the brown sugar, salt, vanilla, and corn syrup.
Stir in the sour cream with 1 or 2 strokes only. Add the melted chocolate.
Beat on low until very smooth.
I did have a few substitutions. First, I used pure semisweet chocolate only, no milk chocolate. Second, I used creme fraiche, because it's richer than sour cream (and because I seldom have sour cream). Third, I used agave syrup and white sugar, because I can't buy corn syrup, and figured that with the taste from the agave syrup, I don't need the brown sugar. I can't get the usual American type here anyway.
I also didn't think of taking out the creme fraiche early enough, so it was at maybe as low as 15 Celsius when I made the icing. But note that the recipe doesn't say anything about temperature. I also overlooked the "mix on low" part and mixed on medium speed at first.
The icing started out just as it should. But during mixing, it expelled the cocoa butter much in the same way that just-a-little-overheated mayonnaise expels its oil. Basically, I ended up with a good mass of icing swimming in a puddle of melted cocoa butter. The chocolate was not seized, distempered or anything else - a few drops of it on the counter hardened to perfect consistency. I was luckily able to save it by heating it again to 35 Celsius, adding two pinches of lecithine, and mixing again on high.
Does anybody know what contributed to the problem and what didn't? Can I expect that it will work next time if I only use warm creme fraiche? Or do I also have to use sour cream, is the liquid in the creme fraiche maybe not sufficient? Or could it be that this type of icing only works with emulsifiers, and it works for the author because Hershey's is full of them and my european organic chocolate doesn't have them?
Three observations: (1) temperature of the creme fraiche might not be as important as the temperature differential between the chocolate and the other mixture (I would guess that a hefty temperature drop could temporarily harden the cocoa butter that might subsequently relax to form a pool during mixing), (2) corn syrup is an invert sugar and agave is not so you might be having some complex reaction caused by sugar crystals, & (3) are you pouring chocolate into mix (good) or mix into chocolate (greater potential for separation). That's all I got - comments, no solution. Cool recipe, though.
I was more curious about her instruction to "stir in the sour cream with 1 or 2 strokes only" - surely there's a compelling reason for her to have specified that step so exactly.
Did you use a different brand of chocolate other than Hershey's? It's possible that the recipe was created around Hershey's (since that's what's in parenthesis). Hershey's is grainer than other chocolates. It's possible that the Hershey's doesn't have the same cocoa butter other chocolates have and that could have contributed to the puddle of cocoa butter. Also, you mentioned you mixed on medium instead of low. The first two steps say to stir. Did you use the mixer for this or hand stir? I would guess she meant hand stir, so if you used the mixer it would have created too much heat.
re "American" brown sugar - it's just white sugar and molasses. About 1 tablespoon molasses per cup of sugar, mix until thoroughly combined, sugar takes on a brown color and there are no more molasses clumps (works well in a stand mixer on high).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.324737
| 2014-10-25T12:56:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49237",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Jonathan Spivey",
"Pro Garage Doors LTD",
"Shauna",
"Stephen Eure",
"danny scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6464",
"maxtrb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75828
|
Thawed Turkey Worried About Bacteria
So this is my first time doing the turkey, and I am kind of freaking out. It's a 11 pound bird that I purchased and froze last Friday.
Monday evening, I took it out of the freezer and moved it to the fridge. I have a feeling I should have done this much earlier, but I goofed up.
Being concerned about my turkey not being defrosted when it comes time to cook it, I opened it up and found the inside had large ice blocks inside still. I opted to run cold water over the turkey for about a hour and already the ice has seemed to thaw. So I wrapped the turkey up in shrink wrap on a pan and put it back in the fridge.
But now I am reading that it should be cooked immediately after being defrosted in the above method. Now I am freaking out even more. Have I ruined my turkey? The last thing I want to do is get my family sick, and I feel like a dummy.
I know no one can really say for sure if this is a tainted turkey, but would anyone still have any words of advice for me?
Your bird is probably fine, just two questions, please: When did you defrost under running cool water and how long after that did you store the turkey in the fridge?
I defrosted it about 10 hours ago. I will be cooking it in about 2 hours from now. So that's 12 hours in the fridge.
Totally fine, see ElendilTheTall's answer.
Thanks! Have a happy Thanksgiving if you are celebrating :)
As long as the turkey stayed reasonably cold throughout its hour outside the fridge, you should be fine. Safety regs usually state that meat should not be at room temperature for more than 2 hours throughout its 'lifetime'. As you defrosted in the fridge and then under cold running water for an hour, and assuming you placed it straight back in the fridge, you should be pretty safe.
Be wary of any sliminess or bad smells prior to cooking, and use a meat thermometer to ensure the meat has reached 170F/75C in the thickest part before eating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.325132
| 2016-11-24T13:59:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75828",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"azurepancake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52254"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33257
|
Definition for light, medium and heavy flour?
In this answer:
What can I use in place of Quinoa flour?
regarding substituting for quinoa flour, the answered alleges that another so-called "medium" flour can be substituted.
When I googled, I found that so-called "light flours" were alleged to be high in starch; rice flour or glutinous rice flour was the usual example. I found far less consistency—and no definition based on an objective criteria—for medium and heavy flours, although nut flours usually seemed to be grouped as a heavy flour. Almost all references to these terms were from the gluten free community.
Is there an actual objective criterion for these categories of light, medium, and heavy flours? If so, what is it, and what does it mean for their baking characteristics? Is it just a cultural thing in the gluten free community to group together empirical experiences?
Often grouping together based on empirical observation means there's an objective criterion underneath anyway. You just might get it in the wrong order.
I don't do a lot of gluten-free baking; I only think I've seen these terms once or twice before. But from searching, it seems that "light" and "heavy" refer to something approximating density (the likely property). Arrowroot, potato starch, etc. tend to be listed as "light," and my experience is that they are relatively less dense than most flour-like substances. Similarly, nut flours, cornmeal, etc. would be more dense, and thus "heavy." Personally, I would think you'd need more info to make a blend (like starch content, water absorption), but I don't have much experience with gluten-free.
I found this list that lists them. It seems like they could be in order of starch or protein content (light = high starch/low protein, heavy = low starch/high protein), but they could also be by milling (the starchier flours are frequently milled much finer than the "heavier" nut flours).
The blog sourd'oh referenced is the best I've seen up to this point:
http://www.myrealfoodlife.com/understanding-gluten-free-flours/
Basically, My Real Food Life breaks it down into the following categories:
Heavy: Give structure and binding, have lower rising capacity.
Medium: Lighten heavy flours, even out stronger tastes, soften the
crumb and texture.
Light: Needed for binding, adding lightness, and sometimes
crispiness. Neutralize the taste of stronger flours.
If you're looking to use a wheat-based flour, this seems to correlate to the flour's milling and the type of wheat used (hard seems to correlate with heavy and soft seems to correlate with light).
Heavy: Whole wheat flour, bread flour
Medium: All purpose flour
Light: Cake flour
For additional information on the composition of wheat-based flours, see the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.325315
| 2013-04-05T18:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33257",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Cybercartel",
"Jelle Hoekstra",
"Julius Kikwai",
"SourDoh",
"Tom Harrison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93781"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42378
|
What is the science behind Magic Cake?
Magic Cake has a seemingly simple batter, that is mixed and baked as a single entity. (See link for the full recipe and method). When it is baked, it separates into three distinct layers:
A dense bottom layer
A custard middle layer
A cakey top layer
(Photo and baking by Rfusca)
What is the science behind this? How does the single batter separate and create three separate and well defined layers?
As many photos of various magic cakes show (such as those at the recipe author's Part II, page), there is a definite edge effect on the layers, so it is not simply separation of components due to differing density.
And for those wondering, they really are three well defined layers - its not a gradual progression from one layer to the next.
NB tracking through a couple of links and translating from Spanish, this is a Romanian cake called prajitura desteapta, which allegedly means intelligent cake (although Google translate seems to prefer smart cookie).
Those wiley Romanians!
A comment on some variations of the recipe posted on the same site says "The egg whites should be folded into egg yolk mixture veeery gently with spatula or wooden spoon. Do not use mixer for that purpose. In the end you will get liquid part in the bottom of the dish and egg whites floating on top" - is that enough clue for someone to be able to explain how it works?
It is probably a hint, anyway.
In case you are interested, the magic comes at least partly from the milk.
I accidentally forgot to add it (but other than that, I followed the recipe to the letter), and I ended up with a regular vanilla cake, no layers at all.
I imagine this cake part should've been the (partly) the upper layer.
As milk is heavier than some of the other ingredients, it sinks to the bottom and creates the custard layer. I would like to expand this answer, with a remark on what we call 'flantaart', translated as 'custard pie'. There is one batter, and after baking, a well defined crust and a custard on top. I'll look it up when I get home, to look for similarities between the two recipes.
I think there are two important factors contributing to the different layers from a single batter. The first one is the oven temperature. This magic cake is baked at a lower 300-320F than normal 350-375F oven temperature. This lower temperature allows the starch in the batter to settle before coagulation takes place. This contributes to the bottom dense layer. The second factor is the large amount of liquid in the batter. In a regular chiffon cake recipe, only 10-15% of the weight is liquid whereas in this magic cake, the liquid is almost 50% of the total batter weight. This is what makes up the custard middle layer. As the starch settles in the bottom and custard forms in the middle, the air in the whipped egg white rises to the top under heat and makes up the fluffy top cake layer.
Cook's Country has a recipe for Magic Chocolate Flan Cake with two layers that actually switch places (top to bottom) during baking. I know it's not the same as your Magic Cake, but they explain how it works just below the recipe instructions. My hunch is that some of the same principles are at work in your cake.
http://www.cookscountry.com/recipes/7229-magic-chocolate-flan-cake
In case you don't have a login there:
While our Magic Chocolate Flan Cake is baking, the cake layer and flan
layer switch places in the oven. Amazingly, they don’t mix together;
they just reverse positions. How is that even possible? Our science
editor explained that the combined baking soda and acidic buttermilk
in the cake layer produce gas, making the cake less dense than the
flan. The (lighter) cake layer rises and the (denser) flan layer
sinks. The water bath is critical, too. Since the water comes only
halfway up the Bundt pan, only the top half of the pan gets hotter
than the boiling point of water. As the cake batter slowly heats up
from the surrounding hot water, it expands (from the gas), pushing the
flan layer higher. The eggs in the flan are thus exposed to more heat
at the top of the Bundt pan, so they cook and start to solidify. The
solidifying flan can’t fuse with the (still fluid) cake batter, and
since it is denser, the flan sinks and the batter seeps up at the
edges of the pan. Once the lighter cake batter rises to the top, it is
exposed to the higher temperature at the top of the Bundt pan and it
finally sets.
That is certainly interesting in its own right, but not an answer, as the magic cake comes from a single homogeneous batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.325564
| 2014-02-27T16:50:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42378",
"authors": [
"Hlaing Htut",
"Jenna",
"Joo",
"Kate Gregory",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah",
"Sean Keher",
"Spammer",
"fectin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99222",
"kelli",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8192
|
What can I substitute for Kaffir Lime Leaves?
Kaffir Lime Leaves seem to be a common ingredient in Thai food, particularly coconut based dishes. I have never seen them in Atlanta, and I've looked (farmers market, whole foods, normal grocery, but not an Asian grocery store). What is the flavor profile of these leaves? Is there a good substitute?
Is there a reason you haven't looked at the Asian grocery? I find in the UK at least they have what I'm looking for and also stock tonnes of other things I didn't know I was looking for, until I saw them!
@vwiggins, The asian grocery stores in Atlanta are 45 mins drive from my house in an area of town I never visit.
an intriguing comment, from a sociological perspective...
@doug, Ha. Another way of putting it would be that I live downtown and the asian grocery stores are in the suburbs. I don't go anywhere 45 mins from my house.
I have seen Kaffir Lime leaves in the fresh herbs and spices section of Whole Foods, I don't know if that is more or less convenient than the Asian market for you though!
There is an asian grocery store over by the Dekalb farmer's market. You might also try the Indian stores just south of North Dekalb Mall. As far as living downtown and not going to the Atlanta suburb, I strongly concur. I only cross 285 in a plane.
I wouldn't attempt to substitute. I've read somewhere that you can use regular lime leaves, but I've never seen those anywhere. Even Googling for lime leaf turns up kaffir lime leaves.
They can be found easily enough online: ImportFood.com. They freeze well for months in just a zip-lock bag.
The flavor profile is best described as a bright floral aromatic. It's similar in function, not taste, to a bay leaf. Thai cuisine uses kaffir lime leaves much as we do bay leaves.
If you decide buying online isn't worth the hassle, then Kitchen Savvy suggests the following substitute:
1/2 a small bay leaf
1/4 tsp of lime zest
1/8 tsp of fresh lemon thyme
I agree that there is no true substitute, but if I were going to try, I'd use the zest of 1 lime for every 2 kaffir lime leaves. I wouldn't do the bay leaf or lemon thyme suggested above.
I absolutely concur with not using lemon thyme.
There's the option of using Kaffir Lime essential oil - it is the best substitute I know of, much better than the dried Kaffir Lime leaves we can get around here (Israel).
It is truly wonderful.
Here's the one I use:
http://thaifoodessentials.com/buy/
It's quite cheap and lasts for a long time (you only need a few drops per dish). The website also has some instructions on how to use it, but generally, you want to add it towards the end of cooking, close to serving.
I used to buy curry and kaffir lime leaves at the DeKalb farmer's mkt (Atlanta), but have been told recently that the USDA has banned import in attempt to preempt certain microbes, bacteria, diseases. Dunno what that is really about. In the end, they are no longer available there. However, if you live in a tropical, sub-tropical latitude, you can grow your own.
I bought mine from Amazon.com.
I'd found that there are different types of Asian grocery stores, and not all cater to all types of cooking. For instance, Philipino stores don't necessarily carry what a Thai recipe may require. So, even if you were to venture out, (Doug must not have driven in Atlanta) you couldn't assume they'd have what you're looking for.
Go mail order.
I ended up going one further and mail ordered a whole tree. It's growing nicely in my yard.
I found them in Wegmans, and I've seen them in a couple of supermarkets - but just in a jar in oil. Similar to a small jar of thai curry paste. Same size, labeling, etc.
Not how I expected to find them, so be on the look-out.
I've gotten jarred kafir leaves, and though they do seem to have a lot of flavor, I'm not sure how much of it's coming from the leaves or the liquid they're in. They do seem to go bad pretty quickly once opened, even when refrigerated.
I think lemongrass has a similar super floral citrusy flavor.
Maybe lemongrass with a little lime zest.
Lemon grass has a very different flavor to the kaffir lime leaf (and besides, is already a part of most thai curries).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.325979
| 2010-10-16T16:13:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8192",
"authors": [
"Alan Willis",
"Arafangion",
"Dave Griffith",
"Doug",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Gary Brainarduser16842",
"Jamie",
"John",
"Marissa",
"Muhammad Saeed",
"Nadia",
"SourDoh",
"Tani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81935",
"user134450",
"user35724",
"vwiggins",
"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
}
|
10535
|
How long can I hold brown rice between boiling and steaming?
I use a technique from Cooks Illustrated for cooking my brown rice. I simmer for 25 minutes and then steam for 10. It gets a nice consistent result. But how long can I hold the rice between simmering and steaming? Does it matter if it sits out for 30 - 45 minutes before finishing? Would I need to increase the steam time? How much? Are there any safety concerns?
You can wait as long as you need to between pre-cook (that's the simmering) and finish (the steaming), it's how things work in restaurants.
The steaming time will only go up if you let the temperature drop appreciably. Even so, you shouldn't need more than an extra minute or so. Steaming is pretty benign to rice.
As far as the safety concerns...if you keep the temperature above 135 F, you are out of the danger zone, and you can hold there forever. The danger zone is 41 to 135 F, but the goal in cooling foods is to get it from hot to cool in 6 hours...below 70 in two, and then 4 hours to make it below 41 (yes, I'm ServSafe certified). So your hypothetical 30-45 minutes shouldn't cause you a problem. But watch it if you start going long.
What I was really wondering about the safety concerns is how much it even matter if it was held in the danger zone? Would 10+ minutes in a steamer kill off anything that may have shown up while it was being held?
@yossarian: Do danger-zone concerns really factor into rice? Unless you had some kind of cross-contamination, it should be bacteria-free to begin with.
@aaronut, yeah, I kinda figured that it would be ok whatever I did with it since it's rice and I'm steaming it before service, but I'm not positive.
Sorry guys, rice can be a serious problem...the specific bacteria is bacillus cereus. And the problem isn't that you can't kill the bacteria, it's that the bacteria create toxins that persist after the bacteria is dead. But again, the times you are talking about aren't going to be a problem. Just don't let it sit all afternoon, then think the steaming will take care of anything. It will, indeed, kill the bacteria, but not the toxins. If you ever want to freak yourself out, take the ServSafe course. They get your attention up front by telling you everything you want to avoid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.326339
| 2010-12-27T17:09:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10535",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Coolwater",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Pascal Paradis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"wil74",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12918
|
Does brewing tea for longer result in higher caffeine content?
The ISO standard for brewing tea says "6 minutes". Of course different teas have vastly different properties, but...
For "average commodity black tea" and "average commodity green tea", will leaving the tea bag in longer (say 1 hour or 1 day) result in higher caffeine content in the cup? How much?
If youre wanting more caffeine , why not just use three or four tea bags in a small cup and steep it for 4 mins? It will be STRONG.
First off, the ISO standard is not intended to produce a good cup of tea. It is designed to produce a consistent one for taste testing, so that no tea manufacturer can claim that his tea wasn't made "properly".
It's title is "Tea -- Preparation of liquor for use in sensory tests"
As for the actual tea making, yes, leaving the bag in longer will make a stronger cup of tea. The concentration of caffeine (along with flavour molecules and everything else) will slowly trend towards an equal concentration in the leaf and in the water. The longer you leave the tea bag/leaves in the water, the closer to equilibrium you will get.
There are other factors that affect this, such as the temperature of the water, cut of the leaves, bag versus loose leaf and so on, but the trend is always towards equilibrium as time progresses.
I'm not sure where the upper limit of this lies, but I think that once the cup is cold there's no point in it anyway. Thus, leaving the bag in for an hour is a bit much. I usually steep my tea for 3-6 minutes, depending on how strong I want it to be.
The way the Japanese make iced tea is to steep the leaves in cold water, in the fridge, for a day or more. This works for ordinary tea, Earl Grey etc. as well as for green tea. So steeping after the water goes cold definitely has an effect.
@slim: The steeping has an effect, naturally. I meant that there was no point in drinking the tea by the time it's cold. Making iced tea is a separate subject entirely.
The cold steep just extracts fewer tannins.
I recently observed the effect of time of steeping on caffeine content in tea. We used High Pressure Liquid Chromatography to determine the levels of caffeine in Green Tea in samples that were steeped for 1, 2, 4, 10, 15, 30, 60, and 120 mins. The concentration of caffeine over time did not show any significant trends. Our results suggest that caffeine content does not depend on the steeping time and instead the caffeine dissolves in the hot water within a minutes of starting to steep the tea. Hope this helps.
Did you publish these result on a paper or just as a personal experiment? Either way, I'd love to see the plot if you have it?
It would be nice to see this data or know more about this. There are plenty of other experiments which have looked at the first 30 seconds to 15 minutes of brewing tea, but few that have gone beyond that. Also, it would be odd to find that there are "no significant trends": every other experiment has shown that tea brewed for longer times tends to contain more caffeine. It's just that once you get to 10-15 minutes, over 90% of the caffeine will be extracted, so it can't go up much more. If it actually went DOWN after that, it would be really interesting.
@Bill - Any links would be appreciated!
Did you also find out what compound is in oversteeped tea that makes you jittery and gives you headaches? :)
I also did this experiment in University. We found the same thing. Caffeine is extremely soluble in water and the vast majority is extracted almost immediately. Technically you get a it more from steeping longer, but we are splitting gnat hairs at that point. IMO this should be the accepted answer.
