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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
93148
|
how to get rid the sourness in yogurt
My question is about making yogurt at home. I made yogurt at home but there is some problem which causes the yogurt to taste sour. I tried lots of methods to prevent the sourness because I don't like the sourness in yogurt. But unfortunately, I have failed to achieved the expected results. What should i do to make a perfect yogurt at home?
Hi, can you explain in detail the method you're following now? temperature, incubation time...
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13527/how-to-reduce-the-sourness-of-homemade-frozen-yogurt?rq=1
Hi, this is a nice cooking question. We are a strictly cooking site, and any discussion of health effects of food are off topic. Other people started commenting on your mentioning of health, so I had to remove it from your question text. You can see more about what is on topic in https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
The acids are water soluble, so more straining can help.
If you want less sour yogurt, you have to pick the right culture and right process.
First, choose a streptococcus culture, or maybe bifida. Lactobacilicus bulgaricus gives you more sour yogurt.
Second, go as low as your culture allows you. The manufacturer will have given you the range at which your culture can be incubated, choose something at the lower end. But of course make sure that whatever setup you are using can really hold the temperature in range - for example, if you have a culture that can go from 40 to 46 Celsius, but your apparatus has temperature swings of 1.5 degrees Celsius, don't set it to 40, set it to 42.
Third, time. Here, you have to see what is the shortest time you can incubate and have the yogurt set. It is a matter of trial and error with a given temperature and culture. Moscafj's answer suggests 5 hours as a starting point for experimentation.
Fourth, storage time. Your yogurt can keep going slightly more sour in the fridge. So don't make more than one week's worth ahead.
Fifth, make sure that your starting temperature is also correct. I have a relative who is too impatient to wait for the yogurt cool down properly before innoculating, and never uses a thermometer, she just adds the culture to the too hot milk. Her yogurt always reeks of acetic acid to levels I can't tolerate.
If you get your variables right as described above, your yogurt can be pretty mild.
Sourness in homemade yogurt is a function of incubation time. The longer you incubate, the more sour the yogurt. Sourness in yogurt is not unhealthy. However, if you prefer a less sour yogurt, just incubate for a shorter period of time. Try 5 hours at 43C (109F).
The sourness is also affected by what bacteria are in your starter. If you are using commercial yogurt as your starter, than choose a yogurt that has a mild taste. I find that Fage brand yogurt produces a less sour yogurt even when I incubate as long as 14 hours. Siggy's on the other hand makes a very sour yogurt. If you are using a commercial yogurt starter, choose a product that advertises that it has a mild flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.377995
| 2018-10-23T01:11:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93148",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"Cindy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5782
|
How to make the pasta in this TV show (Anthony Bourdain in Rome)?
I'm talking about the one served on a parmesan crust bowl, but that's not all.
Besides the parmesan bowl (they only showed the chef melting grated parmesan and then molding it), what kind of pepper did he use? What else do I need to know to make that?
For how long should I let the parmesan melt before I can mold it? Should I let it cool down a bit first?
It looked really good, and the B&W thing gave it a mysterious look, something like hiding the details from it.
Do you have a link to the video in question?
I think this is it: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5048712/anthony_bourdain_rome/
I gave it a try, before getting the actual recipes from here. Instead of using grated pecorino, I put shavings of it. I didn't let it melt all the way, so it wasn't that creamy. Flavor was there and turned out delicious. Will try again, with all recipes I got here.
Cacio e Pepe is a great traditional roman dish (I'm roman!).
The ingredients are:
pecorino cheese, 160g for 4 people (I use Pecorino Romano, but you can use an equivalent sheep (not cow) cheese).
Freshly ground black pepper
olive oil (optional)
Boil the pasta in salted water.
In the meantime heat some olive oil in a pan.
Keep in a little bowl some pasta cooking water and drain the pasta about one minute before the suggested cooking time (it will continue the cooking in the pan).
Put the pasta in the pan and add the cheese and some cooking water, about two ladles (the starch will help to bind the cheese and make the sauce creamy), whisk for a minute. Add a lot of pepper.
Another way to do that is to whisk directly in an hot bowl (or in an hot dish, but it's a little harder), to use this methodology I suggest you to see this recipe, it's in italian but there are a lot of pictures (plus google translate).
I'm accepting this one (although you don't explain how to make de pasta bowl) because the recipe is right here, no need to follow links. But the other answers are great as well.
You'll need 2 recipes:
Cacio e Pepe ... just do some searches for that dish, and you'll find a bunch of recipes.
Pecorino/Parmesan Cheese Shell. Try grating fresh Parmesan and sprinkling it over a silicone baking mat. While it's still warm, drape it over an upside-down bowl to shape it. Once it cools, I think you're all set. I plan to try this! EDIT: I'd only heat the cheese just until it gets melty... otherwise it'll stiffen up too soon.
Note: I have never made either of these... just trying to give you a starting place. In the video, I heard the guy say that the dish was called Cacio e Pepe, so I started hunting. It sounds great, though.
The cheese shell is called a frico. Here is a decent little video that shows you how to make it; simply drape it over a bowl as JustRightMenus says when you take it off the baking sheet.
Sweet! I love the idea of using a muffin pan to shape the little cheese bowls. Talk about high presentation value, having uniformly sized little edible bowls.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.378243
| 2010-08-22T21:23:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5782",
"authors": [
"Clarissa",
"JustRightMenus",
"Laura",
"Mig",
"Red Banana",
"Rejeesh",
"Whisk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"sarge_smith",
"schacki",
"user1644622",
"user981916"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9579
|
How can I get a takeaway style pizza base?
I would like to make a pizza base that is similar to takeaway pizza, in other words a base that is quite thick, spongy, chewy and stretchy. Domino's and Papa Johns are examples of the kind of base, but most takeaway pizza places do something similar. The base is usually covered in quite a bit of cornmeal.
I have tried all sorts of ways, plain flour, strong bread flour, extra strong bread flour, more oil, less oil, drier dough, wetter dough etc. and I've have always kneaded well for at least 12 minutes. My base turns out soft but always comes apart really easily, far from the chewy and stretchy nature of a typical takeaway base.
I do not have a pizza oven, my oven can only reach a maximum of 250C.
So does anybody know the secret to a good takeaway style base?
Probably the pan has a lot to do with it, they cook them in pretty heavyweight iron skillets from what I've seen, no doubt with a fair bit of oil as lubrication, which will effect the crust formation.
One thing, I've found when making pizza base it to let it rise twice (like it was bread). Most pizza base recipes don't call for this, but i find it really helps, with making it more spongy
For a chewy pizza base, use bread flour. Do not use oil. Bread flour has a higher protein content that will help gluten form. Gluten makes the connections that keep dough together. Fat inhibits gluten formation.
A recipe of just water, flour, salt, and yeast mixed, kneaded, allowed to rise until doubled, and then rolled out will get you what you want. Make sure to roll out quite thin. Preheat your oven absolutely as high as it goes with a stone inside. Put your toppings on maximum one minute before they go into the oven so that the sauce does not make your dough soft. Place pizza on preheated pizza stone - cooking time at high temperatures will be quite short (max 10 minutes).
Ah, I think adding oil is where I have been going wrong. Sugar also inhibits gluten formation apparently but salt strengthens it. That is according to McGee which for some reason I didn't think to consult first. I will do a test run soon and see how it goes and maybe get a stone. I have never seen a takeaway place use a stone, though, they just use thin pizza ovens and metal trays.
The stone is about increasing the heat potential of your domestic oven. It holds large amounts of heat if fully pre-warmed. It will release the heat into the cold pizza dough at a faster rate than a domestic over can heat. Having said that it never works well for me? I find a plain steel tray does the trick with the oven on MAX. I use a thin smear of olive oil to conduct the heat through the tray, and not cornmeal etc
I just made my test base using just strong white bread flour, water, salt and (instant) yeast. About 3.5:1 flour:water by volume. Raised for 2 hours then rolled ball in cornmeal before flattening out. Cooked at highest temperature in thin metal tray and it turned out much closer to my goal than anything I've done before. I pre-baked it on its own for about 3 minutes before adding some cheese and tomato to the top (a sort of lazy pizza) and I brushed the exposed crust with some oil. It's not quite as chewy and stretchy as domino's but close enough for me. Thanks!
Actually, as I eat more while typing this it seems it gets more chewy as it cools and sweats a bit. Maybe the cardboard box that a takeaway is delivered in helps it...
@Borbus - thanks for the update and glad it worked. Good call on par-cooking. That would help the toppings not soften it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.378822
| 2010-11-29T20:38:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9579",
"authors": [
"Borbus",
"Frames Catherine White",
"Orbling",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3574",
"justkt",
"user19622"
],
"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
}
|
9816
|
Cook Time vs. Cook Temp trade off
So I've always thought of cooking this way:
Higher Temp & Less Cook time = crispier
vs.
Lower Temp & More Cook time = softer
Now obviously this doesn't apply to everything, but generally. Like pizza, bread, etc...
I'm confused however, because a frozen pizza I was looking at had the inverse instructions (saying if I wanted a crispier crust to increase the cook time and decrease the temp).
Have I been wrong in my thinking or are the instructions incorrect?
It's important to distinguish between the two different types of "crisping" that both happen in bread.
The first is the Maillard reaction which is caused by the sugars reacting with proteins; this is facilitated by high heat and low moisture, and is what actually causes the bread to turn brown (and eventually to burn).
The other is simply the evaporation of water - drying it out - which can make the bread or crust noticeably "crisper" without any browning.
The Maillard reaction happens at 154° C / 310° F, which is much higher than the boiling point of water (100° C / 212° F), so the evaporation happens first. If you put a piece of bread in the oven at a low temperature and leave it there for half an hour, it will crisp up significantly but not brown.
So essentially it depends on what kind of "crispiness" you want. High heat will cause the Maillard reaction to occur and that will crisp it up faster, but you have to shorten the cooking time, otherwise it will burn. Lower heat, on the other hand, will crisp much slower - and if the heat is too low, you won't get any browning - but you can leave it in there for much longer and the crust will keep getting drier (i.e. crispier) due to the water evaporation.
The instructions are correct. High heat causes more "crispiness" in some applications, where almost all of the crisping comes from the Maillard reaction or caramelization of some kind, but bread is an exception because of its porousness and high water content (easy for water to evaporate).
For a frozen pizza, you want to cook it longer so that more water bakes out of the crust. If you just cooked it hotter, parts would burn before the rest was completely cooked because so much of it is frozen.
Otherwise, lower temp and longer time also needs liquid in order to get softer (stewing or braising or just basting). Otherwise, like the pizza, it'll dry out.
I've found a similar contradiction with some brands of cook-from-frozen pizza.
On closer reading of the instructions I noticed that the 'crispier' method required the pizza be placed directly on oven grille and the 'less crispy' in a pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.379122
| 2010-12-06T01:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9816",
"authors": [
"Ben Miller",
"Emily Woodford",
"Gil",
"deedeedledee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20116"
],
"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
}
|
10744
|
Does adding brandy to whipped cream make it fall quicker?
I make whipped cream frequently, but this was the first time I added "real" alcohol, and it fell within 20 minutes. I put both the bowl and beaters in the freezer until cold. Then, I whip heavy whipping cream by hand mixer until stiff peaks form. I mix in sugar on a 1:3 or 1:6 ratio (depending on dessert) and add 1 Tbs flavoring per 1 cup cream. Generally, it stays in the fridge for a few days before falling, but when I added brandy, it fell within twenty minutes. I wasn't expecting it, since I have no trouble with Bailey's or Amaretto. Is this normal, or did I perhaps mess up somewhere else in the prep? I'd like another stab at making brandy snaps, but I'm nervous about fallen cream with all the work that goes into the cookies.
Ah, I just read the answer to this in The Fat Duck Cookbook. Foams collapse when the water drains out of the bubbles. Ingredients like gums that thicken water slow this, and those that thin water, like alcohol speed it up. Adding the alcohol just before serving (with just a bit more whipping) can help. You could also try adding say 1/8 teaspoon of xanthan gum dissolved in the cream to stabilize it a bit.
Anything that dilutes the cream is going to make it less firm/stable - whipped heavy cream can last for hours, while whipped light cream (such as Reddi-Whip) won't last more than five-ten minutes. I've never had any whipped cream last for days, however, unless it contained a stabilizer such as gelatin.