@rackandboneman Theobromine is a likely candidate. You body also breaks caffeine down into it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine#Toxicity
In case you're looking for a scientific approach, this paper has some plots showing the amount of caffeine extracted as a function of temperature and time. Look for the "CA" label in figures 2-5. They steep the bags for 30 seconds at a time and record the relative & cumulative amounts of caffeine (and other ingredients) extracted from the tea.
This is an interesting paper, though it appears only to focus on brewing times up to 4 minutes, so it doesn't quite answer the details of the original question.
AFAIK the ISO standard is not for enjoying tea, but for "tasting" it. Most people don't brew their black tea that long
Most commercial teas are in a fine grind state (fannings) and should not be brewed with 95°C+ water for longer than 2 minutes or bitter tastes will become apparent
Whole leaf black tea can be brewed with 95°C+ water for more than 3 minutes to get full flavour
Tea has little bio absorb-able caffeine in it, from 10mg to 70mg, many in the range 20mg to 40mg
Normal brewing gets most of the caffeine out
As I understand it, medically you need 100mg+ to get a physiological dose (an effect)
A cup of coffee is 100mg to 200mg of caffeine
So if you want caffeine drink coffee
The the instructions on the box of "ordinary" British teabags in my kitchen say to steep for 5 minutes in freshly boiled water. If you do this, it's disgusting.
@slim Refer to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12924/are-commercial-foods-adjusted-for-integer-cooking-times/12946#12946
This is an old post, but I want to note this here for safety reasons: You don't need 100mg of caffeine or more to get an effect; 40mg is sufficient. In fact doses ≥ 100mg can lead to unwanted side effects of caffeine, especially in those sensitive to it
There have been a number of scientific studies addressing the question of how much caffeine is extracted depending on brewing time. Perhaps the most cited is from 1996, but a 2008 study (carried out to debunk the myth that tea can be decaffeinated with a 30-second steep) also gives some useful data with a variety of teas.
To address your question specifically, approximately 70-80% of caffeine is removed, on average, in a 6-minute steep with boiling or near-boiling water. It will vary depending on variety of tea (green, black, etc.) and form (whole black tea leaves release caffeine the slowest; black tea bags containing tea fannings the fastest). Regarding the 30-second "decaf method," only about 10% of caffeine is released in that short time, so it's hardly effective. You'd need to steep for at least 5 minutes or so to remove a significant portion of the caffeine.
Given the number above for a 6-minute steep, the maximum amount you could expect to extract from a longer steep for hours or days would be 20-30% of the original caffeine content of the leaves. So you could potentially increase the amount of caffeine in the final brew to maybe 1.25 times of the 6-minute cup or a little more, depending on variety.
However, it should be noted that more than 90% of caffeine will be released by 15 minutes, so steeping for hours or days is not very productive. If, for some reason, you wish to extract the most caffeine from the leaves possible, I would recommend multiple short steeps (5 minutes or less) instead, perhaps with a higher concentration of leaves. Using fresh water periodically will allow faster extraction of caffeine, and you'll also avoid the inevitable bitterness that generally comes from a single long brewing.
(I should note all of the above regards typical brewing with relatively hot water. Brewing tea with room temperature water or with cold water will significantly increase the time it takes for caffeine to be extracted. In that case, brewing for hours may be necessary to allow large portions of the caffeine to dissolve.)
Where did I assume anything about constant caffeine extraction? Of course it isn't constant. There are MANY other studies out there, which I've looked at. I just cited a couple that were relevant to the question here; the 30-second decaf method isn't actually relevant, but it was brought up in other answers, so I felt I should address it. Other studies have shown 5-30% of caffeine usually is released in the first 30 seconds. In any case, this disproves the "30-second" myth which usually claims 80-85% extraction. And real "decaf tea" by law must usually have 95-98% or more removed.
"Stimulant action of tea is strongest when allowed to steep
for only 2–5 min. as caffeine dissolves quickly in hot water.
Longer steeping times (10–20 min.) will increase the yield of
catechins, which decreases the stimulant effect because the
polyphenols bind the caffeine."
Source: Clinical Overview - Tea, Black/Green
http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/DocServer/Tea.pdf?docID=861
It's pretty well understood that, on a relative basis, caffeine is one of the quickest of the natural products to be extracted, whether it's from coffee or tea.
This is the premise behind crappy drip coffee – good for the workplace where people just want to stay awake. Only a thin stream of hot water over the coffee for a very short time is enough to pull out a significant amount of the available caffeine.
If you brew coffee or tea this way, it will be more bitter from alkaloids, principally, caffeine. If you brew them all day, all kinds of less soluble/kinetically mobile products will start to come out, and the colour and flavour profiles will change radically.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
This study claims that the caffeine content doesn't change and reaches its max at 4 minutes (law of diminishing returns?). (Assuming you put in hot water, see link.)
https://slicesofbluesky.com/afternoon-tea-in-laboratory-part-2/
Welcome. Please note that this is a Q/A site, not a discussion forum. I recommend you take the [tour] and browse through our [help] to familiarize yourself with the mechanisms of the site.
The stimulating quality of tea is due more to Theobromine.
I read once on my English tea packet about 'stimulating' versus 'calming' brews being dependent upon length of brewing time.
This seems to bare that out:
http://nobleharbor.com/tea/caffiene.html
Personally, 1 bag for 1 cup at 3min is too strong. Instead of reducing brewing time, I increase water by a half cup (stays hotter that way too), getting the full-flavor out of the leaves.
Your answer seems to misrepresent the article you're citing; that article says that theobromine content is small or negligible.
You can make a quick cup of "decaf" tea, by letting the bag steep for under a minute, pouring off the water, then pouring more water over it and letting it steep again. The poured off water will contain about 80% of the caffeine. link
So you're probably not going to get a lot more caffeine from a longer steep time.
As I noted in my answer, this "decaf" method has been debunked multiple times.
No. Caffeine is extremely soluble in water. So all the caffeine comes out within the first 10 seconds of brewing.
caffeine is extremely soluble, but dissolving a caffeine crystal in water and extracting caffeine from behind lots of semipermeable membranes (cell walls) are two very different processes, with very different speeds and final outcomes.
As per my view of point, that caffeine will come out as soon as we sock in the water and if we keep more in the water, then tea will produce tannin and caffeine get reduce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.326584
| 2011-03-08T05:52:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12918",
"authors": [
"AndreasKralj",
"Asad Ahmad",
"Athanasius",
"Ben Dover",
"Bort",
"Carmi",
"Community",
"Florelly",
"GT.",
"High Touch Moving",
"JeffDror",
"Jimmy Evison",
"Karen Birkett",
"Rian",
"Sean Gibson",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"Zander",
"baka",
"evildemonic",
"glallen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89250",
"keflavich",
"mreo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sanmai",
"seeker",
"slim"
],
"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
}
|
27206
|
What varieties of beans are high in calories?
Which beans have the most calories per dry-weight?
Note: This includes anything someone might refer to as a "bean" and excludes foods that are perishable.
I don't think we can really comment on varieties being "hard to digest", as that can mean very different things depending on who is eating them. Anyway, that's essentially a health question, so I've edited this to stick to the food/cooking aspect.
This is possibly pointless to answer, the general calorie difference between bean varieties is less than the difference from sub-varieties and growing conditions
Use wikipedia or wolframalpha to get average figures for the beans you can get locally, but you really need to test them if this is truly important
For what it's worth chickpeas are very high and commonly available. Wheat is much higher still!
Beans are around 1 to 1.5 calories per g
Wheat is around 3 calories per g
Chia seed is around 5 calories per g
Dried beef is also around 5 calories per g, and much tastier :-)
I think taste is a subjective matter, as you couldn't pay me to eat beef, but I'll happily gobble up some delicious beans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.327880
| 2012-09-16T22:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27206",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Elisa Moore",
"Katinka Hesselink",
"Lyn Baguisi",
"RnMs",
"Tranquilled",
"alexgibbs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61259",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11543
|
Substitute for marjoram
Are there any herbs similar to or anything i can substitute marjoram with?
Interesting question.. Which recipe do you require majoram for? Sadly I have never had a chance to get a good grip of the flavor and taste of Marjoram..
Chicken marsala!
Marjoram is a type of Oregano, or rather it is from the Origanum family (origanum majorana, oregano is origanum vulgare). So oregano makes the closest substitute I find, though it is stronger, so use less, oregano is often called wild marjoram.
A great resource on spices is Gernot Katzer's website. The majoram page plus my own experience make me suggest sage (for the slightly bitter note) and thyme. I would not use oregano - to my Italian nose it smells very different.
Looks like the webpage is gone ... but Archive.org's Wayback Machine has it: https://web.archive.org/web/20120609184738/https:/www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Maio_hor.html
Assuming you are just out of any types of marjorams (wild, oregano, otherwise) the spice coriander can be substituted in the less-herbal (where you would swing with sage) categories, i.e. poultry or eggs.
If you are adding marjoram to something with elements akin to smoked paprika, red pepper, here is where coriander comes in handy. I find it matches well with beef, venison, tomato particularly well. You need to tie the coriander's higher piques down though to emulate marjoram (which is more even in its notes); you can do this with thyme as suggested above, or maybe tarragon (though that can be pretty risky itself).
Not a close match, but sage can impart the same hint of smokiness, and I've used it from time to time.
I was looking for a substitute for marjoram for a herbal rice recipe. I used oregano and was very pleased with the outcome. It gave the rice an slightly earthy taste. Very good I must say.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.328034
| 2011-01-28T01:00:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11543",
"authors": [
"Bárbara",
"Derek Adair",
"George Jester",
"Joe",
"Junyan Xu",
"Muhammed",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"notthetup",
"user23716",
"wilburlikesmith"
],
"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
}
|
10170
|
What is the proper way to maintain a can opener?
I bought a hand crank can opener (Oxo) because of the good online feedback and only use the "shake" dry approach. It quickly developed rust in between the metal. If I invest the time and scrub, I can remove most of the rust.
When I initially posed the maintenance question in IRC concerning rust and utensils and kitchenware in general, I got suggestions from "spend a little on a decent one" to "you want stainless steel". I stored both answers as helpful for future purchases.
Just recently I noticed two can openers in the office pantry that both show rust. Obviously these were neglected and showed more corrosion. After seeing this, I am curious if rust is actually normal and harmless. Are there more expensive stainless steel can openers that are rust resistant? Should I be drying more rigorously? I just thought of another possibility: should I keep the can opener in a jar of cooking oil?
First, I would suggest you buy a higher quality can opener. I have a Swing-A-Way that I inherited from my grandmother. I think it's older than me.
Second, don't submerge the can opener in water every time you use it. I only full out wash it on the rare occasion I splash or drop something all over it. The rest of the time I just use my dishcloth to wipe the blade and handles clean and let it dry in the dish rack before putting it away.
very agreed; don't see the need to wash it all that often.
This could be my specific problem. I automatically rinse the opener without thinking about the impact.
I have a lot of canned food and have gone through my share of can openers. I'm generally OK with a rusty can opener, but I don't like the rust flakes getting into my food. I can't bear that metallic taste.
While I don't mind buying a new can opener (they sell them at the dollar general for two dollars), but I find it a bit wasteful.
This may sound a bit un-orthodox, but I use rubbing alcohol (90% or higher). I have a jar filled with it next to the sink, so I will rinse the can opener off, dip it in the jar of alcohol, and put it back in the drawer. It dries fine in there.
This also works for other rust-prone utensils like whisks.
I don't have an answer to your "choice of material" question, though I would tend to believe stainless steel is your best bet.
However, for preventing rust: Try cranking a paper towel through the spokes after you use and/or wash it, if that's where the rust is accumulating. It cleans and dries them very well, and I don't know if it's what's preventing rust on ours, but I do that every time and haven't noticed rust yet.
It's not just water that makes rust. mild acids speed up the process. Many canned goods are acidic, so to remove all traces of these rinse the metal part under running clean water, and shake dry
Then leave the opener in "open" position in a warm dry place to dry (on your bench by a window is ideal)
Do not put them away in the drawer while still damp
The "Brabantia" opener (white plastic handles) is a good mix of steel quality, long life design (no small springs to rust out), actual opening performance, and price
Rust (iron oxide) requires exactly three things to form: Iron, oxygen, and water. The first two are already in abundance, so in order to prevent rust, you need to minimize the third. Keep the can opener as dry as possible. Use a cloth or paper towel.
Stainless steel is corrosion "resistant"; it does not corrode or rust as easily as untreated iron or steel, but it can still corrode over time and will certainly tarnish. Again, the way to prevent this is to keep it dry.
I would not keep the can opener in a jar of cooking oil, because cooking oil can go rancid. Culinary-grade mineral oil would be okay, but it seems like a waste of oil to me; as long as you keep it dry, it won't rust.
Having said that, my can opener is pretty rusty and it doesn't bother me. Rust is definitely normal, and as long as the rust doesn't get into your food (which has never happened to me) then it is also completely harmless. It might not open cans as well if the blade itself is rusted, and that could potentially leave sharp edges on the opened can or lid, but that's highly individual and I'm sure you should be able to spot if and when that's happening. Personally, I don't bother to thoroughly dry can openers, because they're cheap enough that I can just buy a new one if they rust really badly.
But in general, yes, the two things you can do to minimize rusting on a can opener (or any other metal equipment) is to (a) use stainless steel and (b) keep it dry.
rust does cause the more friction in the "action", though. eventually my wife will complain, so we get a new one every 5 years or so.
I generally wash the opener by hand but occasionally run it though the dishwasher. In both cases, after it is dry, I occasionally put drops of food grade mineral oil on the gears, etc. I use almond oil. I also use almond oil on my wooden cutting boards. (almond oil is a wonderful skin softener, too).
Swing-a-way was a great brand back in the day but the company/name has been sold out of China. That may account for the quality now. John J Steuby Co purchased the manufacturing equipment and making EZ-DUZ-IT can opener. It is made in the USA and the packaging is cheesy but this is the original Swing-a-Way with a new name.
http://www.sierravalleytrading.com/JOHN-J-STEUBY-CO_c_815.html (Make in the USA products)
I bought mine on Amazon but they may be available elsewhere.
I've flagged the other answer for moderator attention. I believe it should be possible for you to edit your own answers even with one reputation point. Maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that.
You might want to register your account to make sure everything works - the old and new posts are on the same userid, so you should be able to do what you like with them. I think this link should work: http://stackoverflow.com/help/creating-accounts
You could try drying it with something like a hair dryer or compressed air if there's water in hard-to-reach places.
My stainless steel manual can opener is rusty. I'm soaking it in proxide now and I noticed the rust flakes comming off. I will use a tooth brush and hair dryer before putting away.
I use Virgin olive oil when my can opener seems not to work well, the Virgin olive oilk works good every time, my can opener works just as good as new and opens cans smoothly and evenly...try it, you'll see .
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. This isn't clear; are you lubricating the can opener?
I would throw it in the dishwasher, most are dishwasher safe, and the drying cycle might dry the opener better than just a towel. but that's me, i'm pretty lazy and don't like washing things by hand.
the extra-hotness of water in the dishwasher will promote rust. gears and blade are not stainless, and will eventually rust. wash by hand and dry thoroughly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.328243
| 2010-12-15T18:33:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10170",
"authors": [
"A Tarleton",
"Barbara",
"CMW",
"Cascabel",
"Casey",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Christine Michels",
"Company Liquidators LTD",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Ladlestein",
"Lazik",
"Tammy Lambert",
"UrgentCare66",
"ajmc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3839",
"tina1229",
"user20807",
"user20848",
"zanlok",
"杜興怡"
],
"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
}
|
10653
|
When baking a cake that calls for butter, should you use salted or unsalted?
I'm baking a cake using a cake mix and extra ingredients. It calls for 5 tbsp of butter, but I'm not sure which to use, salted or unsalted. What difference would it make??
Generally, you'll want to use unsalted. The amount of salt in salted butter can vary, so most recipes call for unsalted, and then have you add the exact amount of salt. Cake mixes have salt in them, so this would still apply.
Spot on Martha.
Exactly, Martha. +1 Also, unsalted butter tends to be fresher butter. Salted butter keeps longer. Salted butter can last two to three times longer refrigerated.
Baking recipes that don't specify type of butter should be assumed to mean "unsalted", much like the egg size is assumed to be large.
Agree and +1 to Martha's answer, unsalted is generally preferred for baking.
Just wanted to add that if you only have salted butter and the recipe calls for unsalted then I would say don't worry too much. It's OK to use salted instead.
Depending on brand of butter (and sometimes even batch), there can be around 3/4 to a full teaspoon of salt per stick of butter. So, if you'd like to reduce any other salt in the recipe, feel free. That said, I once accidentally used salted butter in a cookie recipe and didn't reduce, but the extra salt was a fantastic surprise.
Exception: if the recipe does not call for any salt, then you really must use unsalted butter, because the difference between "no salt" and "some salt" is much greater than the difference between "some salt" and "some more salt".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.328813
| 2011-01-01T14:24:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10653",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Andrew Lank",
"BaffledCook",
"Lissa",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"zacechola"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9043
|
What is the ingredient that gives a sichuan (szechuan) hot pot the mouth numbing experience?
I'm curious if it is from the Sichuan peppercorns.
Welcome user3338. Please review our FAQ: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq. Recipe requests, which this read an awful lot like, are off-topic and likely to be closed. I suggest you find a recipe and then if you have questions about how to fix, adapt, or improve it you can ask a question here for help. To find a recipe, Google might provide you a good jumping off point: http://www.google.com/search?q=szechuan+hot+pot+recipe+sichuan+pepper. Sources also say the book "Land of Plenty" by Fuchsia Dunlop will help you.
I agree with @justkt that this is likely to be closed. The only advice I'd give is that you want to only use the husks of the pepper corns and discard the seeds for the mouth numbing experience. See this question
Agree with both above. Please be more specific as I can suggest you some technique when you cook. The beet place to look for recipe on google.
Depending where you live it can be hard to get hold of useful Szechuan pepper. What you want is just the outer shell of fruit, not the contents
Many governments force importers from China to use high heat to sterilise these on import, and most of the active ingredients seems to get whacked during this process
Find the most "Chinese" shop you can, and buy packets that look like they where sealed in China (No local language print or contact detail, only Chinese characters). These hopefully haven't been heat treated and will still be good. Keep it airtight until needed
Sometimes it's labelled "Red Prickly Ash" or "Prickly Ash", or look for this on the label 花椒
To use, lightly dry roast the whole shells and grind into a powder. Then measure the fresh ground powder to match the recipe. It is only a subtle effect compared to Kava or Kawakawa and I think it needs lots of chilli too taste great
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.328979
| 2010-11-11T23:38:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9043",
"authors": [
"Antonita",
"DarcyThomas",
"Foodrules ",
"Greg",
"Jean-Sébastien",
"Justin",
"Sam Holder",
"chefsambob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9213
|
Toast bread slices in a convection microwave?
Does a convection microwave make decent toast, as a toaster oven would or a bone fide oven set to broil? I have read far and wide on the internet and in operating manuals for Sharp, Bosch, etc. convection microwaves and have come up empty handed. I know you can't make toast in a microwave, but these are convection microwaves we're talking about here.
Would prefer to hear from someone who actually owns one of these things instead of someone just reading things like "CompuBroil®, CompuRoast®, CompuBake® - automatically compute broiling, roasting, and baking times/temperature settings." from the www.sharpusa.com website like me :-)
Additional specific requirements for our situation are an "Over The Range" (OTR) solution, for which there are often microwave and convection microwave solutions that include 300CFM ventilation and lighting for our cooktop. We're not looking for a countertop unit. Hence the desire to see if these convection microwave units can do the deed!
Thanks in advance!
Specifically looking for someone who has a CM and has (or has not) successfully made quality toasted bread.