1 tablespoon brandy per cup of cream does sound a bit much - just for comparison, you'd use maybe a third that much vanilla extract for the same amount of cream. (You were probably using much less Amaretto, and Bailey's contains cream so it doesn't dilute things as much.) If you can't get the flavor you want with a reduced quantity of brandy, you could try making a hard sauce (butter + alcohol) to serve with your dessert, in addition to or instead of plain whipped cream. Or you could try a whipped cream stabilizer - either the stuff you can buy specifically made for the purpose, or unflavored gelatin carefully dissolved in a part of the cream.
Note that for best results, you should add the sugar and flavorings to the cream before starting to whip. It sounds like you already know to keep everything as cold as possible.
re: having it last for days - I hand-whipped heavy cream with a whisk a few weeks ago (with a bit of confectioners sugar and very little vanilla mixed in) and it stayed for almost 4 full days without needing to be re-whipped.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.379356
| 2011-01-05T05:39:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10744",
"authors": [
"Fırat Deniz",
"Joel Grenon",
"Jérémie",
"Les",
"baueric",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53926",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user53926"
],
"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
}
|
11362
|
Doubling ingredients on panettone cake
The recipe below makes a small panettone cake. I would like to make a cake twice the size, is it ok to just double all the ingredients?
Yeast 1⁄2 tsp
Strong White Flour 300 g (11 oz)
Sugar 2 tbsp
Butter 15 g (1⁄2 oz)
Salt 1⁄4 tsp
Ground Cardamom 1⁄2 tsp
Grated Lemon Zest 1
Medium Sized Egg yolk 1
Milk 140 ml
*Mixed Peel 50 g (2 oz)
*Raisins 100 g (4 oz)
It's not significant in this case, but I've seen people 'double' cake recipies that called for mixing in 3 eggs with 30 sec after each one. She should've added 2 eggs at a time, but instead ended up over mixing and getting tunneling in the cake.
I have made larger cakes by doubling the recipe with no problem. Often when changing a recipe, the ratio of dry ingredients to wet can change, but it will remain the same with simple doubling.
However, do NOT double the cooking time. It's going to cook for longer, but not nearly twice as long. After the regular time, start checking it with a cake tester or toothpick to see if it's completely cooked.
Well, it will remain approximately the same. Unfortunately we're stuck with volumetric measurements here which probably weren't that accurate to begin with, and are going to be even less accurate as it scales up. Probably not significant enough to care about for just double, though (if it were triple or quadruple I'd be worried).
Doubling a recipe can work, but for a cake you'd have to make sure that the whole thing cooks evenly. If you simply use a very large pan, the cooking time may not be enough to cook the double-cake entirely. If you simply leave it in for longer, the surface might burn before the interior is done. If you do try this approach, check that a bamboo skewer comes out clean to make sure the interior is cooked.
If you have enough equipment (like two springform pans), I would double the recipe and pour half into two cake pans and bake them separately and save the hassle of worrying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.379590
| 2011-01-22T21:44:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11362",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian",
"Joe",
"Koldito",
"Sam B.",
"Sue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user3152"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11874
|
Trick to getting a sauce to stick to chicken?
One of the recipes I often make has a sauce that is a combination of salt, sugar, and a thick red sauce. After about 10 1-2 inch chicken pieces have been cooked the last step calls for mixing the chicken with the sauce over medium heat. You can think of the sauce as a glaze. Sometimes when I make the recipe the sauce really clings to the chicken, and other times it is a little runny. Is there some trick that will get this sauce to cling?
Thanks.
There are essentially two methods to get what you want, and you can use them separately or together:
Saturated Fat
Butter and other saturated fats (i.e. bacon fat or even chicken fat) will do wonders to "bind" sauces to chicken. Among other reasons, it's partly because saturated fat is solid at room temperature and still fairly viscous at moderately higher temperatures.
In fact, traditional "wing sauce" is invariably some combination of hot sauce and butter. The butter helps cut the spiciness and also helps keep the sauce attached to the meat.
Dry Heat
I use this technique for ribs far more often than chicken, but the idea here is to make the sauce into a glaze by reducing it.
Set your oven to broil and apply a thin coat of sauce to the meat; make sure you cover it completely but don't glob it on. Now put the meat on a rack beneath the broiler and wait until you see the sauce starting to bubble (should be no more than 1-2 minutes if you've applied enough sauce and your oven is hot enough). Then take it out of the oven. Repeat several times until you've got a thick, sticky coat of sauce (usually around 5 times for me).
Note that if the sauce is very thick (i.e. a store-bought BBQ sauce) then you'll actually want to water it down a bit first.
For chicken I honestly prefer to just throw in some butter, but you can use either technique as long as the meat isn't too lean.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.379782
| 2011-02-06T23:13:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11874",
"authors": [
"Ashkan Mobayen Khiabani",
"Nikita",
"Randy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24464",
"tangible3"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34243
|
How can I cook chicken breast like Nando's?
I want to make chicken butterfly breast similar to Nando's but plain. I read this question which gave me a good insight. I have no grill so only a gas oven/halogen oven and a frying pan.
Am I able to cook it like Nando's Butterfly chicken using a frying pan and an oven?
Is this the best method to achieve this:
Pat the chicken dry with paper towels.
Put just enough oil in a heavy-bottomed pan to cover the bottom.
Put the pan over medium-high heat and get it good and hot - the oil may just start showing wisps of smoke.
Lay the chicken in the pan carefully, being sure to start at the edge closest to you and lay it down away from you. This will prevent you from getting splashed with hot oil.
Let it cook for 2-4 minutes until you get a nice sear on it.
Flip, (the chicken, not you) again being careful to flip away from you.
Now if the breast is thin enough (maybe you butterflied it beforehand), you can just let it finish in the pan. Often, though, after flipping I'll pop the whole pan into a 400F oven and finish it in there. Again, times will vary, but I would start checking it after 5 minutes.
As I don't like seasoning, what oil should I use?
Yes, this technique will give you approximately the same results as Nando's. You want to use an oil with a relatively high burning point like sunflower, rapeseed or groundnut - olive oil may burn.
Another point to remember is that Nando's chicken breasts all have the skin on: this adds flavour and helps keep the meat moist. For the best results, both in terms of not giving yourself food poisoning and avoiding dry chicken, use a quick-read digital thermometer to ensure the breast is only cooked as much as it needs to be, but at a safe internal temperature. It should reach 75ºC in the thickest part.
How much are quick read thermometers? Am i best to buy chicken breast with skin (is this possible our a supermarket/butchers)?
P.s. what a great answer!
You can get digital probe thermometers on Amazon for about £10. You can use them for all kinds of cooking, they're super useful. Never overcook a roast again! You can definitely buy skin on chicken breasts at most supermarkets, and if a butcher doesn't have it, he's not worthy of the name!
Your method will work, my main feedback would be that chicken breast can get very dry, so avoid that by marinading the chicken, and not overcooking it. Not overcooking it is tough, with butterflied breast meat an extra 30 seconds can make the difference between tasty and moist and dry and horrible. Remember that the center is going to keep cooking after you take it off the heat, so remove it a couple of degrees below target temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.379970
| 2013-05-22T10:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34243",
"authors": [
"Amnor",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Femmy",
"Kasi Denk",
"Katie",
"LmC",
"Lorna",
"Teresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79714",
"plocks",
"steve clark"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35839
|
How can you make bread from pizza dough?
This answer to a previous question gives a way to make bread from pizza dough. It said to roll the dough into a loaf. I took it out of the refrigerator, rolled it into a loaf and let it sit in my oven after warming it to 100 and turning it off. I left it in there for 3 hours but it spread out to end up only about 1 inch thick and 8 inches wide. This has happened to me before trying to make a "loaf" of bread without using a loaf pan. What the heck am I doing wrong?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, and good question! When you say 100, you mean 100F, I assume? And what kind of pizza dough are you starting out with? (If you can just link to a recipe, that's awesome.)
How tall was the loaf before proofing? It isn't going to get that much bigger... maybe by a factor of 2 at the most. And pizza dough usually isn't formulated to rise very high, anyway.
There are a myriad of bread doughs and names with various characteristics, yet when it comes to pizza, everybody calls their dough "pizza dough". Even if they are vastly different from each other.
You can make a nice little bread loaf/baton with some pizza doughs depending on the hydration level of your dough, how much the gluten has been worked, and how long it has been let to relax.
In your particular case, I recommend:
kneading your dough for longer to develop a stronger dough able to hold shape (world class pizza dough also starts here).
Don't keep it in the fridge for more than a day (neapolitan style pizza dough usually rests three days in the fridge).
You don't need to turn the oven on for proofing. Just turn on the oven light. It's enough to make a perfect proofing temperature.
Gently roll or shape your pizza dough in a baguette style roll (batonette) and let it rise. The end result after proofing comes to about 2" to 2 1/2" high.
Pizza dough is supposed to be stretchy and pliable, so it is going to be a bit loose. Given those characteristics it's not going to be able to hold a shape that well. You're best off aiming for a ciabatta shape, putting it into a tin or shaping basket. Best of all make a focaccia type bread with it by just spreading it out flat, letting it rise, then dimpling it with your fingers and pouring some olive oil and salt on it before baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.380323
| 2013-08-06T16:54:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35839",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Edwin Maldonado",
"JATERRA DAVIS",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83988",
"laertis",
"mc-sq",
"pip",
"tst"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93246
|
How to make meatball style food that keeps its shape
How to preserve shape of meatballs and mince-meat shami kebabs? What ingredients help these items keep their shape? We tried chicpea flour, eggs but the bodies do not keep their shape but some chefs make it so solid that you can literally throw it to someone to catch and it will not loose its shape?
I am not an expert on this but the chance are you using a whole egg and a fatty mince. Fat shrink when deep fried. And egg white can get aerated. So when you deep they shrink. Only use egg yolk. I think flour is not the problem. Lastly, slam meat against the bowl so it remove all the air. And if you have vacuum sealer machine. Use it to remove the air. And let's see what happen
Chickpea flour might be too fine to do what you're trying to do. Breadcrumbs (thickener) and eggs (binding agent) should be fine for most applications of this type. It's common in American meatloaf, for instance.
I shape them first, then nuke until about 3/4 done. They stay stable and round since they're not stirred in the microwave. Finish in a regular fry pan. -An egg, regular flour is enough.
Overworking the meat is generally what you want to avoid for a burger, but in the case of kebab meat it may help. It will give it a denser and bouncier texture.
To do this, when mixing in the other ingredients, just mix for a bit longer than you normally would, especially with your hands as the heat will probably melt the fat slightly and help to bind it. Keep working it until the texture is smooth.
For meatballs, you can take 1/2 to 1/3 of the meat and process it in a food processor to make it almost gluey. Mix this with the flavourings/herbs and process again if you want the meat to homogenized or keep the herbs with the unprocessed part if you want chunky herbs. It also gives the meat a springier texture. You can achieve the same effect by working the meat with your hands by mashing and rubbing vigorously as the other answer and comment said.
Shami Kababs are traditionally made with boneless beef. The chunkier/thready texture of meat helps the kabab hold their shape. Ground beef mince is also used instead if you like it mild. To achieve a balance, you can use half meat cubes and half ground mince.
The trick to a good shami kabab is not just in choosing meat with enough fat to keep it juicy and moist but also in the proportion of chana daal cooked with the mince to hold it together, ideally 1kg meat and 250g daal. More the chana daal, softer the texture will be.
It's very important to cook the mixture of meat and daal until all the water has completely and absolutely evaporated out of the mixture before you take it off the heat. If the mixture is too wet, the kebabs will not hold their shape and will disintegrate while frying.
Adding an egg in the cooked mixture (of meat, chana daal, spices and herbs) and mixing it in with your hand also helps to retain the shape. You can also place the shaped kababs on a flat tray/platter and put them in the freezer for some time to settle. This will help them hold their shape while frying.
If the shami kebab mixture is a bit too sticky or loose and feels difficult to hold together while shaping or frying, as a last resort you can add 1-2 tbsp of roasted gramflour to the mixture but that's not recommended as it interfers with the authentic taste of shami kababs.
Dip the shami kabab in whisked egg and shallow fry using minimal oil. This gives them a nice golden crust preventing any disintegration.
Kneading salt into the meat should denature some proteins to make it more sticky. This can result in a heavy product, as you have alluded to.