I know it's a old post.. But I just made toast in my microwave/convection combo and its' good.. I defrosted my bread in the microwave, the put it on a the metal rack for 10 minutes at 425. It worked !!! I know it's 10 minutes but it allowed me to cook the eggs etc...
whats the make/model of your microwave?
Now this is exactly what I was looking for -- real life experience toasting bread in a convection microwave.
Toasting bread involves the Maillard Reaction and requires a dry heat. Toasters and toaster ovens (and conventional ovens) use radiant heat. Convection ovens use convection, as the name implies, and this is most certainly a dry and very even heat; the question is whether or not a convection microwave actually provides a true convective environment, like a high-end convection oven.
And that's where the problem generally lies. Convection microwaves (AKA microwave convection ovens) are not usually true convection ovens. They use a combination of microwaves and convection currents, which will quickly cause steaming and inhibit the Maillard reaction. This isn't really a problem with, say, chicken, but it's a big problem with bread. You'll have many of the same problems you'd have with a regular microwave - the bread will burn before it toasts.
What you really want is a microwave toaster oven. They exist, and are often very cheap. If it doesn't actually bill itself as being a combination microwave/toaster oven, then it's not going to be very good at toasting.
Thank you for the background and theoretical underpinnings of toasting bread. Some of these models advertise specific and dedicated broil, bake, etc. methods -- leading me to believe that they are legitimate little ovens in the own right without MW power added. I still need to know if a Convection Microwave can or cannot toast bread.
@Mark: A convection microwave cannot ipso facto toast bread. That is why microwave/toaster ovens exist. If you want to know whether or not a specific convection microwave might be different from the others then you'll need to be more specific with your question - or better yet, contact the manufacturer. But in general, unless you specifically see a line in there advertising an ability to toast, then it can't toast.
@Aaronut: convection microwaves typically advertise many different modes: Microwave, Microwave/Convection and Convection as separately available exclusive modes.
@Mark: If that is the case and you are certain that the convection mode is true convection (exposed heating elements are a bad sign), then yes, it will toast. However, it will do so rather slowly and inefficiently. If you are not going to get a microwave toaster oven (for which there are several range models that also do convection) then you are honestly better off buying a $20 toaster for your toast.
One exception I can think of is if the unit has a broiler or grill; that would be fairly effective at toasting bread.
Sharp used to make a convection microwave toaster oven with a turntable and heating elements above. Made toast, no problem.
Simple answer is "yes, you can very well toast bread in a convection microwave".
Just follow the following steps:
Step 1: preheat the oven to 200 C.
Step 2: you would need convection + grill combination to toast your bread. In case you don't have it by default, most of the microwaves use convection + grill to preheat itself.
Put your bread on a steel tripod stand and use convection + grill for 2-3 min or until brown.
Step 3: flip over and cook the other side for 2-3 min or until brown.
Step 4: voila you can now enjoy your bread cooked better than a toaster.
It does toast! I just tried it. Followed the above instructions set it to 425. Not sure how it really worked I just watched it and when it looked toasted took it out.
425 what? ºF? Minutes? CFM?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.329177
| 2010-11-17T22:27:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9213",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Evgeni Sergeev",
"GRANNY M.",
"Hotdiggity",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Mark A",
"MusicalFoodie",
"Steve Lorimer",
"Yon Galicia",
"dvd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78903",
"rfusca",
"sallie",
"user18849"
],
"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
}
|
10665
|
baking bread with all-purpose flour
I'm a bread-baking novice and have acquired a vast quantity of all-purpose flour.
If I follow a typical bread recipe, for example one of these, but use all-purpose flour instead of the recommended variety, what will happen? Will the bread be edible?
[How] could I modify such a recipe to work with all-purpose flour?
update
Used Canadian all-purpose flour with this recipe, unmodified; results were delicious.
Note that country and region both matter here. Canadian AP flour is generally higher gluten content than American AP flour. And in the US, they vary north-to-south as well. Just something else to take into account.
Bread is basically just flour, water, and yeast, so it's pretty hard to make it inedible unless you burn it to a crisp in the oven.
The difference between all-purpose flour and bread flour is gluten strength; if you substitute all-purpose flour then your bread won't rise as high or be as strong; this is a desirable quality in, say, cake, but not bread.
However, AP flour isn't that far off from bread flour in terms of gluten; while cake flour may be as low as 6% and bread flour can be as high as 14%, AP flour tends to weigh in at around 10% or more, which is why it's called "all-purpose". As Michael says, yeast bread is actually not as sensitive to the exact quantities as (for example) most pastries, but it's still better to use a recipe that was actually built around AP flour instead of just trying to substitute it for bread flour.
If you are determined to make the substitution, then I would suggest you try to find some wheat gluten and add a small amount of that to the AP flour. Mathematically, if you assume that you're lacking some 3% protein, then you'd want to add about 1 tbsp of gluten for every 2 cups of flour. It's really not much, though, and if you don't have or can't find wheat gluten then your bread would probably survive anyway with AP flour, it just might be a little denser than you expect.
Any other alternatives to adding gluten? What about more yeast/less salt/more sugary stuff?
@intuited: No, that won't help. Reducing salt will just take away the flavour. Adding more sugar will cause less gluten to form, making the bread more cake-like. And adding more yeast won't help much because its main role is to produce carbon dioxide which gets trapped by the gluten; you can't really compensate for a lower gluten level by adding more gas. As I said, you can try to use the AP flour straight up, and probably end up with a slightly denser/flatter bread; otherwise you either need to add actual gluten or use a recipe created for AP flour in the first place.
There's probably some other protein besides gluten that would fulfill the same purpose. However, I've never seen it named.
" it's pretty hard to make it inedible unless you burn it to a crisp in the oven." - For my first loaf I followed directions that didn't say anything about a second rise. This was with a rather slow SD I captured myself. The result had a crust that was .25+ inch thick, hard as weathered concrete, and tasted like a gym sock. My dog burried it under a tree when I gave it to him...he couldn't chew it. Slamming it against the concrete patio resulted in a few crumbs falling off. So it's actually pretty easy--just stick your bread in before the second rise :p
Bread baking is remarkably tolerant. It is very hard to make an inedible loaf. That said, why not start with a recipe that has been tested with all-purpose flour. There are plenty of them. By the way, a terrific book to get you started with baking is Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day. Enjoy the journey, learning to bake bread is one of the most rewarding things you will ever do in the kitchen.
I'm trying to make do with minimal ingredients and am planning to follow this recipe, should it prove practical. I meant to use that as one of the links in the original post (it's now fixed). I'm suffering from a bit of information overload (and time constraint) so I don't think I'll go digging about for a recipe with even more stringent requirements. If you do know of one though, I would quite appreciate a link to it.
I've been baking bread for sixty years and have used both AP and bread flour. I have yet to notice any appreciable difference...at least any difference worth worrying about. It's just not worth the trouble to store both types at home when AP does such a good job for both bread and pastries. My biggest problem is finishing the bread before it goes stale, which it does so much faster than commercial bread because of the lack of preservatives.
Actually, I think you are fine making any of those recipes with AP flour, especially the two recipes for white bread. If you want a good general "sandwich" bread, then AP flour will give you a softer crumb that most people actually prefer for that kind of bread. If you had bread flour, you could try it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to get the bread flour or vital wheat gluten to add to the flour in these cases.
In the case of the whole wheat recipe bread flour can be particularly beneficial because the bran in the whole wheat flour inhibits gluten development somewhat. Even in this case, the proportions are such that it shouldn't make much of a difference, and I wouldn't go out of my way to source higher gluten ingredients.
If you want more gluten development out of your AP flour one thing you might try is what bakers call an autolyse. This is a technique where you bring the dough together just to the point where all the dry ingredients are hydrated and let it sit without messing with it for about 20 minutes. This allows the gluten in the dough to get a headstart knitting itself together. After that 20 minute period, then you knead the dough.
As a general rule of thumb, for breads you make in a loaf pan you should be fine using AP flour if that's what you have. If you want to make artisan crusty breads that are usually formed into baguettes or other shapes to be baked free form on a pizza stone or other solid oven deck then bread flour will help out (along with a host of other techniques).
The book Bread by Jeffrey Hamelman (the head baker for King Arthur Flour Co) is a great book for more than you would ever want to know about flour and has a lot of good recipes and techniques for the not-in-a-loaf-pan kind of bread baking.
I have only ever used all purpose flour myself. As a young bread maker I did not know about bread flour, gluten, etc. Now I know about it, I live somewhere where I can not obtain it. To add insult to injury the all purpose flour here tends to have a rather low gluten content. That being said, with the exception of one type of bread I have always had very good results with AP flour (I also always buy the cheapest generic flour).
The most important thing in bread making is not really your gluten content or flour quality, but your experience and practice. You will find a well seasoned bread maker can make an amazing loaf out of almost any flour (even if they are picky). Likewise a first timer can destroy the very best flour.
Long post short yes you can make bread with all purpose flour.
I started that way. AP flour can be bought in larger quantities where I am. You might not even notice the difference. In fact, if you want to really see the difference, make two breads side by side with the different flours. Note the difference in water you need, the feel, and the eventual eats.
When I first started making bread, I always used AP flour. All turned out well, tasted great. I do buy bread flour now, but I cant see any difference.
To the lady that was saying her bread gets stale before she finishes it, I cut the bread in 1/2 and freeze 1/2 half. Second lot tastes as good. When thawing it do it in your fridge. Stops the soggy bottom.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.329588
| 2011-01-01T20:05:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10665",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ananth Babu",
"András Váczi",
"Edward Strange",
"Gail Wood",
"Gayle Miller",
"Kamsue101",
"Ollette Macrory",
"Pat",
"Shevliaskovic",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wayne Harmor",
"ec92",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"intuited",
"nsmyself",
"sdg",
"user212"
],
"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
}
|
12666
|
Do all modern electric stoves have "binary" heating elements?
I've noticed that the burners of some or all of the newish-style electric stoves which have a flat top have a peculiar property. They do not seem to be capable of running at a constant low temperature, instead periodically coming on high for brief-to-longer periods of time. These stoves were not, as I understand it, discount priced. They are not induction stoves, but seem to have an element embedded in the material which forms that part of the stove top.
Is this an across-the-board trend in new stoves? Is it difficult to find electric stoves which work the "old way", supplying a constant temperature? Is there an advantage to the way these newer stoves work? It would seem to be difficult or impossible to cook a range of dishes on such appliances.
Just from an engineering point of view -- what you're calling 'binary' is often called a 'duty cycle'. (where the duty cycle can either describe the % time is spends on, or how long it stays on for a given time period)
The burners on essentially all electric stoves are binary in that they are either fully on, or fully off. It would be more expensive and less energy efficient to use electronics that continuously vary the current flow through an electric element, and this would make no significant difference in temperature behavior at the cooking surface. Instead, electric stoves use a bimetallic switch which is a relatively simple way to have an on-off pattern with variable on/off times. To create constant heat, all electric stoves use materials that are bad conductors of heat between the electric element and the cookware surface to buffer the huge temperature swings at the element and produce very steady heat at the cooking surface.
The difference you are seeing between electric coil heating elements and glass-ceramic cooktops is that in the electric coils there is an inner heating element, then a thick ceramic layer, followed by an outer layer of metal. The element itself is heated in a binary manner, but all you can observe is the heat after the buffering of the ceramic layer has made up for the large fluctuations at the element (i.e. the outer metal glowing fairly constantly once it's heated). In a glass-ceramic cooktop, since the buffer layer (the glass-ceramic surface) is translucent, you are seeing the actual element glow (often this is an infrared lamp instead of a resistive wire) so you are viewing the non-buffered heating pattern. If you had a clear coil, you'd see the same heating on/off patterns in a coil stove as you do in glass-ceramic.
Consequently, if you measure the surface temperature of a glass ceramic cooktop, you should see a fairly constant temperature.
I don't think it'd actually be difficult (some power triacs should be able to do it, I believe), just more expensive & less efficient (more heat ejected into the room vs. the pot), and probably for no benefit since the temperature is already being averaged by thermal buffering.
Thanks for the explanation! I updated the answer to reflect this.
This is quite informative. Is it possible that some newer stoves do not use adequate buffering? It seems that water boils harder when the elements/lamps/magic-red-circles are lit up.
That's possible. Another thing to consider is that since the surface is transparent, there is likely additional radiant heat when the element is on. I tried turning on my glass ceramic stove and almost immediately could feel heat a good 2-3 feet above the burner, so I think that pretty clearly means that there's a good bit of radiant heat that could cause the faster boil. It seems like they could easily solve this by just coating the bottom of the glass with black paint. I wonder if the additional radiant heat is desirable, or maybe the paint just wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing.
@timmyp regarding the last sentence of your answer, I can dispute that. Easier than trying to hold a thermometer above a radiant heat source is to boil a little water. If you take a skillet that covers the entire element, and put in a 1/2 inch (or 1cm) of water, you will be able to clearly see the duty cycle. Once the water is boiling, you can see surging in the boiling activity. You will also be able to see the hot spots on your stovetop as well because some of the water will be boiling while some may be perfectly still. Even with cast iron (retains heat better) you can see the difference.
The "old school" type of cast iron hobplate, and also the type of glass ceramic hob directly derived from that design, controls power output, NOT temperature, although the more powerful types have a bimetallic switch to stop them from self-destructive OVERheating (somewhere above 300°C IIRC, this won't keep you from starting a grease fire and is likely not meant to).
Such control is by employing more than one actual heating element inside the plate, and enabling only a select set of heating elements for a given setting, also taking advantage of series circuits to arrive at lower wattages. This is not stepless, usually such stoves will have 3 or 6 steps available (see http://www.herd.josefscholz.de/7Takt/4_und_7_Takt.html for all the electrical details - German language but comprehensive schematics).
So if you are looking for a "non-binary" stove, look for models (often inexpensive) that have fixed steps in their heat settings.
Actual Rheostats will never be used since they would themselves generate SIGNIFICANT waste heat when operating; the best thing to use for stepless power output control would be a TRIAC circuit similar to a light dimmer - such might be infrequently found because it is difficult/expensive to build (for a power handling approaching 2 kilowatts compared to a few ten to hundred watts in lighting!) at that power level without creating a lot of radio interference and power quality issues (light dimmers are notorious for that already).
The disadvantage of the old cast iron type is that it is very slow to react to control inputs, the advantage is that thin walled cookware can be used (allowing for very QUICK temperature control by taking it on and off the hob, or even using another, cold hobplate as a heat sink!) since the hobplate itself is a big thermal buffer and power output is indeed constant.
With reference to the first statement that electric heating elements used to hold a constant temperature compared to today's, clearly visible, on, off cycle of heat. Older manfgr's use to make controls with rheostats that allowed the user to adjust the flow of electricity thereby controlling the amount of electricity used to generate heat in the element. Compared to today's (cheap) method of cutting out the rheostat and through historical experimentation, the control uses "timed" on, off to generate different temperatures.
It is possible to make an electrical element that uses simple on, off at the control knob and still maintain constant temperature in the element, but manfgr's seem to not have engineers smart enough to make them.
Or.... the buffering results in close enough to a constant temperature that they don't need to do anything beyond the on/off cycling.
I've never seen a stove with rheostatic controls (a rheostat being a variable resistor), however old electric stoves used to have heating elements made up of more than one segment. The control switch would turn the segments on in different combinations of series or parallel circuits, achieving a constant output at several fixed wattages. Because rheostats are resistors, they give off heat. If you used a rheostat to modulate a high wattage heating element, the rheostat itself would become very hot.
Electricity is not gas -- it's more efficient to cycle electricity, as you can't restrict the 'flow' of electricity without adding some other load (something which consumes power, like a resistor). Pulsing the power can let you send only 30% power (as compared to being on full time) without having to dump 70% of the power elsewhere.
You can still buy old school electric stoves if you want to... @Joe multi-element systems do not need cycling. But yeah, a rheostat would be the worst choice. Either you cycle but do so much quicker (essentially in milliseconds - that is what a TRIAC circuit more or less does), or you would need an inverter or variable tranformer (too much hassle).
@Jefromi you can sell them cheap stoves and heavy, awkward, expensive pans that way :) With some induction devices using slow cycling, and thin pots, you actually can get water to visibly boil periodically ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.330298
| 2011-02-28T21:49:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12666",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElmerCat",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Mary Anne",
"Runley",
"Sujit Maharjan",
"Susan GM",
"The Chef",
"derobert",
"forthrin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78580",
"intuited",
"rackandboneman",
"timmyp"
],
"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
}
|
73255
|
can you leave slow cooker on for 10 and a half hour i food takes 8hrs to cook
If you leave a slow cooker cooking for 10 and a half hours on slow, and the food takes 8 hours, will it damage anything?
its lamb shank potatoes and veg
As long as there's enough liquid in the pot to stop it burning, it should be fine. If you have meat in there it may get a little dry, if the cut is lean.
its lamb shank potatoes and frozen veg ive got gravy in there just covering the contents.
Shank is quite fatty, should be fine. It will certainly be tender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.330931
| 2016-08-19T10:21:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73255",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"g bignell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49880"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20717
|
What can I substitute for onions?
I love onions; however, someone that I cook for does not. Absolutely hates them and can tell whenever they are in the dish.
That said, so many recipes call for onion to be added. What can I use instead that would have a similar but less intense/noticeable effect?
Can they actually tell based on taste? Confession: I have an extremely picky friend who claims to dislike the taste, not just the texture. I made something with onions, pureed so they weren't detectable except by taste, told her there were no onions in it, and she liked it.
My advice is to forget you ever knew that person. What would life be like without onions. Miserable and bland! Good luck with this!
Related: Why shallots over onions?, Substitute for onions and garlic, and What can I use to flavor savory chicken stuffing instead of onion? It really would help to know the kind of recipe as well; "so many recipes" is pretty broad and not every substitution is appropriate in every recipe.
Why do they not like onions? Is it the texture, the bite, or the flavor? The reason I ask is that if they like the flavor but not the texture, you can substitute with onion powder.
possibly she picks up on the raw-sulphury tang of onions? The well cooked puree Jefromi suggested would still work but other alliums less done, probably not. maybe she hates onion breath? Some Buddhists substitute the flavor with black-salt (kala namak) or Hing (asofoetida)
The author of one of most well-known Hungarian cookbooks absolutely detested onions. Problem is, the Hungarian equivalent of mirepoix is... onions, onions, and more onions. In those recipes that even he had to admit need onions, he would call for limited quantities -- like maybe a tablespoon or so -- and preferably grated rather than chopped.
As a now deleted non-answer has pointed out, you really need to know why someone is avoiding onions. It might be a taste or texture thing, but there are also people who are allergic to onions, so 'hiding them' and/or not telling them they're in there could be a very bad thing to do. (they didn't cite their claim that 5% of the population is alergic; I'm going to guess it's highly localize if accurate ... but I know someone with an allium allergy, and they have a harder time than anyone else I know when going out to eat)
Leeks can provide some of the same flavors as onions, but the flavors are lower intensity than onions.
+1 especially since they look a bit different too.
+1 And in some dishes (long slow cooked stews, soups etc) they dissolve anyway
With the exception of dishes with "onion" in their names, more often than not you can omit onion as an ingredient. My advice would be to first try leaving the onion out entirely, see how the dish is. If it is missing something, then experiment with:
Onion powder: see how much you can get away with before your audience notices.
Garlic: add more to compensate.
Shallots and other onion-like vegetation: give it a try to see how that goes over.
It is going to require some experiment and trial & (lots of) error on your part, but you should be able to strike a nice balance in a few attempts.
With respect to onion powder: if that works, you could probably get away with some sort of puree/mash/paste of cooked onions.
As a passionate onion hater myself, I can absolutely stand behind this advice. Very few dishes call for onion as an integral ingredient. I usually either omit the onion altogether or dice it so fine that after cooking it is virtually undetectable.