(I will add a link, a laboratory exercise from a Southern USA university about food science and meat preservation, if I can find it)
То lighten the product it is typical in western cooking to add breadcrumbs, but as these decrease the strength, eggs are often added to compensate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.380555
| 2018-10-26T09:25:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93246",
"authors": [
"Raydot",
"Supa Suriyawong",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57966"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17784
|
How to make a Jim Lahey's No-Knead Bread in time for breakfast
The problem with Jim Lahey's No-Knead Bread is that it almost takes 3 hours to complete.
So unless I get up very early in the morning, I cant make it in time for breakfast.
Is it possible to freeze the bread half baked? or make the bread the evening before and just heat it the next morning?
Other suggestions are welcome.
I can't find the question which discussed half baking your bread, but there are ways to slow the rising (less yeast, colder) so it rises overnight and is baked in 35 min in the morning. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14548/how-can-i-keep-my-freshly-baked-loaf-fresh-until-the-next-morning-if-i-bake-it-at, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14184/good-breads-for-evening-cooking
Alternatively bake it the day before, slice, freeze, and toast when needed. We almost always freeze our bread because we can't eat it before it starts to go stale.
@rumtscho: I think you're looking for http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13948/how-to-break-up-a-bread-recipe - though I happen to know the OP, and it didn't turn out perfectly. It's pretty hard to get the timing right.
Isn't the entire premise of no-knead bread that it rises overnight in the refrigerator, resulting in better flavor and near zero active prep time? What takes three hours?
I have developed the following method for "no knead" bread, it works EVERY time and is scrumptious.
Mix 650gm strong white flour in a bowl, pinch of salt, slug of olive oil, 440 mls warm water and 5 (yes 5) teaspoons of dried yeast.
Mix with food mixer for 4 -5 minutes.
Place in oiled plastic bowl, and cover bowl with oiled clingfilm.
Fill a stainless sink with very warm water. Float the bowl with the dough in the water. Leave the bowl to proof for 1 hour (don't touch it).
The dough will have doubled in size. Remove the dough and place in a greased baking tin. Turn on the oven and pull out oven shelf as far as it will go. Place the baking tin with the dough inside on the extended shelf of oven for 30 minutes.
Place a metal pot of water in bottom of oven. Put bread now into a fairly warm fan-forced oven (220°-230° C).
Bake until you can smell aroma (approx 25 -30 mins). To test for being done, the loaf should sound hollow when knocked. You now have stunning "artisan type bread" and you haven't had to knead anything or get your hands dirty.
This works well during the summer and winter and can be made in time for breakfast, i.e. 2 hrs start to finish and needs no help from you.
I make a no knead bread up the weekend before, usually enough for about 8 boules. I keep it in the fridge all week and pull out as much as I need to bake at one time and pop it into the oven, usually in 1/2 pound sizes. I also re-use whatever dough I have left and mix it into the new batch the next weekend and keep it in the same container in the fridge. The worst thing I have ever had happen though is my bread kept rising in the fridge and that was a mess, still not sure what I did wrong with that batch.
By controlling the portion size you are cooking you can control the time it takes to bake, and if you make the dough up on the weekend and keep it all week, you should be able to streamline your process.
This process for me originated from Mother Earth News, and looking back on that article, which originally included the master recipe(s), they have books all about the process. So here is a link to that article and the subsequent publications. Happy baking!
Mother Earth News - Healthy Bread in 5 minutes a day
There are a number of options.
Start the recipe on the eve, and bake in the morning.
Bake the bread halfway and then freeze it (see this answer).
Bake the bread and freeze it for later use.
I make no knead bread all the time. I assume the 3 hours to complete means the last two hours of proofing, and 45 mins of baking. You can safely shave 1 hour of proofing but it will still take about 2 hours for the final process.
The other way is to bake the bread and keep it in the fridge. Then slice and toast it when you want it.
I am a great fan of no knead bread, and i prepare the 400g of flour version for 2 people.
As it is hard to eat all in one time, the bread is usually eaten the next day too.
After the bread is cool i put it in a plastic bag and eat it next day. It is not the same thing as eating recently baked, but it is superior to the standard industrial bread.
This isn't really an answer. These are nice comments and they could be helpful, but you really should have made them a comment on the question OR on an answer. Something to consider: upvote an answer and add your comments to re-enforce the person. It helps everyone!
The idea was to say that the bread can be made the day before and kept sealed for later use. Based on the content of other answers, i agree with your comment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.380895
| 2011-09-16T08:58:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17784",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DreadfulWeather",
"Jack toaster",
"MADCookie",
"Morts",
"Strangebird",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Tony Hiscox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"justkt",
"rumtscho",
"tino"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44101
|
What vegetables oils are safe to use at high temperatures (350, maybe 400 F) , say, stir fry or pan-frying chicken/fish?
I've read in a number books that at high temperatures vegetable oils oxidize.
Also, some vegetable oils (I have heard) are processed at high temperatures so they may already be in the same state as the above.
What vegetable oils are suitable for high temperature cooking?
The health issues are off topic at this site; we only address culinary facts. I have edited your question to bring it more on topic, hopefully within your intention. Please feel free to edit again to clarify.
@MattChan, please see SAJ's comment above. That's why I cross posted. I was not clear to me which of these it should go in.
@ClayNichols If you're not sure about what site to post on, check the [help] - there's a "what's on topic" page that should be fairly clear.
I think this is covered in Suitable oil for woking? - no?
Actual oxidation of the oils is a major contributor to rancidity, which would render the oil extremely unpalatable and therefore unsuitable for cooking.
The efficacy of oil at higher temperatures is related to its smoke point, which Wikipedia defines as:
the temperature at which, under defined conditions, enough volatile compounds emerge from the oil that a bluish smoke becomes clearly visible
In general you want to use oils below their smoke point, or just barely at it.
The smoke point for different culinary fats depends on their composition, and the amount of refining and removing of impurities within.
Some oils which offer superior performance at high smoke points include:
Peanut - 450 F / 232 C
Grapeseed - 420 F / 216 C
Avocado - 375 F / 190 C
You also generally want to choose a refined, neutrally flavored oil for most such applications.
For more data, please see the linked Wikipedia article, or the compilation at the Good Eats fan pages.
Update: for a good treatise on cooking with fat or oil, see the series in progress at Serious Eats:
Cooking Fats 101: What Makes Fats and Oils Essential to Cooking
Cooking Fats 101: What's a Smoke Point and Why Does it Matter?
Rapeseed oil (Canola in the States) has a smoke point of 240 deg C, beaten only by Sunflower Oil at 246 deg.C. Rapeseed oil is processed with heat unless it is sold as cold pressed, premium, virgin or extra virgin. Unfortunately, if you're in the States, the product sold as 'Canola' will contain partially hydrogenated fats, and will most likely be from GM crops. In the UK, rapeseed oil contains no hydrogenated fats, nor is it currently genetically modified, though this may be of no importance to you either way.
Seems like safflower oil or light olive oil are best. Beyond that, "refined" is better than "unrefined" as far as smoke point.
I looked at a few sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/good-bad-cooking-oils-9051.html
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/50/Smoke-Points-of-Various-Fats
Most of this is health/nutrition stuff, which doesn't address the question, so I'll go ahead and edit it out. Also, I left it alone, but calling safflower and olive the best is really misrepresenting things. There are a bunch of other things with equally high smoke points.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.381329
| 2014-05-13T19:08:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44101",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anagkai",
"Cascabel",
"Clay Nichols",
"Itrafficpizza",
"James van den Heiligenberg",
"Matt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sajjaat Muhemmed",
"Sebastian K.",
"Shane Polack",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6395",
"natto newbie",
"onpre",
"xyx545"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115654
|
What characterizes a soup that holds well in a buffet setting?
Maybe there is good reason buffets seem to have the same short list of soups: they hold well ie flavor and color; do not separate or split; heavy ingredients do not sink to bottom.
What should I avoid in soup recipes that they can be held hot for up to 4hrs?
I feel the limited range is tradition and expected customer expectations rather than how the soup reacts. For example in the Netherlands in winter there has to be a split pea soup, in summer it will never be there. The soup is as easy or hard to hold on a buffet in winter as in summer.
Hi Pat, I reworded your question title somewhat. The question as formulated in the body is fine, but the earlier title could have been misunderstood as asking for a list of soups (which is a type of question we don't permit) or as inviting a food safety debate. I tried to be as accurate as possible to the intention I saw in the text body, you can edit further if you wish.
Willeke: if I get the question correctly, though, OP is asking about soups that physically hold well, regardless of season.
I think with the containers used at buffets, almost any soup can hold really well.
I was really hoping that someone still in professional food service would answer this, but they haven't, so here's my list of rules based on memory from when I was:
Soups that are no good for holding:
Egg-drop soups and seafood soups are risky because of rapid spoilage
Miso soup settles out
Soups that are thickened with a butter or heavy cream emulsion; these tend to separate after being heated for hours
Pasta, barley and rice soups are problematic because the grains both absorb liquid while sitting and sink to the bottom.
Bread-thickened soups tend to turn to porrige
gazpacho actually does not do well; even though it is cold, after a few hours out it can ferment unless you keep it well-chilled
Soups that are good for holding:
Just about any pureed vegetable soup
Cheese-and-emulsifier thickened soups, like broccoli-cheese soup, do well
Bean soups with a moderate amount of beans do well (thick bean soups tend to solidify though), like vegetable/lentil, or brunswick stew
Chicken/noodle soup is a good standby if the noodles are very small and less than the chicken (see above)|
Thin dal, like a classic South Indian sambar, is designed for long sitting
Tomato/vegetable soup
"Chowders", including corn chowder, hold well from a suspension/serving standpoint, but see above for the risks of holding seafood
Any clear broth, such as bone broth, consomme, pomegranate soup, etc.
That's all I have; hopefully someone with current buffet-running experience will speak up.
For soup with noodles, depending on the situation you might be able to have cooked noodles next to the soup for people to add once they've poured their portion, to prevent them getting too soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.381633
| 2021-05-14T00:56:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115654",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Willeke",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"rumtscho",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36630
|
What's the difference between a cupcake and a muffin?
I was debating with someone today whether what we were eating was a cupcake or a muffin, but realized we didn't really know the difference. So what's the difference between a cupcake and a muffin in American English?
In case you're wondering, what we were eating had a sweet batter, but not overly; had blueberries in the batter; had no icing or frosting; was perhaps about three fluid ounces (1 dL) big; and had been baked with a paper wrapper.
There is considerable overlap between cupcakes and muffins.
Method
From a technical point of view, muffins are made by the muffin method, making them small quickbreads. In the muffin method, the wet ingredients are combined in one bowl; and the dry ingredients are combined in another bowl. Then the two are quickly incorporated together with minimal mixing to avoid gluten development. This gives muffins a somewhat coarse crumb.
Cupcakes are small cakes, and are made by one of the traditional cake methods such as the creaming method, the reverse creaming method, the genoise method, the chiffon method, and so on. They tend to have a finer crumb than muffins.
Contrast
While no single criterion distinguishes a muffin from a cupcake if you do not adopt the technical definition above, the following trends exist:
Cupcakes tend to be sweeter than muffins; there are savory muffins such as cornbread
Cupcakes are often iced or frosted, whereas muffins tend to have no topping, or a simple crumb topping
Cupcakes usually have a head or top no larger than the body of the cupcake; muffins are often encouraged to overflow their baking cup, so that their top is larger in diameter, giving them somewhat of a mushroom shape
Cupcakes are almost always, well, cupcake shaped; muffins can be made as just muffin tops
Cupcakes are almost never crispy or crunchy; muffins are often encouraged to brown and develop texture, especially on the tops
And here's a useful resource: "Cupcakes aren’t muffins!".
And cupcakes always have frosting.
For me, that's actually the real defining feature: frosting. A drizzle of glaze is one thing, but once you put frosting on a muffin, it's no longer a muffin in our mind. Hey, you have to draw the line somewhere!
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned advice! I was confused about your choice to duplicate another answer until I noticed you are quoting large portions of it and adding a small paragraph at the end. I removed the parts of the other answer which were not relevant to your post, and also formatted the remainder as a quote. It is a nice valid answer, it was just too hard to note what you are trying to say in its previous form.
So you're saying when I made bran muffins to hide in the cupcakes that I made for a co-worker's 50th birthday, it qualified as a cupcake? That takes all of the fun out of the joke.