In India, some Brahmin caste cooks and Jains aren't allowed to use onions or garlic in their cooking, and so they substitute Asafoetida spice instead.
Indeed. You generally have to make sure the asafoetida is well cooked to reduce pungent notes, but it comes out a lot like garlic or onion.
I think you're confusing between Jain's and Brahmins. Most Brahmins tend to eat onions and garlic.
Orthodox Brahmins, like Jains, don't eat onions & garlic and conservative Brahmins don't eat them during festivals.
I can't stand onions due to texture issues unless very finely chopped, but I find that shallots have similar effects on the flavor of many foods.
In addition to the other suggestions such as shallots, garlic, or green onions, another avenue to explore would be using a sweet yellow onion instead of a white onion or purple onion. Their flavor is a bit milder and may be more palatable compared to a white onion, though if texture is the primary problem, grinding the onion up in a food processor until it is finely chopped may be a better choice.
You may cut the stem of some vegetables in thin slice (e.g. reddish, Chinese vegetables with long rod-like stem). They feel like onion when you chew them but taste like normal green.
While cooking instead of onion you can use cabbage. It has almost the same taste, try it.
The taste is nowhere the same, except for the sulfurous stench present in both overcooked cabbage and raw onions.
While the taste might not be the same as onion, the texture is similar. Especially if you're cooking it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.331033
| 2012-01-23T20:42:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20717",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Antonios Koulianos",
"Balaji Ramakrishnan",
"BobMcGee",
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Igor Kapkov",
"Jess.b",
"Joe",
"Josh KG",
"Marti",
"Miha",
"OpiesDad",
"Pat Sommer",
"Pugmonkey",
"Roland Tepp",
"Wudang",
"ayyzad",
"dcarney999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87978",
"milesmeow",
"mvp",
"notthetup",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15611
|
What makes store brand mayo white?
So, I've finally accomplished making mayo. But it has a yellowish hue to it, obviously this is the case because of the egg yolks.
My question is this: Why is store mayo white? What makes it white?
I'm fine with mine being the color it is, but now it's driving me crazy as why it's white in the stores. Is it a preservative thing? Is it an appearance thing?
I once made mine green by only using very strongly colored olive oil... I liked it but other people weren't so keen.
Short answer: store mayonnaise has less yolks per volume oil, and yolks give most of the yellow color.
Mainly the reason is that store mayonnaise adds water, rather than relying on the moisture in the egg yolks and vinegar. To quote On Food and Cooking, page 634:
Though cookbooks often say that the
ratio of oil to egg yolk is critical,
that one can only emulsify a half-cup
or cup of oil, this isn't true. A
single yolk can emulsify a dozen cups
of oil or more. What is critical is
the ratio of oil to water: there must
be enough of the continuous phase for
the growing population of oil droplets
to fit into.
This means you can use less yolks and just add water to get your volume. Since yolks impart most of the yellow color (from plant pigments called xanthophylls), this reduces color considerably.
Store mayonnaise also uses some whole eggs, not just yolks, which do not emulsify as well, but are cheaper. This further reduces the amount of yolk in the result. Note that while home mayonnaises use yolks, store mayonnaises can get away with including egg whites by using very powerful machines to emulsify the mayonnaise, and in some cases add emulsifiers such as lecithin to help stabilize it.
The Experiment!
One whole, very jumbo egg, with a little white wine vinegar (around 15 mL). For oil, I used vegetable oil with a small splash of olive oil. The total amount of oil used was 1.5 cups, or 350 mL.
First, I tried to create mayonnaise by hand whipping with a mini-whisk. It turned out a pale yellow, and thickened some, but refused to thicken fully. This confirms that making a homemade mayonnaise by hand requires yolks or some sort of mechanical beating/blending; whole eggs just don't emulsify well enough. It's fair to say that the result is quite yellow when it isn't fully blended.
Next, I gave it a shot with my immersion blender:
See how much lighter and paler the mayonnaise is! I can only speculate that the blender created a much finer emulsion, and incorporated more air, reducing the impact of the oil and yolk color on light scattered off the micro-droplets.
Finally, I went ahead and added flavorings (a little dijon mustard, a ton of paprika, salt, pepper, and more vinegar). In this comparison against commercial mayonnaise, you can see that the result is now darker and more orange, courtesy of the paprika. It is also clear how close the color was before adding paprika.
Clearly, the use of whole eggs is the biggest part of the equation. It is clear that by adding more water to thin the emulsion and then adding oil to achieve the proper consistency, I could make this even paler, very close to store mayonnaise. The use of mechanical blenders may assist in the process, producing a finer and paler emulsion.
Recipes that include paprika also yield a more yellow-orange result; I think it is for this reason that my commercial mayonnaise uses "paprika oleoresin" in place of ground paprika.
Finally, the use of more heavily colored olive oil appears to darken the resulting mayonnaise. Given how bland my mayonnaise was with only a touch of olive oil, I would encourage you to blend in water and additional oil, rather than avoiding the olive oil. Ideally, the water would be added about a tsp at a time, when the mayonnaise is still somewhat liquid.
My home made mayo is made with whole eggs and an ordinary 600W kitchen blender. No problem. I usually use part sunflower part olive oil. The olive oil adds a lot of flavor and color. Less olive oil, whiter mayo. Nearly store mayonnaise.
How many eggs per volume oil does your nearly store-colored mayo have? I was really tempted to do a series of mayonnaises with different whole egg/yolk/water amounts and oil blends and show pictures. I had noticed that olive oil plays a role in darker mayonnaises, but I'm still convinced it's mostly related to yolks vs. whole eggs vs. water (and in my case, adding a dash of dijon mustard). If you use a whole egg, I think that's nearly half the amount of yolks needed to achieve the necessary water content for the volume.
My last batch had one whole egg, 100ml sunflower and under 150 olive oil. It gets thick. I also added 1/2 garlic clove. A tablespoon of sherry vinegar and salt.
Huh. Interesting -- that's about half the yolks I'd normally use, and I tend to get a brightly colored result. Not sure if this confirms or supplements the answer. It does demand additional experimentation, however. To the kitchen! (Oh gods, I'm going to waste so much eggs and oil.)
I tried it. Pictures will go up tomorrow. 1.5 cups vegetable oil to one whole, very jumbo egg, with some white wine vinegar. The result isn't quite as pale as grocery store mayo, but if you doubled the oil and simply added more water, you'd pretty much be there. I can also confirm that the oil is noticeably darker when I add a splash of olive oil. Also, mayo without much olive oil is pretty bland. I think that's a big part of what makes home mayo so much tastier.
You are right, not quite as pale but approx. The olive oil is a must for taste.
Love the photos and the explanation. Makes sense to me and I've learned something
Mayonnaise is an emulsion (small bubbles of watersoluble liquid suspended in fat). All the small bubbles break the light; this is why any emulsion is white per default (like milk).
Of course, when an emulsion contains a dye, it has the color of the dye (or rather, a mix of white and the color of the dye). This is what happens in homemade mayonnaise, it gets colored yellow from the pigments in egg yolk (primarily xanthophylls).
Store bought mayonnaise, on the other hand does not contain egg yolks. It is made by combining oil, emulsifiers, and proteins (usually whey proteins). I think that they can't sell you a real mayo even if they wanted to, because of the raw egg content. But even if selling it is legal, it'd have a shelf life from 3-5 days from production to consumption. This is clearly not feasible in supermarket distribution. So they just forego the eggs and make a stable sauce without it, calling it "mayonnaise". As its ingredients don't contain a dye, it stays white - or rather off-white, because the oil itself is yellow.
In some countries there are plenty of store bought mayonnaises containing real egg yolks. They use pasteurisation to make it last. Chicken can lay very anaemic eggs if feed particular diets, these are not sold as fresh eggs and are used in processed foods, and I assume also in "white" mayonnaise. Note: in some cultures white mayonnaise is not popular, and deep cream yolk colours are more popular
I believe you've confused Miracle Whip and commercial true mayonnaises. These are quite common and quite legal; I just ate some. They use pasteurization or irradiation to kill pathogens and spoilage microbes present in raw eggs. This makes them safe to store, unopened at room temperature. Preservatives and the natural acid level of mayonnaise slow bacterial growth in the fridge, after the package has been opened. However, the egg content still makes them perishable at room temperature, once exposed to bacteria.
@BobMcGee, @TFD This seems to be another regional thing. I have explicitely asked the staff of big German supermarkets (Aldi, Kaufland, Lidl) for mayonnaise made with eggs and they told me that they don't carry such items. Irradiation of eggs is probably not permitted in the EU, which would explain why they don't sell "real mayo". Pasteurization doesn't expand the shelf life above 5 days at fridge temp. I don't think that I've ever seen store bought mayo with real eggs. Maybe it is available in specialty stores, I've never looked for it very hard.
It may not be carried by German markets, due to differences in your health and food codes. However, real mayo is quite common in the US and Canada, and I can assure you that shelf life unopened is much more than 5 days. Once opened, the fridge life greatly exceeds that too. Heck, my homemade mayonnaise can last more than 5 days in the fridge in many cases.
it's not a EU thing, as mayo with pastorized eggs is sold in Italy for instance. @BobMcGee: Miracle Whip contains egg yolks too. Furthermore, on the German Kraft website I found this: http://tinyurl.com/6395jz2 which seems to indicate that egg yolks are used in Germany too (my German is very poor, I translated the page with Google, so I may be wrong).
@BobMcGee My dad was told by an actual mayonnaise manufacturer that the acid content in the mayonnaise is actually enough to keep it at safe at room temp, it only loses quality out of the fridge but is still safe. This is in the US.
As a professional chef I will disclose the secret of turning yellow homemade mayo into the white one out of love for cooking and for humanity. The only important part in it is that mayo should be thick enough. So back to our solution.
Just add, and that depends on the volume of mayo, between 2 tsp to 1/4 cup of boiling water while whisking your finished mayo and voila - your mayo turns as close as possible to white.
Obviously its white because its mostly EGG WHITE with a fraction of egg yolk powder so they can put a picture and say its made with eggs and yolk (made with cheap farmed eggs that produce very pale yolks.) Palm oil is clear and vinegar is clear and 'bleaches' any resiidual yellow (from vitamin A of which yolk consists.) Water makes EVERYTHING in cooking turn dirty grey (see pastry made with water) and not yolk the French way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.331500
| 2011-06-19T21:00:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15611",
"authors": [
"Amy Rose Bartone",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"David",
"Esther",
"KPM",
"Lifeb4kids",
"Rose",
"TFD",
"Tamlyn",
"heather",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"ist_lion",
"louissiaw",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
11104
|
What north atlantic fish can we use to make a good ceviche?
I am planning to do a ceviche entrée in Ireland but I am limited in the choice of seafood and most likely won't find Peruvian/Pacific ones. Any recommendations for? substitutes
I think just about any large flaky-fleshed fish that's not too fatty is a good candidate for ceviche. Salmon can work, though it's a tad fatty. Tuna is not a good choice, in my opinion. Cod and any kind of bass can work really well. I would think haddock or even sole or flounder could work too.
There is lots of white-fleshed fish available in the North Atlantic, and many will do great in ceviche. Take a look at the flesh and see if it seems similar to what you would usually use, and when in doubt ask the fishmonger for advice. Even if they don't know ceviche, if you can tell them what fish you'd usually use, they can probably advise you on substitutes.
Yes - I did more research on the side, apparently any fish that is not too red or compact will work (hence shellfish and shrimps). Thank you!
Tuna, Shrimp, Squid, Mackerel, etc. should all be available in your area to some degree. Any of them would be great ingredients.
It's unfortunate I can't have all of them :) but squid will definitely go into the pot. Thanks :)
I'm a sucker for Tilapia, seems to work out quite well
Tilapia is a fresh water fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.332352
| 2011-01-16T15:59:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11104",
"authors": [
"Judith m Selby",
"Marny",
"arrteme",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jeffsaracco",
"jibay",
"rasmushaglund"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16574
|
What are the purposes of the various specialty knives?
I generally tend to use a paring knife for most of my cutting, but I'm sure I should be using a different knife. Recently I also made the mistake of trying to cut a watermelon with a big, straight-edge knife, which didn't go over too well.
When I look at knives, I see a lot of different weird-looking implements and don't really understand what they're for or when I would use them vs. some other knife.
Can someone give me a quick overview of the different types of knives that one would find a typical kitchen store, and what types of food or cutting techniques they are meant for?
It depends on what you're doing to each of the things -- am I trying to take the back out of the raw chicken? then I want sheers. Bone it out? then a boning knife. Hack it up for soup-making purposes? then a cleaver. ... am I just coring out the pepper for stuffing (paring knife), or julienne (a chef or other large knife)?
Without more specific requirements, I think this is essentially a duplicate of What knives are "required" for a serious home kitchen? - any objections?
@Aaronut : I think it's too vague, but I don't think it's a duplicate. Related, yes, but not a duplicate. The answers are unfortunately leading that way, when it has the potential to explain when you'd select a boning knife or a cleaver over a chef's knife.
@Joe: OK, sounds reasonable. I've attempted an edit; we'll see if that gets reflected in the answers and votes.
Okay, I'm going to partially answer the initial question / title, as the pairing really isn't what knife for what food, but what knife for what type of cutting. And I say partially answer, as there are a lot of types of knives ... I'm only going to list the more common knives, as the japanese have a whole lot of specialty knives.
This is only the tip of the iceburg. I'm making this answer community wiki, if people want to add knives, or details of anything I listed. (although, if you want to organize it by use (eg, chopping/slicing/paring/etc, it might be better to move that to a separate answer, or this is going to get way too long)
Chef's knife -- has a large-ish blade (generally 8" or longer, ~2" high near the bolster), with a convex curve that's more dramatic near the tip. Its characteristic use is to keep the tip on the cutting board, and rock the handle down (preferably using the weight of the blade) to slice through things.
Paring knife -- a smaller knife (~3-4" long), used for paring. (cutting in the hand; peeling, stuff that doesn't require a cutting board). The blade may be concave (bird's beak), straight (sheep's foot) or convex (spear point).
Slicer -- a long (~10" or longer), straight, thin knife, used for slicing large items (eg, meats)
Bread knife -- a long (~8"+) serrated knife, used for slicing bread.
Boning / Fillet knife -- a thin, flexible blade, used for cutting between joints and stripping meat from carcasses.
Meat cleaver -- a thick, wide (often 4"+ tall) knife, used for hacking through bones or frozen items.
Vegetable cleaver / Chinese cleaver : a sharp, thin, smaller cleaver, used for delicate work that should never be used for cutting through bones.
Santoku -- cleaver-like in a design, but has a slight convex blade and closer in scale to a small chef's knife (5 to 7" long, about 1.5" tall). Good for general use.
Utility knife / tomato knife -- mid-sized (~5-6" long), serated knife. Good for when you need a small serated knife, such as um ... tomatoes. And works pretty well for cutting medium firm cheeses.
Cheese knives -- um ... see this answer on cheese cutting
Steak knives -- mid-sized knives to be used at the dinner table, that are either very, very sharp, or serated.
Table / dinner knife -- the basic sort of knife as part of a table setting
Butter knife -- a short, dull knife, possibly offset, used for spreading butter or things of a similar consistency.
And not knives, but related:
Kitchen shears -- look like your general run-of-the-mill scissors, although the good ones come apart so they can be cleaned easily.
Poultry shears -- heavier duty, often spring loaded ... look more like pruning sheers (that you'd just for trimming down a rose bush). They have a notch in one of the blades near the pivot point so that you can cut through a bone without it slipping. Ideal for cutting the backbone out of a chicken.
Bench knife / scraper -- a wide, dull piece of metal with a handle along one edge. It's used for dividing dough, scraping down your work surface (bench), but can also be used to scoop up stuff to transfer to another location (eg, dump in a pot)
Pizza cutter -- a circular blade attached to some sort of a handle (which might be more like a shroud). Can be used for lots more than just pizza, though. Great for cutting thin, but large objects. (eg, cutting breadsticks, trimming filo, puff pastry or other rolled out dough, etc.)
Vegetable peeler -- a handle with a swiveling sort of blade on it, but where the cutting edge is along a slit in the middle. You have standard peelers, and 'Y' peelers. Normally smooth blades, but may be serrated. Good for peeling the skin off items, cutting vegetables into ribbons, or shaving chocolate.
Mandoline -- a blade fixed on a planar surface. Used to make thin slices of a consistent thickness by moving the food against the blade.
The standard answer is that you actually need a grand total of three knives, and could conceivably make do with one. The usual load-out recommended is 1)6"-8" chef's knife, santoku, or cleaver, 2) 3" paring knife, and 3) long serrated knife. The chef's knife or santoku is for most work (a cleaver can be used for this if you're a mad man), the paring knife is for small work (fine vegetables and mushrooms), and the serrated blade is for crusty breads and tomatoes (which can end up crushed by straight blades). If you are embarrassed for funds, ditch the serrated knife and paring knife, in that order. If you're doing serious butchery, a 10"-12" carving knife and a small thin jointing knife are worth the investment. There's a special knife for fileting fish, but to be frank I've had one for 20 years and it's never been the best tool for the job.
Watermelon can be sliced with a large straight blade (I might pull out the 12" for that), but only with a lot of gumption. Show fear or hesitation, and you're going to make a mess.
More important than what you buy is how you use it. Search on youtube for "introductory knife skills", or take a cooking class on it. Well worth the investment.
(As should be obvious from the above, whatever you do don't buy a "knife set". You'll end up paying a lot of money for knives you will probably never need.)
Except for raw tomatoes, french bread, and peeling fruit, everything on your list ends done by my 8" santoku (or 6" ceramic, which is not something for beginners, purely on price).
+1 for the watermelon... I don't see how you could slice one with anything other than a long, straight knife. Maybe a sword...
@Caleb : the other way to cut a watermelon : go around the rind w/ a paring knife (which is difficult to make sure you connect back up again), then go around a second time at a slight angle to make a grove. Take a piece of thin string or wire (dental floss works well), wrap it around the melon in the grove, then pull. (how firmly you have to pull depends on how deep you made that first cut; you want to try to cut through the rind completely). You can also sort of saw the string through from one side.
The best knife to use is the one that you can wield comfortably, effectively, and safely. Personally, I'd use a 8" chef's knife for most of the items on your list, and I'd guess that a similar knife would be a workhorse in many kitchens, but that doesn't mean that that knife is the right one for you.
Good books on cooking (not necessarily a "cookbook") will often have information on developing your knife skills. The New Professional Chef is one book that has such information. There are also a number of videos on YouTube that demonstrate good technique. It's fine to read about or watch knives in action, but the thing that really makes a difference is practice. Buy a few pounds of celery, a big bag of onions (and Kleenex!), a pile of carrots, mushrooms, and potatoes. Practice the various cuts, slowly at first, until you feel comfortable and competent. Most of all, practice keeping the fingers of your holding hand tucked underneath and out of the way of the blade.
To answer your specific question, a decent straight-bladed knife somewhere between 7 and 10" should be fine for slicing, dicing, or chopping peppers, onion, chicken (the raw and the cooked), tomatoes, carrots, and the rest. If you want to do something like taking the core out of a tomato without first cutting it in half, use something smaller like a paring knife. You'd also use a paring knife when you want to make smaller, more controlled cuts, like peeling a fruit or vegetable. A large serrated knife is great for slicing bread, and a smaller serrated knife can be handy for fruits and vegetables that might have a slippery skin, tomatoes particularly. (If you keep your knives sharp, and you should, a straight blade is fine for tomatoes; if not, the serrated blade helps a lot.)
Those are the basics. The name of a knife usually gives a pretty good indication of what it's for: a boning knife for boning, a carving knife for carving, etc. Don't feel like you need to collect the whole set right away.
One more thing: Get yourself a good pair of kitchen scissors, i.e. one that easily disassembles for easy washing. I use my scissors for everything from snipping fresh herbs to wreaking havoc on whole chickens.