I took some time to compare cupcakes and muffins with each other and I listed all the differences in a convenient chart on my blog:
https://backdirndl4you.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/muffin-vs-cupcake/
Have a baketastic baking day,
http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/225370
Hello Backdirndl and welcome to the site. It would be very helpful if you would post the results in your answer rather than just providing a link as, at some point, the link may not be available. Also, if your information came from other sources it would be appropriate to provide links to those sources. As a new user, you may want to visit the Help Center (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help) for tips on how best to post questions and answers.
Due to thekitchn website the difference between muffins and cupcakes is the following:
A muffin is something that's relatively healthy. It's not too sweet, perhaps made with whole wheat flour, and is more likely to be loaded with fruit than candy (ex: Blueberries). A muffin can also be savory instead of sweet. The texture is usually dryer and slightly denser than their cupcake cousins.
Cupcakes are, well, miniature cakes. They're sweet by definition, coming in flavors like vanilla, chocolate, and red velvet. A cupcake is tender and rich with eggs and butter. They're a dessert item, not an everyday breakfast food. And cupcakes always have frosting.
Another definition of muffins due to Diana’s Desserts is:
'A basic formula for muffins is 2 cups flour, 2-4 tablespoons sugar, 2½ teaspoons baking powder, ½ teaspoon salt, 1 egg, ¼ cup oil, shortening or butter and 1 cup milk. When the fat, sugar and egg ratio in a recipe reaches double or more than this, you have reached the cake level.'
Due to the preceding formulas, we can deduce that the muffin is lighter and healthier than a cupcake by having less fats (butter and milk), less eggs and sometimes whole wheat or oats instead of normal flour.
+1 for sourced answer, even though the sources are not clear on the demarcation.
Ugh. Muffins are not healthy. Have you looked at the calorie/fat/sugar counts on bakeshop muffins? It's disgusting. They have pretty much the same calories as a cupcake. And I strongly disagree that cupcakes always have frosting.
Hehe, exactly as much different as biscuits and cookies , if you know what I mean. Them "Americans" just created a new term out from their Brit Ancestors, like this cookie from biscuit thing, that's all. YES THAT'S ALL! Whatever tiny toony differences people are trying to show off are tiniest to the power tiniest made up just for the sake of the subject....
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is really a comment, not an answer. With a bit more rep, you will be able to post comments.
Folks are flagging this for deletion. Friendly remember that flags aren't "super downvotes" and incorrect doesn't mean low quality. I will say that it would be a higher quality Answer if it included some supporting evidence, but I don't think this meets the criteria for the low-quality flag.
Don't blame "cookie" on Americans. It's from the Dutch "koekje" (little cake) ... which I think is also the Dutch word for cupcake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.381898
| 2013-09-09T06:51:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36630",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chone Chatterton",
"Cindy",
"Dɑvïd",
"Joe",
"KABUYE NIGHT",
"Luciano",
"Preston",
"Suzanne Collins",
"Tammy Wilthew",
"excel-wrangler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98719",
"msh210",
"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
}
|
81375
|
What is this cutting spatula with holes? (See photo)
What is this tool? What is it called and what is it for?
It's like a steel angled spatula with a cutting end and holes on the tip. It's not big (see the finger for reference), little more than a centimeter wide in the tip. The cord in the photo is just something in the floor.
I've tried to find this in Google Images several ways to no success.
Kudos for making a searchable title for a picture identification question and helping the next person who's puzzled about the same thing!
It's a zester, for getting zest off of citrus fruit.
The photo from that Wikipedia article shows it in use:
Would it also work for spreading butter easier and shredding block cheese?
you probably could shred cheese, but "mangle" would be a more accurate definition of what happens, I'm guessing.
@Chloe You might be able to get strands of very cold butter with it, but if it's at all soft it'd probably just gum it up and not be any better than scraping with a knife. Similarly, maybe you could manage something for semi-firm to firm cheese, but too soft and it'd be a mess, and too firm and you'd want an actual grater.
Chocolate curls, though... that'd totally work. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e1/32/7c/e1327c16d852fb8cb3441c2e2522ab18.jpg
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.382498
| 2017-05-02T19:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81375",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Wayne Werner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11634
|
When to refrigerate bottled sauces?
When the bottle doesn't say, how does one know when to refrigerate sauces?
For example: soy sauce, fish sauce, etc.
I usually assume that if the bottle doesn't specify (and you bought it off a shelf, not out of a refrigerated area), then it's safe to store in the cupboard. You can also ask at the store if you want to be sure, though I suspect unless it's a small, specialty store with knowledgeable personnel, they will err on the side of caution and just tell you to refrigerate it.
For your specific examples: Soy sauce is definitely fine to store in the cupboard, though some brands will recommend refrigeration for "best quality". Fish sauce I'd usually store in the fridge once opened.
funny -- until you mentioned this, i never realized my own hypocrisy: i store soy sauce in the fridge, but fish sauce in the cupboard. i now realize that i should probably choose a side and stick with it, haha. both are so high in salt, it's probably fine to store them in the cupboard, but it certainly wouldn't hurt them to keep them in the fridge.
funny2 - I always put ketchup in the fridge, but always put soy sauce in the cupboard - never thought of this!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.382627
| 2011-01-30T00:03:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11634",
"authors": [
"AndieBou",
"Martin Beckett",
"Yehonatan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"neryams",
"user23887"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16586
|
The art of Sushi: using wasabi to kill parasites
I've been to many sushi places and last night I went to a place that I've been to before (not that long ago either). When the sushi came, we noticed that it had wasabi spread on the rice, under the fish.
When we complained we were rudely told that the chef had been doing sushi for 30 years and wasabi is used to kill parasites in the fish.
This is believable since I know in some countries, red peppers are used in foods all the time for the same reason.
However, my understanding of sushi is that the chef is a craftsman who not only picks great fish, but also knows how to find and remove parasites.
My question is, is this normal? Is it proper for the Sushi chef to add wasabi to the sushi to help prevent parasites? If so, how come I've only encountered this practice once out of the many sushi places I've frequented?
Wasabi is placed under fish ontop of rice to hold the fish in place. Parasites are killed when the fish is flash frozen on the boat it was caught on.