Still one more thing: you also need decent cutting boards. Decent doesn't mean expensive, just flat, large enough (bigger than the food, bigger than the knife you're using), and unlikely to rock or slide around on your countertop. If sliding is a possibility, put the board on a dish towel to stabilize it. Go for wood or plastic to protect your knives, not something hard like glass.
I found this page useful.
Myself, I use a 20cm chef's knife for most tasks. It is designed to be general purpose. Just remember it needs to be sharpened from time-to-time. And it needs to be sharp.
For some things (e.g. cutting tomatoes), a small serrated knife is good, but a really sharp straight knife will also work.
The only other knife I use regularly is a bread-knife.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.332509
| 2011-08-02T01:26:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16574",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adriane",
"Andrew Addison",
"Caleb",
"EfForEffort",
"Gyanapriya",
"Insane",
"Joe",
"Ken Vergamot",
"LowIntHighCha",
"Woppi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tofutim",
"user2000085"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19818
|
How can I use my crock pot for a stove top soup?
Some soup recipes want the soup to cook on the stove for a few hours. Most of the time it is not a problem for me to do that if I am home. However, sometimes I have to leave the house for a few hours and I do not like leaving with the stove on. To me, crock pots seem safer for that. I am not asking about the safety of leaving the house with the stove on though. I want to know what setting to put the crock pot on if the soup recipe says to simmer on low (referring to the stove).
It depends on what kind of settings your crock pot has. A low simmer on the stove is probably equivalent to something fairly low on your slow cooker, though. If all you have is warm, low, and high, you want low - in some cases it might be too hot, though. You're aiming for just short of boiling, so a setting that gets you a few bubbles now and then is good. More than that and you're cooking a bit vigorously, and on a "warm" setting you likely aren't heating it enough to cook properly and stay safe. If you have some kind of continuous settings, you can possibly adjust to get exactly where you want!
An alternative to the crock pot is the oven: preheat your oven to 200F/90C; meanwhile, assemble the soup in a heavy oven-proof pot (no plastic handles!), bring to a simmer on the stove, then cover and bake.
There are two reasons you may want to boil soup:
To hold the ingredients at the liquid's boiling point for a period of time, so that they get cooked
To reduce the soup - that is to thicken it by removing water in the form of steam
You're not likely to be able to reduce soup effectively in a crock pot. For one thing, they are only likely to bring the liquid to a very gentle boil -- usually to reduce soup we bring it to a full rolling boil, to lose as much water as possible. For another thing, crock pots are designed to be run with the lid on, so very little steam gets lost.
Crock pots are brilliant, however, for holding food at boiling point. Start it on high; as soon as you see bubbles, bump it down to low. If you're going out, just set it to low - it'll reach boiling point eventually.
If you usually add water to the soup, use slightly less when using a crock pot, because less of it will boil away.
The discussion about boiling and reduction is all perfectly true, but the OP asked about simmering, not boiling.
A simmer is a just a very gentle boil.
(1) Not exactly - a temperature just below boiling is a simmer, and while a few bubbles are fine, they're coming from the bottom of the pot, and the rest of the liquid isn't boiling - see for example the second sentence of the first paragraph of wikipedia on simmering, and (2) a gentle boil won't reduce anything, so the discussion about that and full rolling boils is extraneous either way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.333533
| 2011-12-20T15:27:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19818",
"authors": [
"Arcxjo",
"Cascabel",
"David",
"Ken Graham",
"Victoria",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87999",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19119
|
Why is my quiche soggy?
I have tried making the same quiche recipe twice, but both times it has turned out soggy. I whisked together 3 eggs, milk, half and half, and seasonings and poured it over the crust with ham and cheese sitting at the bottom. I put it in the oven at 375 for an hour. Everything was cooked, but there was liquid just coming out of it and the bottom crust was soggy. Any ideas why this sogginess is occurring?
did you blind-bake the crust first? Were there any vegetables in the filling?
What kind of milk did you use? What fat content? Try cutting back the milk a bit.
I did not blind-bake it. I used low fat milk.
It sounds like you've forgotten (or not been directed) to blind-bake the crust. Blind-baking is baking a crust without a filling so that it gets a head start, sealing it and preventing it going soggy.
To blind-bake, place the pastry in the dish as usual, dot the base with a fork in a few places, then cut a square of baking paper roughly the same size as the dish, place it on the pastry, and add some baking weights (small ceramic balls) or dry kidney beans. These stop the pastry from bubbling up.
Place in a pre-heated oven for about 20 minutes until the crust is lightly golden. Remove from the oven, remove the weights and paper (if using kidney beans, you can use them again, but don't cook them to eat!) and let the crust cool for 30 minutes before adding the filling and completing the baking process.
actually, i'd bet on too much milk over not blind baking the crust.
Custard has considerably more moisture in than a quiche, but blind baking prevents that crust from being a soggy mess.
I think you should change your recipe for the royal--- you're using "half-and-half" and milk --- so something like 3 parts milk to 1 part cream. You should try using just heavy cream for the royal. It's not a health food--and if you want to be healthier, just eat a smaller piece.
Also the pre-baking of the crust may be needed, depending on thickness of crust and height of the quiche.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.333802
| 2011-11-24T17:19:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19119",
"authors": [
"Atoosa",
"EGHM",
"JoséNunoFerreira",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marc",
"Snailryder",
"The Guest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4985",
"javaHolic",
"mrwienerdog",
"sarge_smith",
"user4296"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11340
|
Beating Egg Whites with Granulated Sugar Added for Tapioca Pudding
I've been making tapioca pudding from a recipe that calls for 2 egg whites to be beaten with 1/2c of sugar until soft peaks form. Out of quite a few tries for many minutes, the eggs will never get beyond a thick creamy stage (around the consistency of a soft yogurt).
Is it possible to get to the soft peaks stage with that much granulated sugar mixed with the eggs? Is there some trick I should try to make it work properly?
If not, might it work to replace the sugar with a corresponding amount of powdered sugar? - presumably this would give it more structure (corn starch) and less weight to support (smaller sugar granules).
The recipe I'm using is here: http://www.bobsredmill.com/recipes_detail.php?rid=858
You can replace the granulated sugar with confectioner's sugar, but due to that starch, you'll end up with an icing-like consistency. In fact, royal icing is just egg whites and confectioner's sugar.
There is actually a surprisingly large number of variables when it comes to beating egg whites, with the amount and type of sugar being just one of them. I'm not sure if this is going to be a complete list, but here's the basics of what you need to know for beating up to the "stiff peak" stage (and if you want soft peaks, then just don't beat for as long):
Age of eggs. Older eggs will whip faster and to a greater volume, but will be less stable (i.e. will deflate faster). Most people seem to find they get the best results with eggs that are about 3 days old. Very fresh eggs are difficult to whip, and very old eggs (more than 1-2 weeks) are just too unstable to work with.
Temperature. You want to separate the eggs when cold, because the whites are firmer and it will be easier for you to cleanly separate the yolks from the whites. But you always want to allow the whites themselves to come up to room temperature before you start beating them, for the exact opposite reason - the proteins are less firm, more stretchy, and will more readily accept air.
Impurities (especially fat). Make sure you don't have any impurities. Use a clean, dry mixing bowl and whisk. Don't let any of the yolk get in; even a trace amount will significantly decrease the amount of air you can incorporate, and if you happen to contaminate the whites this way, it's probably better just to start over.
Salt and acid both help egg whites to coagulate, which you might remember if you've ever had to poach them. That has a stabilizing effect which will allow you to whip the eggs longer and firmer without blowing a hole in the web of proteins, and will also help to prevent (or at least slow down) the foam/meringue from deflating afterward. You don't need more than a pinch of salt, and the traditional amount of acid is either 1/8 tsp cream of tartar (preferred) or 1/4 tsp lemon juice or vinegar. You'll want to start adding these early, as soon as you see the egg whites starting to foam.
Finally, sugar is critical to attain the stiffest peaks, but it is critical that you do not add it too early or too quickly! Sugar serves a similar role here as it does in baking; it dissolves in the water, absorbing it and drawing it away from the proteins, which improves stability a lot. But this particular type of stabilization is a double-edged sword; if you add it too early, it will interfere with the coagulation process and it will take forever to beat them to peaks. And if you dump in all the sugar at once, it will just deflate the foam you've worked so hard to produce (and possibly break it, requiring you to start all over again with new eggs).
In general, you want to add the sugar right after you see soft peaks beginning to form, and incorporate it very gradually while beating. If you want the final result to be soft peaks instead of stiff peaks (which you do, in this case), you can add the sugar slightly early, but err on the side of caution here. Stiffer peaks won't harm your pudding that much, but no peaks definitely will. I also suggest using superfine sugar, because the finer the granules, the quicker they will dissolve; but don't use icing sugar unless you want icing.
Finally, don't over-beat the whites. As I alluded to above in the salt/acid section, the beating process involves stretching the proteins and incorporating air; incorporate too much air and you'll just break the proteins, and then you'll have to throw the eggs out and start all over again. This is especially easy to do accidentally if you use cold eggs.
If you keep all of these things in mind then you can whip the eggs all the way to a nice stiff meringue; soft peaks should be a piece of cake.
I think the most important tip here is, don't add the sugar too early. It sounds like @timmyp might have been adding the sugar straight to the egg whites, and then starting to whip, and that just doesn't work.
@Marti: I'm guessing that's what happened, but I have seen recipes spoiled by 3-week-old eggs or near-frozen egg whites as well. You can technically get it to whip if you added the sugar too early, as long as you're prepared to keep the mixer running for half an hour...
Thanks! I tried again yesterday beating the eggs to soft peaks and then gradually adding superfine sugar while still beating. It worked quite a bit better. It didn't really retain the soft peaks from before I started adding the sugar but was still significantly stiffer than previous attempts. I'll try again adding the sugar even slower and maybe a little earlier to ensure I avoid overbeating and see if that improves it.
@Marti - yes, I was adding the sugar straight to the egg whites before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.334028
| 2011-01-21T23:36:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11340",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carl D",
"Infinity",
"Marina",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"scunliffe",
"timmyp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11943
|
Making stovetop potroasts
I just made a pot roast on the stove, vaguely following this recipe.
My altered ingredients list would look something like this:
some quick sprays of oil on the saucepan and meat while searing
Chunky bits:
big hunk of meat (a few pounds)
2 chopped onions
a bunch of little potatoes
2 smallish carrots
Liquid stuff added to the broth:
a few good shots of Bragg's All-Purpose Seasoning
between ½ and 1 Cup of white vinegar
maybe ¼ C of molasses
last dregs of the Worchestershire sauce (a couple of tsps)
a tablespoon or two of garlic powder
some "pumpkin pie spice" — cinnamon, cloves, etc. about 2 tsp.
maybe ¼ C of olive oil
enough water to cover the roast in the pot.
Other than the ingredients list, my deviations from the recipe were I think limited to the fact that I put the carrots and potatoes in at the beginning. I may have let it simmer a bit (<= 30 min) longer than the prescribed amount of time.
The roast was not tied during cooking.
It turned out to be not unpalatable, but decidedly more bland and dry than I'd hoped for. The broth, on the other hand, is a bounding meadow of savoury deliciousness.
Other than the obvious — adding more spices — is there something I can do to future roasts to encourage more flavour to congregate in the meat?
My mother taught me to insert bits of garlic into slits made into the flesh of the roast before searing and then cooking it, something like what's described here.
Some people like cloves in there as well, though I more prefer that with bbq pork. For lamb, it's garlic and green olives. So, accordingly, you should be able to get creative and experiment with injecting some other things so the roast will take on flavors you prefer.
Nice, I'll try that trick next time.
One other thought.. overly trimming fat will reduce flavor, leave some on there.
Trim fat? People do that?
Did you brown the meat before adding the liquid? (As described in the recipe.) You might consider browning the onions (and the other veggies) before adding the liquid as well. That would add lots of flavor for very little extra work. (It's vital to actually take the time to brown the meat, since that helps enormously to add flavor to the actual chunks of meat.)
In addition, I don't see salt and pepper in your ingredient list. Did you omit them from the roast, or just forget to write them in? I ask because often salt can make the difference between good flavor and blandness. Similarly, pepper can add a nice bite -- particularly when added both at the beginning and the end of the cooking process.
Other nice flavors to consider are adding some bay leaves, or herbs (the original recipe calls for basil, but oregano or rosemary would add nice notes), or lemon peel, or . . . the list goes on and on. Add what you like, and see how much of a difference it makes. (I'd probably add a touch of either cayenne or red pepper flakes, since I like a touch of heat -- but that depends on your taste.)
I would also second Zanlok's suggestion for adding fresh garlic. In addition, consider changing your acid (the white vinegar) for something with a bit more assertive flavor, such as lemon juice, cider vinegar, or wine vinegar. I find that white vinegar (while great for many uses) is a bit too one-note for interesting cooking unless you've got lots of other flavors.
I did brown the meat. I guess I left the oil out of the ingredients list. Also it seems like the broth is plenty flavourful, but that the meat just didn't absorb very much of it. Do any of the things you mention help with that? I gather that searing is supposed to help lock in the meat's flavour.. maybe this would have worked better if the roast had been tied?
Salt should help with the meat. You could also consider putting salt and pepper on the meat before you brown it. I'd also check to make sure that you have a tight seal on your pot -- and check your cooking temperature to make sure it's at a LOW simmer. Overcooking braised meat is really only an issue if it's too hot.
Well, unless you added some salt, or your "few good shots of Bragg's" was quite a bit, you might have been pretty seriously short on salt. Consider the volume of water, meat and veg you'd be trying to season. People get used to eating beef without salt so maybe that's not it, but if you're not already used to it, the meat will seem really bland if you don't use any (or very little).
Beyond that, I always remove the meat and most of the veg from the cooking liquid and then reduce the liquid some (or thicken it with a little starch, but that's only if I'm in a big rush). Then I can serve that as a gravy/sauce to go over everything, which dresses things up substantially and brings that lovely flavor to the meat. Reducing or thickening it helps it cling to the meat, which makes it nicer.
I would guess it was about half a cup of Bragg's.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.334473
| 2011-02-09T00:19:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11943",
"authors": [
"Martha F.",
"Tex-Mex Gerry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"intuited",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91404
|
How much water to use when cooking pasta in an Instant Pot
The de facto Instant Pot manual at hippressurecooking has a page on cooking pasta but doesn't explain how to determine a proper amount of water to use when cooking pasta.
Figuring out the liquid is easy (no sputters) The hip method for
pressure cooking pasta does not actually measure any of the cooking
liquid. As noted in the recipe, only the amount of water that is
needed for the amount of pasta to be cooked is used. This ensures
that there is almost no liquid left in the cooker by the time the
pasta is finished cooking – nothing left to foam or sputter when
pressure is released.
There follows a recipe that instructs to "Pour in the pasta, the tomato puree, and just enough water to cover the pasta". 2 cups of tomato puree.
So not much help there. Presumably the amount of water that is needed for the amount of pasta to be cooked is related to the weight of the pasta rather than its volume—covering farfalle or rotini is going to require a lot more water per cup of pasta (but perhaps the same amount per gram) than is covering lasagne or spaghetti, because their shape makes these flat pastas more dense.
Is there a simple ratio of water to weight of pasta that will give consistent results with a variety of pasta shapes? If not, is there a chart somewhere that gives a water-to-pasta ratio for various shapes?
Cover the pasta would be a volume not weight thing. How is add enough water to cover the pasta difficult?
Maybe this answer could give you a starting point.. If you measure your pasta by weight, and it's always of the same type (flour,+or- egg, etc), I wouldn't have thought the shape makes any difference
@paparazzo It's not difficult at all, but it doesn't make sense that it would work for both flat pasta and twirly twisty pasta that has a lot more volume per weight. BTW original question was miswritten and has been corrected.
You're correct, the water ratios may be slightly different between different types of noodles. In general, you're covering the noodles so that they will actually have a chance to soak up the water though, as with a pressure cooker, you don't have a chance to stir the noodles and ensure equal saturation.
When making pasta in the instant pot, you'll also need to keep in mind the layering effect of your ingredients. Tomato based sauces are prone to burns, so you want to keep them on the top of the pot. Put your noodles on the bottom, and if you feel that it's taking an excessive amount of water to cover them, you can leave the last 1/2 inch or so exposed, so long as you cover it with your tomato sauce, or some other liquid.
I heard it was two cups per 8 ounces pasta. Cooking rarely scales linerly because volume is cubic. But 4 cups for a lb shouldnt be two bad. Also affecting the al dente ness would be quick release verse graudule release.
I don't think the thing about volume being cubic is relevant. If you're measuring one dimension of a cubic container of water, that would be relevant, but the mass of an amount of water scales linearly with its volume. So n fl. oz of water have a mass of n oz, or on metric, n cm³ of water have a mass of n grams.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.334974
| 2018-08-02T21:34:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91404",
"authors": [
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"intuited",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30487
|
How effective are modern home refrigerators at keeping other foods cool when hot food is introduced to the space?
In the comments to this answer, there is some discussion as to whether putting significant mass of hot food into a refrigerator will unacceptably warm the other food already inside.
Elsewhere on Seasoned Advice, Athanasius argues passionately that with modern refrigerators, this is no longer an issue, including a personal story of measuring the temperature in their own fridge over time after putting in hot stock. This is indicative, but only represents one particular refrigerator, one method, and one trial.
So the question is, is there substantive scientific or engineering data (as from manufacturers) indicating whether or not modern home-type refrigerators--and I do mean the more common makes (in the US, this would be brands like Kenmore, GE, or Whirlpool, not the premium "restaurant quality" brands like Sub Zero)--to address this issue? (I failed completely to find such data using terms like "refrigerator recovery time" when googling myself.)
Can an average refrigerator from the last 5 to 10 years handle, for example:
One gallon (4 liters) of hot stock
or a full sized hot casserole dish, like a lasagna
put in hot (say 170-180 F), without allowing the temperatures of nearby foods to rise past the 40 F level (or at least not far past it, and not for long)?
Do the have sufficient flow of air to convect the heat away, and enough capacity in the heat engine to provide the necessary cooling?
I will admit, I have believed that putting volumes of hot food in the a home fridge is a bad idea, even for modern equipment since home refrigerators are not blast chillers.
Note: this question is not about how fast the introduced hot food cools, and whether that is safe or wise. This question is about the effect on other foods in the fridge.
Not an advisable practice. Best to use an ice bath first.
@zanlok We know it is not advisable, that is not the point of this question :-) See the note at the bottom of the question.
Understood, but thought it should be stated. FDA has industry regulations for cold holding that may be instructive as to "how", though it doesn't answer your question of "why".
@zanlok Yeah, sure, you betcha. I had the health inspector training getting on 25 years ago now :-) Glad I never actually did that for a living.
As I referenced in my comment that is linked here, official websites of food safety organizations agree-- FDA: "Despite what some people believe, putting hot food in the refrigerator doesn't harm the appliance." USDA: "Hot food can be placed directly in the refrigerator or it can be rapidly chilled in an ice or cold water bath before refrigerating." I don't know what technical research such recommendations are based on, but they agree about the practice.
And again, please note that I am not advocating putting large quantities of hot food in the fridge. Use proper cooling methods (ice baths, etc.). However, if for some reason you only have two choices: (1) put directly in fridge, or (2) leave out on counter to cool, I'd generally choose the first in most modern fridges -- unless the hot container would of necessity be in direct contact with other food... in which case you have a food safety problem no matter which you choose.
There's some basic physics at play. I've managed to melt much of the contents of a mini-freezer after putting in a few liters of boiling hot liquid in there. A good refrigerator or freezer, especially a fancy one with a blast chiller, might change the parameters of the dynamic a bit, but the basic dynamic that it takes a certain amount of energy to cool food doesn't, so the specifics will always depend on how much, how hot, and how cold everything else is, in addition to the cooling power and insulation of the fridge itself.
In the answer linked in the question, I already provided the results of a simple experiment I carried out a few years ago with an infrared thermometer. However, tonight I decided to try something slightly better with something closer to a worst-case scenario. I don't think it definitively answers the question, but it gives another few data points.
I heated 4 quarts of water in a 6-quart stainless pot (with a glass lid) to a rolling boil. I chose water since I didn't want to risk spoiling a large quantity of food. Also, in some ways, water is a worst-case scenario. It doesn't hold as much heat as, say, the equivalent volume of chili, but the heat circulates better in a thin liquid. That means that the entire pot will stay at roughly the same hot temperature as it cools, rather than developing a cooler outer layer (as in a pot of chili), which will start to transfer heat more slowly after the initial burst.
Meanwhile, I inserted a digital probe thermometer with a cable to the display (usually for measuring meat temps in an oven) into a quart container of yogurt. The probe was stuck through the seal in the top of the container, so very little air should have been able to get in or out. The probe measures temperatures down to 32F accurately. I taped the probe in position so the tip was immersed in the yogurt about 1/8 inch in from the edge of the container.
At the start of the experiment, the temperature of the yogurt was 38F. Using an infrared thermometer, I could measure surface temps of many other items in the fridge, which varied from about 33F to 40F. (There were a couple outliers, due to inaccuracies about the way infrared thermometers deal with reflective surfaces.)
When the water was boiling, I measured the temperature with a separate probe thermometer: it registered 212F. I quickly put the lid on the pot and whisked it immediately into the fridge and shut the door.
The yogurt was less than 2 inches from the pot. I allowed just enough room for a reasonable amount of air circulation. The yogurt was oriented with the temperature probe toward the hot pot, so it should measure the area of the yogurt that would rise in temperature the most. Also, as noted, the probe was only a fraction of an inch from the edge of the container, so any fluctuations even near the surface of the food should be registered.
Approximate times of temperature change in the yogurt are noted here:
0 minutes: 38F
~13.5 minutes: 39F
~26.5 minutes: 40F
~44.0 minutes: 41F
~64.5 minutes: 42F
~125 minutes: 41F
I was only checking the temperature every 10 minutes or so near the end, so the timing of the move back down to 41F may be slightly off. At 150 minutes (2.5 hours), I stopped the experiment and removed the pot from the fridge, since I didn't want to waste any more time or energy cooling down a large pot of water.
Since little was happening with the temperature of the yogurt, I did open the fridge at 30 minutes to look around. Using an infrared thermometer, I could tell that some container surfaces on the same shelf as the hot pot had reached the upper 40s with a maximum of about 50F. (This included a dark surface container that is gray and black; it was not significantly different in temperature from the surface of the light-colored yogurt container.) However, a probe inserted into these containers showed that no food inside was above 40F after 30 minutes. Note that one large plastic container on that shelf had a large empty space near the top, and the surface temp for the empty portion rose to about 60-65F, but the bottom of container that actually contained juice remained about 40F, just like the yogurt.
Using the infrared thermometer, I measured the surface temperatures of food on shelves above and below the pot -- they barely budged a degree. Nothing on any shelves above or below the pot was above 40F. I checked these again every 30 minutes or so, with the same results.
(Note that 40F is not a hard cut-off point for bacterial growth. Many types of spoilage bacteria grow in the 32-40F range, and they merely grow incrementally faster as the temperature gets warmer above 40F. Spending an hour or two at 41F or 42F or even 45F is unlikely to cause problems -- this is a typical temperature range for most items kept on refrigerator doors -- though to be absolutely safe, avoid putting highly perishable items such as raw meats in areas with temperature fluctuations.)
I could feel warmer air circulating around the pot when the door was open, but it does not seem to have been enough to significantly alter temperatures other than in the items on the same shelf -- and there only by 2-4 degrees.
I also did check the water temperature a few times:
0 minutes: 212F
60 minutes: 156F
120 minutes: 128F
150 minutes: 116F
Since the temperature of the yogurt began to drop a little after 2 hours, it seems that even a gallon of water at about 130F wasn't enough to sustain a temperature increase in the fridge -- even on immediately adjacent items on the same shelf.
So, what do I conclude from this experiment?
Even a very large quantity of very hot food (a gallon of boiling water) was only able to move adjacent food items by a few degrees, and even that only might occur in outer layers of the food. Items on shelves above or below were barely impacted at all.
I would note that I did not place any food directly in contact with the hot pot, because that would obviously cause an unacceptable rise in temperature (the pot continued to feel quite hot to the touch even after a couple of hours). But with only a couple inches of space around the pot, the adjacent foods did not rise significantly in temperature.
I should also emphasize that surface temperatures of containers did rise up to 10-12 degrees on adjacent items in that first hour, even if the interior of the food varied much less. (By about 1-1.5 hours, the surface temps had settled back down to within a degree of the internal food temps.) I think this observation suggests that caution should be applied to keep highly perishable foods (e.g., uncooked meats) away from any very hot containers, though this seems like common sense.
Perhaps the most surprising result from my perspective is that the temperature rise was halted by the time the water temperature got down to maybe 140F or so. I doubt many people are placing foods a lot hotter than 140F directly in the fridge. Also, from a food safety perspective, the food could be cooled outside to 140F (which is when bacteria may begin to grow again), and then placed in the fridge for the rest of the cooling. In my fridge, anyway, it seems doubtful that even a relatively large quantity of food 140F or lower would cause things to heat up around it.
Again -- please note that I am NOT advocating this practice, since the hot food itself could take quite a few hours to cool down in the fridge, potentially causing spoilage in the hot food. (For large quantities, use an ice bath, or break down into small containers and allow plenty of air circulation in the fridge.) But, except in extreme circumstances, there should only be a minor impact on the rest of the food in a modern well-functioning fridge.
In any case, putting hot food directly in the fridge is a safer option than leaving it on the counter to cool.
I only know of one home fridge that has a blast chiller in it, and it's from LG (the LFX31935ST). Most manufacturers aren't going to give specs on how well they handle risky behavior for fear of a lawsuit (as they could be seen as promoting risky behaviour).
The only information that I can find about how quickly the LG can transfer heat is from this blurb:
Want a cold drink but nothing’s already in
the fridge? Just pop a beverage in LG’s
Blast Chiller. It needs less than five minutes
to chill, so your ice-cold beverage will be
ready in no time.
So, assuming if you put in 12 oz at room temperature, it'll get it down to a typical fridge temp in 5 minutes. I don't know the thermal density of beer, soda or stock, but we'll go with the cross oversimplification of saying they're both mostly water so that we can get a rough estimate.
If our room temperature is near 70F, and fridge temp is 40F, this means that we can chill down 12oz at 6 deg. F per minute. A gallon of stock is 128oz, so it'll take ~10x longer. We're starting from 170-180F, so we've got to move it ~140F, not 40F, so ~3.5x longer.
So, that gallon of stock is going to take:
( 128 / 12 ) * (( 180 - 40 ) / (70 - 40)) * 5 minutes
= ( 32 / 3 ) * ( 14 / 3 ) * 5
= 248 minutes = more than 4 hours
I know what you're thing ... but it says 'under 5 minutes', so it might be 1 minute. That's possible, but if it did then they'd advertise it, so you don't blow up your beer when it hard freezes. They can't know what the starting room temperature is, or how insulative the container is. (a can of beer will chill down faster than a bottle). Or even what the beverage is (sugar solutions If we assume 4 minutes to cold, then we're looking at (4/5) the time, so about 200 minutes (still more than 3 hours).
As a second point of data, we have an early episode of Mythbusters, where they tried to cool a 6 pack. They don't mention their starting temperature, but they said it took 40+ minutes. Using the same assumed 70F start and 40F finish:
( 128 / (12 * 6)) * (( 180 - 40 ) / (70 - 40)) * 40 minutes
= ( 16 / 9 ) * ( 14 / 3 ) * 40
= 331.8 minutes = more than 5.5 hours
They're surprisingly similar, considering that one's for a blast chiller, and one's for a normal fridge. I suspect the '40+' is they stopping at 40 minutes, before it got down to temp. So let's compare it to the Mythbusters' time for being put in the freezer:
( 128 / (12 * 6)) * ((180 - 40) / (70 - 40)) * 25 minutes
= (331.8 * 25 / 40 )
= 207.4 minutes = about 3.5 hours
Maybe the blast chiller times are for a 6 pack. (but then again, with the convection in a blast chiller, maybe that's less relevant and surface to mass ratio matters more)
... but all of these suggest that you're an idiot if you put a gallon of hot stock in the fridge, as even if there's no transfer to other things nearby, the middle of the stock remains in the danger zone too long and probability will catch up to you sooner or later.
We can't actually estimate the effect on the other things in the fridge without knowing a whole lot more:
What containers are things in, and their insulative value?
Are you opening the fridge repeatedly? (which is going to replace the air in the fridge with room temp. air, which might actually be a benefit in this case)
How close are other things to the hot item?
What is the specific heat (thermal density) of all of the items? (and are they near a phase change?)
What's the mass of the vessel the hot item is in? (180F of cast iron isn't the same as a plastic container).
Is there a lid on the stock (rate of evaporative cooling)?
What shape are the containers? (surface to mass ratio)
Where in the fridge did you put the item? (cold air falls, pushing hot air up)
As such, it's not an answerable question other than to say that yes, there's an effect on the stuff around it, particularly those that may be in contact with it.
ps. Thermo was one of the two classes (along with fluid mechanics) that I almost failed in college ... and that was more than a decade ago, so it's entirely probable that I'm leaving out some other factors that would be signficant to the problem)
The question was never about the wisdom of putting the hot item in refrigerator. I am very well aware of the science on that. I would never do so. I like to freeze zip lock bags full of water or 16 oz water bottles to use in rapidly chilling my own stock, because I do know this. The question is about the accuracy of the assertion made elsewhere that it is a myth with modern refrigerators that putting hot items in the refrigerator endangers the other items in the refrigerator. And to that, thus far, we have no information at all.
@SAJ14SAJ : so either do the experiment yourself, find a high school student looking for ideas for a science fair project, or write into the Mythbusters to see if they'll do it. For home use, you'd likely need a bunch of home weather station type devices (either wired, with the display outside the fridge), or the wireless (once done, recycle them as gifts for friends and family). If you have access to one, there are plenty of industrial data loggers that can take multiple thermocouple probes ... but they're not as cheap. ps. I forgot to mention color of the containers.
Danfos, Embraco are some of the world's largest refrigerator compressor suppliers, their web sites have plenty of technical documents. You may notice that, in general, run-time is not listed, as most compressors are designed for continuous use, as they would be in the tropics etc. So they can cool large amounts of hot food, it's just a matter of time
Most domestic refrigerators generally don't have a large internal air flow, so most heat conduction is via every object in the refrigerator. Due to entropy this makes little difference to most objects unless you put a large amount of hot food in contact with a smaller amount of cold food. e.g. placing a pot of hot stock on top of a tray of sausages; the sausage will get quite warm!
A domestic refrigerator will have a cooling capacity of something like 10 to 20°C for a Kg of food in an hour (rough rule of thumb, there are many variables)
Refrigerator compressors multiply their input power by a factor of 2 to 3. So a 500 W refrigerator compressor will remove 1000 W to 1500 W of heat. This assumes the exterior air temperature is within desired operating ranges (this is a simple explanation, not science)
The good reason for not placing hot food in the refrigerator is that it is very power inefficient. So for domestic situations (unless you need maximum refrigeration life for the food in question) just cool it for a hour or two on the bench, or in a water bath before placing it in the refrigerator
The core of this answer is the formula 10 C / kg / hr. 10 C delta in what? Per kg of what?
Did you actually the cooling capacity is (10 C * kg) / hr?
@SAJ14SAJ don't understand your questions? Kg of food, it a rule of thumb, not an absolute
Your original formula implies the more food in the refrigerator, the more heat the engine moves out per unit time.
@SAJ14SAJ ahh, not a formula, but it looks like one, hmmm
hm perhaps it's that the compressor is sized to remove heat at 10C/kg-capacity/hr and does so regardless of the actual contents at the time?
I'm going to add a separate answer, as I was making some black bean soup today, and decided to perform the experience. (but onyly for about 15 min, then it went into the bath to chill down).
So, the setup : a 6qt lexan container, filled with soup that was between 4L and 4qt (based on the markings on the side), and tightly lidded. It was placed on a half sheet tray, set on top of the lower shelf on my dishwasher. Next to it was 24 oz glass jar, filled with about 10oz of pickle juice. (bread & butter, from my last batch of refrigerator pickles; I save the juice for salad dressings, tuna salad, etc.) The two pickle juice was selected as it had been in the fridge, and was something that I was willing to sacrifice. (this was done in the empty dishwasher, as I wasn't willing to sacrifice the whole fridge).
An indoor/outdoor thermometer had the outdoor probe end taped onto the outside of the jar, on the side facing the hot soup container. It was attached with a small strip of gaffer's tape (note; see problems at 4:46pm)
I did not get a starting temperature on the soup; my instant read thermometer was at my neighbor's (poor planning on my part, as I was getting ready to put the soup away, I remembered the thermometer in my greenhouse, and decided to try this)
Timings are based on my cell phone:
4:36pm : 51.2F
4:37pm : --- (none taken, realized my pen didn't write and had to go get one)
4:38pm : 58.6F
4:39pm : 60.8F
4:40pm : 62.7F
4:41pm : 64.9F
4:42pm : 69.6F
4:43pm : 74.8F
4:44pm : 78.8F
4:45pm : 82.2F **
4:46pm : 77.5F
4:47pm : 75.3F
4:48pm : 75.2F
4:49pm : 76.1F
4:50pm : 76.4F
At 4:45pm I had planned to end the experiment, and retrieve the soup to put into the ice bath. When I opened the dishwasher, I found that the temperature probe had fallen off the jar, and was sitting about 1" from the soup, but more importantly was near the sheet tray, not up the side of the jar. So I re-attached it, and continued to record times 'til it looked like it was heading up again.
Of course, this was measured from the outside of the container, so it doesn't accurately reflect the temperature of the juice itself; it would've been at best the temperature of the outside wall of the container, and at worst the air temp next to the container.. It wasn't in a fridge, but it was in a similar environment (closed, white reflective walls) albeit with no other items in there, and no compressor to chill the air. Different distances from the container would likely have show different temperature curves; direct contact, as may be the case when trying to cram a large container into an otherwise occupied fridge, would have increased temperature faster (as shown by the first 10 min).
So ... if we just look at the period between 4:40 and 4:50, that's a 13.7F increase.
Oh... and ambient air temp raised from 62.6F to 64.6F during this, based on the 'indoor' reading on the probe. I have no idea if that was heat radiating out from the dishwasher (which would've been retained better by a fridge), or that I hadn't allowed the probe enough time to come up to temperature after taking it from my greenhouse (as there's snow on the ground right now).
And I have no idea how well the probe is calibrated ... I had it in the fridge while I was typing this, and it's reading 41.7F, which is higher than the 39F reported by my fridge thermometer ... I'm assuming that it's precise, but not accurate. (so the change in temp is good, the absolute temp might not be)
Joe, I admire the initiative for an experiment. However, I think the chilling effect of the refrigerated air coupled with the air circulation deliberately produced in the refrigerator would significantly alter these results. Also, as you noted, you were mostly measuring the temperature of the air, which had been warmed by convection currents that would be produced around a large hot mass sitting in an enclosed space (which would be cold circulating air in a fridge). I doubt your pickle juice moved by more than a degree or two in those 15 minutes.
@Athanasius: a degree or two could be enough when your fridge is at 40F. (as mine might be). And this was just one single experiment. There are way too many variables, as I stated in my above answer, and for full scientific rigor, you'd have to attempt to eliminate all of the variables. I could have done many, many things worse. (a dark annodized pot to increase radiant heat; placing the hot pot in the fridge, to increase the hot mass, a dryer item (lower specific heat), placing them closer together, etc.) This is but one data point; take your complaints about my method, and add another.
40 F is NOT a magical number. Most spoilage bacteria continue to grow below 40 F (generally down to near freezing), and bacteria do not magically begin growing significantly faster at 40 F. It's just an arbitrary round number temperature chosen by many food safety organizations. Food sitting at 41 F or even 45 F will spoil faster than at 40F, but most things would still need days at that temperature to become dangerous. Once you start getting into the 55 or 60F range, you might have a problem in a matter of hours, but a short time at 41F is NOT significantly more dangerous than 40F.
by the way - I already mentioned an experiment I did in the link that was contained in the question which had a methodology much closer to the proposed question here (i.e., it actually took place in a fridge). I was satisfied with the results, but tonight decided to do something slightly better, which I'll write up in an answer here momentarily. Also, frankly, I take offense at your commentary here: I wasn't offering "complaints" about your method. I was merely providing a few reasons why the results may not be accurate, in, I would note, a rather polite manner.
First perform a heat balance and ignore the heat transfer rate
From what I could find a modern refrigerator is about 700 btu / hour. That information does not seem to be readily published.
How many btu to to cool a gallon of water from 180 to 40
1 btu / F / lb * 140 F * 1 gal * 8.3 lb / gal = 1162 btu
From a raw BTU about about 1.7 hours
Looking at the danger zone (140 - 40)
About 1.2 hours
It is only supposed to be in the danger zone 2 hours
1.2 hours is 100% heat transfer efficiency so need 1.2 / 2.0 efficiency = 0.6.
With decent circulation should get transfer efficiency of 0.6 or more.
So now lets look at a poor little yogurt. Assume it has the same capacity of water and is 6 oz and starts at 34 F. 1 btu / F / lb * 6 F * 6 oz * 1 lb / 16 oz = 2.25 btu. So from a btu perspective the little yogurt is over powered 516:1.
But for the yogurt is a temperature thing. If the compressor can deliver cold air that is all that matters. A compressor / evaporator is very good at delivering a temperature. It might not be delivering the volume at that temperature but it delivers the temperature. The compressor has to condense the cooling fluid - if it cannot condense it will lock up.
Heat transfer is radiation, conduction, and convection. Don't have the poor little yogurt touching the hot object or even right next to it.
For sure don't have the hot item open with evaporative heat loss. Evaporitve heat loss is rapid and you can over power the compressor with a volume of hot liquid. With evaporative heat loss the compressor must knock the moisture out of the air and that is a lot of work. Even a lasagna should have an air tight seal. Don't use the pan - put it in sealed plastic container.
The hot items and cold items face the same heat transfer so that is kind of a wash. A small item is at a disadvantage as it has less capacity and a greater surface area to mass ratio.
I know you say you don't care about the cooling the hot item but that is really the more important part. You need the btu / hr to get from 140 - 40 in two hours. If you don't have the raw btu then you lose.
5 gallons of stock in an open vessel is too much for a common residential refrigerator.
A liter is easily safe. A gallon seems quite tolerable. At two gallons might start pushing it. 140 is a lot less work than 180. Even if you are in a hurry just put the sealed container in cold water for a few minutes.
Do I have citations no. This is just engineering envelope level calculations.
Assuming nothing is directly adjacent to the item in question, you have to consider what will happen when you put a heated mass in your fridge. Heat will transfer to the air first, then the solid matter. Before much heat can be transferred to the other food items in your refrigerator, the thermostat will trigger and cool the air. The air will then carry more heat from your hot food, until the stat is triggered again. The cycle will continue until the system reaches equilibrium. So I don't think you run much risk of heating the surrounding food substantively.
You do have to bear in mind that in a perfect world, worst case is you shave a few hours off the fridge life of some of your perishables, but our world is far from ideal. You are assuming the food in there wasn't already at the borderline of safety when you put it into the refrigerator, in which case a small warming influence may be enough to put it over the top. This seems unlikely, but you have to decide if it's worth the risk.
I am sorry, but this in no way answers the actual question asked, even though most of the facts and reasoning are correct.
@SAJ14SAJ : it might not answer the thermodynamics problem, but he's right. Every time you do it you introduce risk and the odds of food poisioning. If you do it enough times, odds are, you'll either kill yourself or get very, very sick.
Found the link I was looking for -- an NYT editorial (article?) from two days ago talking about repeatedly doing things with a low risk
@Joe I never had any intention of actually doing this, and I am completely aware of the nature of risk, the nature of randomness, and the nature of the law of large numbers. My answers in many food safety questions I think demonstrate this. I only want to know if the common wisdom assertion about the capability of the devices is true or not, as it has come up in discussions of other questions.
Question is: How effective are modern home refrigerators at keeping other foods cold when hot food is introduced in the space?
This is actually a socio-economic question rather than a technical question. The reason for this is the refrigerator manufacturer has to be economically competitive in the marketplace so he's only going to provide sufficient refrigeration capacity to maintain a 'standard set' of contents at a fixed cool/freezing temperature during steady state conditions plus a little extra in case non-refrigerated items are added. Recent experience with my own refrigerator (Whirlpool W4TXN ... circa 2011) has shown that even adding a fruits and veges from weekly shopping will cause the 'frig to run constantly for two days straight to bring the temperature down. And these weren't even heated - just at room temperature.
Okay, this is back-of-the envelope stuff - you would need a professional refrigeration engineer to actually calculate this out properly. The refrigeration system is a fixed capacity system that turns on and off, but only delivers the constant amount of cooling capacity any time it is running. The refrigerator volume including both the freezer and the cool box are not a heat exchange device - the heat is removed only from the freezer with warm air from the cool box rising through vents up to the freezer section where the heat is rejected to the surrounding air through the refrigeration section. Considering the heat capacity of air is about a quarter that of water (0.24 Btu/lb vs 1 Btu/lb), you would need a substantial air flow to remove the heat of a liquid.
Here's a simple calculation. One pound of water is about 1 pint - so if you have a 4-quart stock pot you have 8 pints or 8 pounds of water. If your 'hot' contents are, say 200 degF, the amount of heat you want to remove is 8 pints x 1 lb/pint x 1 Btu/lb x (200 - 40 degf) = 8 x 160 = 1280 Btu. The air flow rate needed to remove this amount of heat is given by what's called a sensible heat equation, spoken thus: cfm = load/(1.1xdeltaT). If you wanted to remove that much heat in, say, 1 hour, you would need a blower inside the refrigerator with a capacity to move [(1280 Btu/hr)/[1.1 x (20 degF)] = 58 cfm (or cubic feet per minute). In my Whirlpool, the freezer-to-bottom section section airflow openings for convective heat transfer are 2 each @ 1" x 2" free area or 4 square inches = 4/144 = 0.028 sqft. The velocity of air that would have to flow through those openings to remove the heat in one hour would be cfm/Area = 58 ft3/min / 0.028 ft2 = 2070 ft/min which is way higher than normal air handling duct for heating or cooling applications. When I put something warm in my 'frig, and the freezer is closed with its mini-blower is running, there's no way there's anywhere near this velocity of air moving into or out of the vents to the cool box. So we're looking at maybe 4-6 hours (maybe more) to carry away the heat from your stock pot give the meager freezer blower capacity and the limit flow area between the freezer and the cool box below.
But wait, the situation is actually worse than that. The added heat from the warm stock will cause water to evaporate (latent heat) from exposed fruits and veges or any dishes that are not moisture sealed. The heat in this moisture will also have to be removed through the freezer, except now the water will condense and freeze on the coils of the refrigeration system. This in turn will cause the auto-defrost cycle to run more often (or at least provide more work into removing the ice buildup on the coils) slowing the cooling process down even further.
So the simple answer to your question: Not very effective. The rise in temperature of the cool box over an extended period (hours) will result in increase rate of spoilage - which is not healthy, not to mention having to pay for replacement items. The added moisture from your non-sealed stock pot will result in condensation within the cool box providing a breeding ground to increase the rate of decomposition of your fresh foods.
Getting back to the socio-economic statement above ... Residential refrigerator designs have not substantially changed since conception. Most 'innovation' I see is arrangement of shelves the allow putting in and removing items more easily and efficiently. But the actual refrigeration system has not changed. What is being asked for in the problem is a 'blanching' facility that would permit an isolated section of the 'frig to be used strictly for cooling a hot mixture. This takes up storage space, so it would put an appliance manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage - since the great majority of people wouldn't use it - or use it properly anyway. Furthermore, a refrigerator could be designed in an insulated compartmentalized way so that opening one section inside the cool box doesn't affect other sections - thus preventing constant door opening and closing from removing the 'cold' in the entire cool box at once. Again, this would reduce the storage volume so it would place the appliance manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage. Most people who have refrigerators don't consider energy use or efficiency beside what's on the label when originally purchased. They just look at it as a cold box. This essentially prohibits blanching cooling features from being implemented, or a refrigerator from being technically improved because there would be no mass market and therefore no substantial profit. This situation is not about to change anytime soon so you'll have to blanch/cool hot dishes manually using cold water first then ice cubes before placing the hot item in the 'frig.
There is a lot of speculation here, but I see no facts. The purported underlying socio-economic question is in fact not relevant: I was asking what the cooling capacity of modern home fridges is, not why manufacturer's choose a particular capacity. The existence of blast chillers makes it obvious higher capacities are possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.335276
| 2013-01-28T18:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30487",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Bridget R",
"Candy Noon",
"David Lopez",
"Eric",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Maurice",
"Michael Wenocur",
"Muhammad Mehboob",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stian",
"TFD",
"Tami",
"gunit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84923",
"joaovictortr",
"katiekeel",
"user71337",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5107
|
Non Pork Bacon Alternatives
So, I love turkey bacon, and have it a lot; however, I always feel that i'm eating a mush processed meat.
Are there any meat cut alternatives to pork bacon from other animals?
Has anyone tried to make "processed bacon" at home?
Now in England, I've had Beef bacon. In retrospect I should've asked what cut of meat it was
what's wrong with bacon? is it the coming-from-a-pig part?
@Ocaasi - The lovely GF is on a diet, so we both eat turkey bacon now.
The problem is, few animals have anywhere near the fat content of pork. Bacon is actually leaner than some other cuts from the pig (Mmmmmm, fatback...Had fried fatback once, true story.)
So to get a cut of meat with as much fat as bacon? Pretty much impossible. But bacon is also about smoky flavor, and delicious nitrates (and gas phase polycyclic aromatics, the best carcinogen on the planet). There is duck bacon, lamb bacon, beef bacon. There's probably veal bacon, but that'd be pretty expensive.
Most people recommend lamb bacon, if you can't handle pork, but the beef bacon is probably easier to find in the US.
Edit:
Behold fried fatback!
I don't know about bacon, but Cooking Light magazine published a recipe for Duck Proscuttio. I wonder if you could make bacon with duck, since it is much fattier than turkey or chicken.
And the answer is yes! Duck bacon. And an interesting recipe from Gourmet.
From what I understand, for beef bacon you want a belly cut of meat, close to the flank or the skirt, most often I've heard of skirt (aka plate) being used. Some people recommend brisket. Here is a chart of cuts of beef, you can see that pretty much anything from the underbelly is recommended.
The basic rule is, the fattier the cut of meat the better. Here is another chart showing the actual cuts, you can see that the brisket, skirt and flank are marbled with fat significantly compared to other cuts. You'll never reach the same level of fat as pork, but if you properly cure and smoke it, you should be able to get something suitable.
You may want to research Halal stores in your area and stop in one of them, they'll probably have some good info (and a nice selection) for you.
I have not made bacon at home, sadly, though this is something I hope to remedy in the near future.
There are also soy alternatives, but the flavor and texture is not as good. I enjoy both beef fry (as the beef alternative is called here) as well as turkey bacon, depending on the application as they have different flavors and textures.
Could you just have my-bacon and your-bacon? Bacon freezes well, so if using it up before it goes bad is a problem that could be an option. We don't eat a lot of bacon, so we roll the pieces individually and then freeze them. I have tried turkey bacon as well, and decided that I'd rather just eat less bacon than try to substitute it out.
There is also Baconaise and Bacon Salt products that you can get online. The Baconaise is really good, I have not tried bacon salt but have heard a lot of good things about it.
I own and have tried every flavor of bacon salt :) Flavors include hickory, jalapeno, cheddar...there's 9 total, I believe. It's vegetarian, kosher, the nutritional info only has sodium above 0. The ingredients list is a little long, and it has MSG, but it is a great thing to have on hand to add some smoky bacon flavor to a dish. A lot of my vegetarian friends swear by it. Definitely a cool way to add some depth, easily, to a dish such as scrambled eggs. I use it to crust my grilled cheese, too. It was definitely very helpful in helping my wife keep her pre-wedding diet interesting :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.338060
| 2010-08-13T14:59:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5107",
"authors": [
"Abhinav Manchanda",
"AliBZ",
"F'x",
"LoSTxMiND",
"Malocchio",
"Martha F.",
"Ocaasi",
"Oliver G",
"Stefan Lasiewski",
"Thomas",
"abruzzo",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9972",
"jeremy",
"shawnmariehardy",
"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
}
|
6242
|
How can I best select a knife to purchase for learning how to sharpen?
I want to buy a good all-purpose Chef's knife and also sharpen it myself. But I have no experience sharpening with a waterstone so I'm a little afraid of spending much money and then ruining the knife. What is the most basic type of knife in terms of materials and style which would allow me to effectively practice sharpening?
I suggest looking at some of the previously asked knives questions, especially: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6158/what-should-i-look-for-in-a-good-multi-purpose-chefs-knife You can see a list of all things tagged [knives] here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/knives
While you can learn how to sharpen on almost any straight blade knife, my recommendation is to start on one that:
Isn't expensive, (try yard sales, thrift stores, and pawn shops - the goal is to learn technique, not have a fancy knife)
Isn't very long, (6 inches max)
Is wide enough that wearing the blade away won't be a big issue, (chef's knife would be fine)
Is not too thin or too thick, (not a boning knife or a meat cleaver)
Is a softer typer of steel, (so that you will sharpen more frequently, and so it will be easier to grind back the edge if needed)
Doesn't have a great finish (the finish is the part that you're most likely to mess up beyond easy repair).
As far as sharpening tools go, I think you need several grades of whetstones to really get a great edge. You can buy them separately or as part of a kit. I would skip any other type of sharpener, even a honer for now (again, so that you'll be forced to practice resharpening more often).
Then it's a matter of practicing sharpening and testing the edge. Make really sure you get your technique down before trying to add ANY speed. Make sure your fingers are NEVER in the path of the blade. Work from roughest to finest whetstone.
If you mess up on the whetstone angle, go back to the roughest stone and regrind to a fresh edge.
Your practice knife will get scratched up and worn down faster than normal. When you're comfortable with your skill, get a slightly nicer knife and a honing steel.
What about using the list of criteria developed in an earlier question and sharpening not with a waterstone, but with something easier for a novice sharpener to understand? Two-stage sharpeners like this one from Wustof (but there are many more options beside, just google 2-stage sharpeners, this just happens to be what I own) make it difficult to get your angle incorrect.
Another option would be to get a guard for your waterstone.
While you can sharpen cheap knives with any of the above techniques, unless you have a knife that holds an edge you won't really notice a difference. A cook I know tried to sharpen a fairly beat up, fairly poor knife with a 2-stage sharpener and it made no difference. Sharpening my higher-quality home knives with one helps immensely.
For the second purchase, get a reasonably traditional japanese knife (eg a user-quality kurouchi-style santoku/nakiri, should be $40 to $80. Made from a japanese carbon steel like SK-anything, or yellow or white paper steel).
The reason being that these are usually not shipped with a factory edge meant to be used as-is - putting the knife into use starts with sharpening it.
The steels mentioned are hard but not hard to sharpen, and can take and hold very acute edges if you want to experiment (down to 10° per side should still be usable for light duty), and you can be confident that the steel does not limit the sharpness you get, only your skill does.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.338422
| 2010-08-28T15:39:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6242",
"authors": [
"Eileen s",
"Joe Bronson",
"Kristi",
"Matthew",
"Mickmomof5",
"Roon",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65196"
],
"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
}
|
11578
|
Does flaxseed oil need to be refrigerated?
I bought a bottle of organic flaxseed oil to season some cast iron, and the store keeps it in the refrigerator. Does flaxseed oil need to be refrigerated, or is this just a silly thing that the overpriced organic grocery stores do?
Flaxseed oil goes rancid quickly, and refrigeration slows down this process. So, yes, you should do as the label says (usually a good idea anyway) and keep it in the fridge.
The label doesn't say, actually, but it's in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.338704
| 2011-01-28T21:39:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11578",
"authors": [
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Mr. David",
"Mrs.Mok",
"harley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23793"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4340
|
Lump Charcoal vs Briquettes and variations in brands
I've been experimenting with BBQ on a variety of smokers for the past few years.
Originally I tried some Kingsford Briquettes and had a hard time managing the temperature. There was an excessive amount of ash generated that seemed to choke out the fire. I did a little research and found that clay is added to briquettes to give them their shape, and this was likely the cause of all the ash.
Since then (until recently), I've used lump charcoal and have been fairly happy with the results.
This summer I mistakenly purchased another bag of briquettes - Stubbs brand - and I've been using that ever since. This charcoal seems to burn hotter and longer than the lump and without the excessive amount of ash I found when using the Kingsford.
Have others experienced this as well?
Do briquetes burn hotter and longer (in general) than lump?
Is Kingford a very "ashy" charcoal or maybe did I just get a bad bag?
edited to add shopping and grilling tags - though this question specifically mentions smokers, the same information could apply to charcoal grilling as well. shopping tag was recently used to compare brands of flour so i feel it's relevant here too.
There is more information about lump charcoal than you will ever want to know at this site: http://www.nakedwhiz.com/lumpfaq.htm
I've tried the Stubbs too, and love it. I'll still use Kingsford for direct-heat cooking (it's cheap, and burns a long time), but I'll use Stubbs for all my low-and-slows. Way less ashy than K, and you can reuse it more readily.
the bullet point seems backwards - lump burns much hotter, and much much longer .. right??
Lump Charcoal vs Briquettes comparision here: https://www.406barandgrill.com/lump-charcoal-vs-briquettes.html
When you're talking about briquettes, much of the "ash" you're talking about is actually clay and binders to hold the briquette together. That also tends to mean a cooler burning form of charcoal.
Overall, charcoal is made by taking wood (or a few other materials, but usually hardwood) and heating it to burning temperatures without enough oxygen for it to actually burn. The result is something that burns more cleanly and steadily than the original wood, which burns a fairly volatile way until it gets down to coal. That means that charcoal sort of "skips" the volatile burn and gets right to the steady cooking burn.
Briquettes are lots of little bits of charcoal, bound together with those binding materials into the little forms in the bag. Lump charcoal is just chunks of wood that go through the process and come out the other end still sort of resembling the piece of wood that went in.
Lump charcoal burns much hotter than briquettes and, since there are no binders or fillers, very little is left behind when you're done. However, it tends to burn out faster too, meaning for a long fire (like for slow smoking pork), you'll need to refill with lump charcoal more often than for briquettes.
Kingsford (which dominates at least the US market) is a company that comes directly from when Henry Ford really came up with the process for making charcoal. For most of that time, they've pretty much stuck to the same form factor with the binders, and focused on adding things like a few shavings of mesquite or pre-soaking them with petroleum-based lighter fluids.
However, recently, they've introduced a "competition" briquette that is actually much closer in how it burns to lump charcoal and has fewer of the binders in it. While I generally prefer to use lump charcoal, I wasn't nearly as disappointed when I tried these new briquettes.
Only thing missing -- briquettes start easier in charcoal chimneys than lump does. (The uniform shape makes the heat draw though it better.)
Henry Ford didn't come up with the process for making charcoal; he improved and popularized a preexisting process for making charcoal briquets.
Ditto on Kingsford's competition briquettes: they do burn more like lump charcoal. I've been pleased with them and think they're worth seeking out as a good "middle" option.
Say, lump seems to burn for longer .. it takes much longer to get ready, and then burns for longer .. no?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.338784
| 2010-08-05T15:16:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4340",
"authors": [
"Brian Hebert",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"ESultanik",
"Fattie",
"Fredy31",
"Hogan",
"Matt Peterson",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sean Hart",
"Simon",
"Wesley Wiser",
"anton2g",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91795",
"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
}
|
6280
|
Can you freeze soup?
I am planning on making soup with my leftover turkey frame. I was just wondering if it is possible to freeze the soup and have it taste good when it is thawed. I am guessing it should be fine as long there aren't any noodles in the soup. Other than that the only ingredients called for are vegetables (celery, can of diced tomatoes, carrots, mushrooms) and spices.
What do you think?
Soup freezes great in my experience. To freeze it for long term storage, you'll probably want it to be vacuum sealed. In order to do this I freeze individual sized portions in Tupperware-style containers (make sure to leave enough room for expansion), and as soon as they're solid, vacuum seal those large "cubes". They generally stack pretty nicely in our garage freezer.
In general soups should thaw and taste very good, some flavors even seem become stronger or seem to enhance and meld better with the freezing. If you vacuum seal them as above you can throw them (still sealed) into a pot of boiling water for hot soup relatively fast!
As an aside, another great option with a leftover turkey frame would be to save it with previous odds and ends (carrot/celery ends, onion pieces, etc) in the freezer, and when you have enough make a simple stock. You can then freeze the stock into cubes (in ice cube trays) for soup-making later, sauteeing veggies, in place of water for more flavorful rice, and a ton of other things.
+1 for stock-making. While yes the soup will freeze fine, the stock makes for a useful flavour addition to lots of later cooking.
+1 for being the only answer to mention leaving room for expansion while freezing.
I usually freeze soup in ice cubes trays and when the cubes are frozen, I transfer them to a freezing bag.
Small soup cubes defrost faster than big soup blocks, so when I come back home late and tired from work, I can have a hot soup in a few minutes, just putting some cubes in a hot pan...
Good trick!
I freeze soup all the time. The only issue I've ever had is that the texture of large pieces of vegetables can change slightly after they're frozen -- possibly because the ice crystals break cell walls. I've noticed this particularly with potatoes and carrots. But only large pieces seem to have this problem.
Indeed. The size of my pieces tends to depend on what I will be doing with the leftovers...
We freeze soup all the time, either in plastic containers or in freezer bags. We haven't had any problems with noodles in frozen soups.
Soup usually freezes beautifully. Some veggies may suffer a slight texture change, if that is a problem, you can just freeze the meat and broth, and add fresh veggies when you thaw and reheat.
The texture of meat also changes - less of a problem if you use smaller pieces in general.
That will freeze (and thaw) just fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.339179
| 2010-08-29T05:06:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6280",
"authors": [
"Arafangion",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Nick",
"arp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"jharger",
"sdg"
],
"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
}
|
18735
|
What's the best option for water for tea in the office?
When making tea at home, I have all the equipment I need to make a fine cup of tea. In the office, however, my options are more limited. It seems my sources for hot water are:
Straight from the tap
From the "hot" dispenser on the water cooler
Microwave in styrofoam
A Keurig without a K-cup
A hot water/coffee dispenser (don't know how to describe this--looks a bit like the commercial milk dispensers you sometimes find in cafeterias)
My criteria for evaluating these sources would be:
Purity
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Oh, and one of the pieces of equipment that I lack is a thermometer.
A couple of observations
Though there is no shortage of oxygen, the tap was right out for purity and temperature.
I tried using the water cooler's hot tap for a while, but, based on dead reckoning, it just doesn't seem hot enough.
I've heard that you're supposed to leave styrofoam out of the microwave, so I've skipped over that so far. Perhaps that is good material for a follow-up question. I suppose I could get it as hot as I want, and lose no more oxygen than would be expected at that temperature.
The Keurig is what I've been using most recently, which seems closer than the water cooler, but the machine itself claims to max out at 192 F, and I'd prefer something a bit hotter if possible. Additionally, the method the coffee maker uses to heat the water makes me wonder if any dissolved oxygen is driven off in the process.
Lastly the water/coffee dispenser. These are huge commercial coffee makers, essentially, and one of them simply doesn't get coffee grounds added. They've got to be at least five gallons each, and I doubt they're refilled until they're used up. I imagine a water line runs straight to the machine, but, clearly, there is a lot of speculation here. This is also the one method that I would have to pay for, which I'd be willing to do, but only if this source is better than the rest. It's also farthest from my desk.
So, what's the best option I have for a good cup of tea in the office?
Can you explain why you can't microwave in a proper mug?
Why not buy a cheap electric kettle? If it's good enough for 65 million Brits (who drink more tea per capita than anyone else on Earth), it's good enough for anyone!
Hadn't even heard of such a thing!
A proper mug! You folks are full of ideas :) This is why I bring these questions here
Unless you hot-desk (and even then, with a bit more effort) it should be possible to take your own mug to the office and use that to microwave instead of a styrofoam cup. Note that it's worth being a bit cautious when adding anything to water microwaved to boiling point - I would use a spoon to insert the tea without putting your hand or face above the mug.
Thanks, Peter. I usually try to bring it "just" to a boil. I also add a packet of sugar before microwaving, which seems to allow adequate nucleation that the whole thing doesn't explode in my face.
I would never microwave water for tea or coffee. I don't know the science behind it, but the end result just isn't palatable.
Follow up: I've started microwaving the plain water, and actually intentionally avoiding nucleation. This keeps gasses in solution, meaning that when I add the tea it still has the most oxygen. I just make sure not to heat it for too long, to keep superheating to a minimum.
Either buy a cheap electric kettle, or if you are really fussed about not re-boiling water then shell out a bit more for one of the single cup hot water dispensers like the Tefal Quick Cup or the Breville Hot Cup.
We have both a cheap kettle and a Breville Hot Cup in our office. The kettle is good for making cups for multiple people at the same time, the Hot Cup is good for a single person.
An electric kettle, where did you come up with that idea? ;)
Seriously, these are attainable, but are not the most common appliance where I'm from.
There are microwaves but kettles aren't common? $16 from walmart...
Well tea is not all that popular around here, and coffee is readily available. Microwaves, OTOH, are useful for heating up lunch in the office.
Are mugs not popular around there either? Bring one from home. Alternatively, you could find one at a thrift store for a dollar if the goal is to minimize cost.
the tefal quick cup does not boil water, just makes it very warm. A tefal express boil does what it says on the tin
Indeed, we all have mugs. I only hadn't thought outside of what was already in the office. I ended up bringing my own mug, at Peter Taylor's suggestion, and it's seemed to work quite well.
There is an electric kettle on Amazon.com for $15.99 -- it's going to make far better tea than a microwave.
Most of my previous employers have forbidden use of any domestic electronics brought in from home. This would be problematic with the electric kettle idea.
Since power = voltage * current and current = voltage / resistance, in a country with ~110V power, an electric kettle will take about four times as long as the same kettle takes in a country with ~220V power. Getting to a reasonable time-to-boil one would need to use a kettle with a low-resistance heating element. There have been claims that this is still a good idea: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/shopping/2005/11/a_watched_pot.html but this seems to be a minority opinion.
If purity is top priority I can only recommend an 18 Mega Ohm laboratory purifier, complete with biofilters and UV. I assure you, you've never tasted anything like it.
In fact you can't taste anything at all, it's quite a bizarre experience to drink.
If they are so awkward as to not let you install one in the office then you might have to bring the water in from home in a clean teflon flask.
Don't go anywhere near an electric kettle! the impurities introduced but such a brutal apparatus would defy your investment in purity. I wouldn't really recommend the microwave either because you can easily super heat the water because the boiling has no impurities to seed it. A clean spherical flask over a non sooty flame is the best option really.
Add hydrogen peroxide (introduce oxygen) to taste. Again this must be of a high purity, hair bleach really won't cut it and is likely to introduce adverse health effects. I can't advise on the optimum amount however, but you may find it to have a dramatic effect at higher levels. ;-)
I feel like I'm being teased, and yet the humor is worth a +1 regardless.
Sorry I couldn't help it, the question invoked the chemist of my past. I wish I'd actually been into high quality tea when I once worked in an analytical lab to try it for myself!
You could use the Turkish/Persian method of making tea.
You make a very very strong tea at home, and boil it down until you basically have a thick liquid tea syrup.
At work, you pour some of this tea syrup in your cup and add hot water. Since all the flavour has already been extracted, temperature/oxygenation only need to be good enough for drinking, not for steeping.
There's a word for this process, but I can't seem to dredge it out of my mind today.
Concetrate? Is that the word you're looking for?
.....reduction?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.339541
| 2011-11-03T08:07:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18735",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Cindy",
"Donna",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Evan",
"FlowersLeaves",
"MXMLLN",
"Mahathi Vempati",
"Martha F.",
"Mitchell Kaplan",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray",
"Simon Peter Chappell",
"barrymac",
"dsas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8874",
"slim",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6882
|
How are green and ripe plantains used differently?
I see both green and black (ripe) plantains for sale. I'm assuming they aren't used interchangeably. What kinds of dishes or techniques are appropriate for each type? Are the different types favored in different cultures, or do some cultures appreciate both?
Like many fruits and vegetables, the sugar level in a plantain increases as it ripens.
Green plantains are very starchy and hard. You must cook them to eat them. They can be used much like a potato (think chopped & put in soups or mashed as a side dish). Fried green plantains are referred to as "tostones."
Yellow plantains still require cooking, but they are sweet (unlike green plantains). These work pretty well for frying and steaming.
Black (super-ripe) plantains do not have to be cooked; they can be eaten raw. They have soft flesh and a scent like a banana, though still not as sweet as typical bananas. When these super-ripe plantains are fried, they are referred to as "platanos maduros" (ripe plantains) or "platanos fritos" (fried plantains).
Regarding use by different cultures:
Trinidad and Tobago, Honduras and Jamaica: the plantain is either simply fried, boiled or added to a soup.
Kerala: ripe plantain is steamed and is a popular breakfast dish.
Ghana: boiled plantain is eaten with kontomire stew, cabbage stew or fante-fante (fish) stew. The boiled plaintain can be mixed with groundnut paste, pepper, onion and palm oil to make eto, which is eaten with avocado.
Southern United States, particularly in Texas, Louisiana and Florida: plantains are most often grilled.
Nigeria: plantain is eaten boiled, fried or roasted; roasted plantain, called booli is usually eaten with palm oil or groundnut.
(source)
+1 for a comprehensive answer. Just a note, though, "tostones" are specifically plantains that have been fried, pounded flat, and fried a second time, not just any fried green plantain.
In the South Indian state of Kerala, the ripe (yellow and black) and the unripe (green) plantains are used differently in dishes.
The ripe ones are pressure cooked/steamed and eaten with puttu (steamed rice cake) and is a good breakfast item. It is also used in Pazham Payasam (plantain pudding with jaggery and ghee/clarified butter).
The green ones are used in savoury dishes such as stir fries (Ethakka Mezhukkupuratti) and Avial (dry mixed vegetable curry with coconut).
Another popular dish is Kalan which is served during feasts and is essentially yoghurt curry with plantains. The semi-ripe plantains are sliced laterally and fried to make "banana chips".
Here in Jamaica we also use the green plaintains to make porridge. The ripe ones can be used to make plantain tarts. We also eat the ripe ones boiled as a starchy food.
In Malawi, green plantains are cooked as a savory dish 'mbalagha' a stew cooked mainly with beef, pork, and goat meat. In the central and southern cooked as savory usually cooked in alcohol drinking places 'chilabu'. Mang'ina as is called. Ripe plantains are usually eaten for breakfast as a delicacy
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.340354
| 2010-09-07T02:54:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6882",
"authors": [
"Kent",
"Richard",
"Susan",
"There",
"ame",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"lenny mitsch",
"lunabug",
"markus-tharkun",
"snowgeek"
],
"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
}
|
7695
|
What is the difference between shawarma and gyros?
I see both of these terms used in restaurants that seem to specialize in meat on a vertical rotisserie served in a pita sandwich. I'm not clear on whether there is a difference between the two or if they are just colloquial names for the same thing.
They're rather different.
Gyros are Greek in origin. They are simply meat, tomatoes, onion, and tzatziki sauce on pita. In Greece the meat is typically pork (never had one). In America, specifically here in Chicago (their local origin), the meat is a combination of beef & lamb.
Shwawarma is Middle Eastern in origin. The possible toppings are much more diverse, and can include: tahini, tabouli, fattoush, cucumber, and hummus. Tzatziki isn't typically used, at least not in America. The meat is also never pork, it can be lamb, beef or chicken.
They owe their similarities to their common Turkish ancestor the doner kebab.
See also:
Doner kebab
Gyros
Shawarma
additionally, the spices in the meat are totally different. Shwawarma tends to be spicier than gyros. Shwawarma also tends to be discreet pieces of meat instead of the roast loaf gyro meat.
@sarge_smith: All of the Middle Eastern shawarma I have eaten (at least in the Levant) have been of the "roast loaf". I will agree, however, that the meat is more chunky/coarsely processed than the Greek variety.
They're still tightly stacked together on a spit but it's usually marinated chunks of meat, not a mince loaf. My understanding is that doner, shawarma and gyros are all traditionally stacked meats. Tomato, parsley, lettuce, onion, tahini and picked turnips is a pretty standard set of toppings for shawarma.
I have many times been to Greece and have had gyros there and they are not ground meat but just like the shawarma it's pieces of meat stacked and roasted. Difference is just like the others say spices and the toppings that go into the pita. Also gyros in Greece are almost always pork meat.
As sarge_smith hinted at in his comment to hobodave, at least from the gyros and shwarmas I've had.
Gyros are made from a loaf of ground meat, onions and seasonings, spit roasted. (this might be a regional thing, though)
Shawarmas (and doner kebab) are cuts of meat, marinated and stacked, then spit roasted.
As you slice the shawarma meat off the cone, you're cutting across the stacked slices, so it'll end up falling into lots of smaller bits, while the gyro meat is larger slices, but still tender because it's ground meat.
Gyros tend to have more "mediteranian" herbs (oregano, marjoram, thyme, rosemary)
Shawarmas tend to have more "middle eastern" spices (cardamom, allspice, cinnamon, cloves, coriander seed, tumeric)
Either one might have cumin, pepper or oregano, and they'll both have garlic.
I don't know how much of it's a regional thing (as I think I've only had shawarmas twice in the US), but when we used to get shawarmas in the Netherlands, they were served with a garlic yoghurt sauce that was similar to tzatziki, but didn't have cucumber or herbs in it. They were also served inside pita pockets (with shredded carrot, lettuce and tomatoes) as opposed to wrapped in a flatbread.
Shawarma is traditionally wrapped in flatbread, usually served with tahini or hummus. In Australia, it's Turkish doner kebabs that usually come with the garlic sauce.
Greek gyros is always cuts of meat, not homogenised with herbs etc. like a donner kebab, and comes as either pork, or less commonly, chicken.
In the UK what is described as 'chicken donner' or 'chicken shawarma' is almost always very similar to what is called 'chicken gyros' in Greece in terms of the meat and its appearance, though spices etc are different and it will probably be served with different salads.
I'm a chef, trained by "off the boat" greeks, and gyro is lamb/beef..not pork, and I find it hard to believe that the Greek family that I was trained under would be making gyro wrong.. American style is typically in a "cone" meat form, and Greek style is stacked/layered meat, then sliced as the others said..souvlaki is typically pork, which is different than gyro..
Greek gyro is mostly pork. Depending on the region you might also find chicken gyro.
Gyros are not usually pork. in Greece, they are wrapped lamb and beef with proper spices skewered and roasted. In America, I have made them with ground lamb and hambburger.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.340631
| 2010-09-29T22:35:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7695",
"authors": [
"Aditya Pawar",
"Bianca Bee",
"Clifton EternalEssence Dupless",
"ESultanik",
"Joanne Pitts",
"NRaf",
"Panagiotis Panagi",
"dylanthelion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85576",
"mpasi",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16410
|
Why is buying meat online so expensive
I buy meat from a supermarket which is around £5-£10 per kilo for most types of meat. At my local bucher, I buy high quality meat for ~£10/kg.
I think perhaps online I could get a better deal, buy bigger quantities etc. But no! Normal online prices seem to start at £20/kg all the way up to £55/kg! So many sites sell rip off 'meat boxes' as well.
Why is it so expensive? I want to make regular 10kg beef orders (1 per quarter probably) to make lots of beef jerky but I just can't find anywhere online where this wont bleed my bank account dry!
Why is it so expensive online?
1) Because the meat is ostensibly higher quality and 2) because of the relatively high cost of refrigerated shipping.
Your local butcher is probably a better option for bulk buying. Tell him you plan on regularly buying a large amount of beef and he should be willing to cut you a deal. If not try another butcher!
+1 for point #1. I'm not sure what it's like in the London, but here in the US it is getting increasingly difficult to find high quality meat in the supermarkets and what few butchers are still in business. The vast majority of the beef that is sold in supermarkets here was fed corn/grain (as opposed to grass) and usually had extremely restricted grazing/movement during its life. Growth stimulants/hormones are also legal and common. Therefore, in many cases, high quality beef is only available from smaller farms, which may only have distribution through the Internet in one's area.
Generally the quality of meat here in the UK (lol @ 'the London' :) ) is very good, especially in comparison to other European countries (the meat in French supermarkets is pretty awful IMO), and organic, grass fed meat is widely available.
@ElindilTheTall: Argh! I originally wrote "the UK" but then noticed the OP was from London and I forgot to delete the "the".
@ElendilTheTall: Does a Mad Cow have more flavor? ;-)
Indubitably. Crazy = flavour.
You may be able to find farmers that sell freezer ready beef in the more rural areas. Depending on the size of the operation, they may do individual cuts, although more common is a quarter/half/full cow. Freezer ready meaning it has been butchered and portioned to some degree. Doesn't answer the online bit of your question, but it is another source for beef in bulk for you.
A few in my area will do cryovac, but they then have to go to a further slaugherhouse, as not all will ... if might be worth asking around & paying extra for, depending on how quickly you're going to go through all of the meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.340999
| 2011-07-26T11:44:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16410",
"authors": [
"Amelia Henriksen",
"Bob",
"BobMcGee",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Firdous",
"Joe",
"Milo Gertjejansen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9785
|
Secret component to make spray dough
Is there any kind of dough that can be sprayed to make it any form and extra thin?
EDIT: I mean that dough was prepared with some liquid fast evaporated component to make it available for spraying.
Define what you qualify as 'dough'. What you're describing would likely be called a 'batter', and even then, I don't know if there are any that could be necessarily sprayed (without customized equipment)
@Joe- Agreed. I think even a batter would be too lumpy/thick for most sprayers.
most doughs / batters have flour in them, which needs to be cooked or tastes like raw flour. You might be able to get a pannekoeken or other crepe batter thin enough for what you're trying, but you'd still have to cook it. For something that comes out crisper and holds it shape, look to pizzelle or waffle cone recipes (although for those, you typically heat from both sides, so still might not be what you're looking for). As for the actual spraying ... you might be able to use a paint sprayer with tips for thicker primers, but I doubt it'd be food-safe.
Depends... Can you play with madness?
Spraying will not work with a flower based dough. The thinnest you'll get a flower dough without it falling apart instantly is using a filo recipe. The reason for this is that gluten need to be formed by kneading to keep the structure together.
Batters work differently, they rely on proteïnes to keep their structure. If you look carefully at recipes for very thin crepes you'll notice that these contain more eggs. Even the thinnest crepe I ever got was not nearly as thin as you can get filo dough, but I never went for extreme proteïne content because I favor taste over presentation.
If your structure needs to be thinner than what you can do with filo, you could experiment with pure egg white, slowly baked on non-stick surfaces. I've had some interesting accidents with egg white, so I know that in theory you can get it extremely thin. It will be much more delicate than filo dough though, so you should be prepared for some frustration...
I guess that you don't need a sprayer for egg white, because you can apply it with a brush and it will spread evenly on its own.
Good luck, and take some pictures when you succeed!
There's a pancake batter in a can that is sprayed, so this isn't impossible for batters; by most definitions of dough, however, you're talking about something that's solid. Spraying a solid would surely require a pretty substantial amount of force, probably on the order of repeated firings of a shotgun.
Industrially-produced panko or breadcrumbs can be made by either spraying a batter or extruding a dough and cooking it on a hot surface or in a microwave. There are some photos on http://www.oshikiri.com/products/line/crumb.html that describe one process (text in Japanese).
I have never even heard of spray dough, but you could make a filo dough roll it out thin with a pasta machine and drape it over a shape and then attempt to bake it as long as the shape can withstand the heat. Or you could let the dough dry a bit and it may retain its shape after you pull the mold out for baking. Any decent bread dough recipe should work as long as the gluten content is high enough to withstand the pasta machine and molding process. Although you could take a paper mache approach and use thin dough strips.
Maybe if you can tell us more about what your end product should be we can help you get there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.341229
| 2010-12-04T20:10:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9785",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mandy Rigsbee",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Shog9",
"claire",
"hemant pokhariya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"user20010",
"user20531"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11892
|
Black Rice Vinegar for Sushi
Can I use black rice vinegar for sushi rice? (Chinkiang Vinegar)
What is the difference to white rice vinegar when making sushi?
Should I still add sugar and salt?
In fact, there is some precedent for this. 黒酢, romanized kurozu, is used in sushi at a a Tokyo restaurant called Kyo-zan, which claims to be the originator of the black vinegar sushi style.
It would likely be considered a novelty in Japan, but black vinegar was super-trendy about 6-8 years ago in Japan and all sorts of new uses, including sweetened, flavored versions meant to be diluted with water as a beverage, emerged.
There is even a product called sushi kurozu, which appears to be a diluted, sweetened form of black vinegar. Since rice vinegar is slightly diluted and sweetened for the purpose of making sushi, this seems like a reasonably un-shocking, although novel, possibility.
A recipe in Japanese suggests what appears to me to be a 3:1:1 ratio of black vinegar, mirin and sugar (estimated), plus some additional salt and dried kelp. Simmering all ingredients briefly then aging for a few days in the refrigerator would be best.
There is a history of certain vinegar substitutions in sushi, sometimes for visual effect. For example, ume-zu, which is not technically a fermented vinegar but is used as a somewhat salty, pinkish alternative to vinegar made from the remnants of pickled ume apricots, can be used partially for flavor and partially for its color. I've seen a number of apple vinegar sushi recipes online (in my experience, Japan-made apple vinegar tasted slightly milder than what we call apple cider vinegar in the US). I would not say it's a completely bizarre departure from tradition to experiment with different types of vinegar. For a Japanese palate, a novel vinegar choice would probably be less surprising than, say, the presence of cream cheese.
If we are speaking of 镇江香醋; (Zhènjiāng xiāngcù) this is a much stronger version of rice vinegar. This is a much more robust and raw product in comparison to kurozu in my opinion. I would suggest you would need to temper it even further than JasonTrue suggest as it has a distinct and strong flavor that is more commonly used for brasing and cooking rather than for dressing. This flavor is enhanced by the use of an acetic acid starter rather than natural fermentation to raise the alcohol levels and then the acetic acid levels.
No, you really can't. First of all the color of the rice would be off. Second, the chinkiang vinegar has a rather strong, slightly burnt flavour that I do not think would go well with sushi. I suppose if you were trying to go beyond the traditional sushi style you could try it. I guess it might work. But if you are striving towards the traditional sushi style you are probably better off substituting with normal white wine vinegar.
And yes, if you substitute chinkiang vinegar or white wine vinegar you should still add salt and sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.341509
| 2011-02-07T15:41:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11892",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Frangello",
"Kathy",
"Kneady1 ",
"Mayura",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83054",
"mamahadija spam",
"user2428107",
"zeroRooter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.