This is perfectly normal, however, I find the common claim that "it is to prevent parasites" a bit dubious (I would think that it would have to be uniformly applied to the entire fish to have any measurable effect). The wasabi is really there to add flavor. In really high-end sushi restaurants in Japan, for example, it is relatively uncommon for the guest to be served a mound of grated wasabi. Instead, the chef applies the perfect amount of wasabi to each piece of sushi. Some chefs will not even serve soy sauce, instead individually brushing on the sauce on each piece. If wasabi is served separately from the fish, it is generally also considered bad form to mix it with the soy sauce (as is commonly done in the US).
Edit: To answer your question about why you've never seen this practice before, here are some possible explanations:
It takes more time/skill/effort to do it properly.
Many sushi restaurants in the US do not have properly trained sushi chefs. In fact, in most areas of the country with little or no Japanese population, don't be surprised if your sushi chef is a Salvadorian who learned from the Oaxacan who learned from the Korean owner of the restaurant. Not that there's anything wrong with that; one of my favorite sushi places is run by an Indonesian. Just keep in mind that the people making you your sushi may have never experienced the "real thing" themselves.
"Real," fresh wasabi is very rare and expensive. Most of the stuff that is used in the US is basically horseradish paste plus food coloring. Restaurants that can both procure and afford to use the real stuff will want to use it sparingly; they wouldn't want to waste it by putting a mound of it on each plate. Therefore, they might be more inclined to use the "proper" technique.
Edit 2: Here is a video in which you can see famous chef Naomichi Yasuda using wasabi in the sushi. It all happens very quickly, but you can clearly see him dip into the bin of wasabi, rub it on the underside of the fish, and then apply the fish to the rice. Here is another video in which Anthony Bourdain explains the "rules" of high-end sushi eating, while dining at the super-famous and super-expensive Sukiyabashi Jiro (the proprietor of which is actually designated as a "living treasure" by the Japanese government). That second video shows the chef brushing on the soy sauce, and the general lack of both soy and wasabi on the plates.
Thanks. I've only seen korean chefs (which I always thought was weird) but whatever. What you say makes sense. I've only been to one high end resturaunt, but still they didn't serve wasabi on the fish. So...even though I use chop sticks I still look american because I mix soy sauce and wasabi?? Oh well.
Ah I understand it, one isn't supposed to eat sushi with chopsticks either. It's like eating a taco with knife and fork.
+1 for comment 2. This is a global problem. Lack of real training and therefore people making bad examples of classic foods
@SevenSidedDie: well, there's worst... you could eat sushi with knife and fork!!! :D
When I lived in Japan, it was quite common to mix wasabi with soy sauce when it was served separately. It was also normal to eat sushi with chopsticks. Apparently both of these practices are not truly "correct," but a quick search online shows many Japanese having the same doubts about proper eating sushi etiquette, so don't imagine you are causing a major faux pas as many Japanese themselves seem to be unsure of these points.
@user1570: That's right. I think it really depends on the formality of the restaurant. In the more formal places, they won't serve any separate wasabi or soy (only gari) and they'll give you a small moist towel (in addition to the oshibori) that you are supposed to use to clean your fingers between pieces of sushi, under the expectation that you will use your hands. If they don't give a towel to clean your fingers, then I think it is acceptable to use chopsticks.
I think the "kill parasites" claim is highly dubious and I doubt it would really do so. I've always had wasabi served separately or mixed with the soy sauce. If the chef put wasabi inside the sushi, it would have to be a minuscule amount as some people really find it too hot.
@Rincewind42: Yeah, it's usually not very much wasabi. But keep in mind that "real" wasabi is much much less "hot" than the imitation stuff that is served at many restaurants.
The chef's claim is false: Usually, the only side where wasabi is applied is under the fish, so it doesn't slide off the rice.
Looking at several sources the general way to deal with most parasites is by freezing.
Here is some general information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sashimi
More details are here:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Seafood/FishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuide/ucm091704.htm
The "parasites" claim is quite dubious, and probably mostly folklore, but there has been some published evidence that wasabi slows growth of certain bacteria, including e coli.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200210/000020021002A0124150.php has an abstract of one such study. I've heard the same claim from a book written in the late 80s, so I'm sure it's a widespread belief, but I don't know how long ago the research started. I'm fairly certain that the use of wasabi predates the belief and the research, however.
Most of the commercial wasabi contains a high percentage of mustard, which is the source of most people's sensation that wasabi is "spicy". Coincidentally, mustard is also associated with antibacterial properties. Having eaten a couple of decently-sized wasabi rhizomes in one sitting with fresh soba, I'd say "pungency" is the primary quality of fresh wasabi, and it's a different sensation than mustard. It has a very "clean" taste, which may reinforce people's impressions that it kills bad things.
As ESultanik pointed out, adding wasabi during preparation of the fish is done for flavor, but it has one other side benefit, though this may also be part folklore: The fish is more likely to stay attached to the rice with a dab of wasabi than without. I suspect if you noticed it it was probably sloppily applied, but if you haven't noticed it before, it's quite possible it was just used in sensible moderation.
+1 That's a good point. The part that I am skeptical about, though, is whether the small amount of wasabi is actually enough to have any sort of measurable effect.
It should be noted that 95% of wasabi used when serving sushi is not real wasabi, but mustard with green food coloring. True wasabi japonica, is one of the most expensive plant to cultivate and grow. And only real freshly grated wasabi, served in some high-end authentic sushi restaurants, is capable of killing some nematode parasites and bacteria.
Thought it was horseradish, not mustard -- but either way, it isn't wasabi :)
Are there any references to support the anti-bacteria and anti-nematodes assertion?
Actually used to kill strains of bacteria. Most use it to kill ecoli on the preparation items
Hello Allen, do you have a source for such a bold claim? Standard food safety practices don't include the use of wasabi.
@rumtscho he might not ... but JasonTrue does in his answer. (well, for the first sentence of Allen's answer, at least). And you could've just converted this to a comment on the question.
@Joe I don't see how it would be a comment, its purpose seems to be to answer the question.
@rumtscho : strange, because Divi also mentions it should be a comment.
Divi used a canned text from the review, and besides, there are a lot of users who think "this is short, so it must be a comment". This is not comments are, in fact there is a network-wide effort to prevent people to leave a short answer in the comment field when they don't feel like writing it up for whatever reason. We have been a bit inconsistent in deleting those here on cooking, but creating them ourselves is certainly not what we want to do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.382774
| 2011-08-02T17:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16586",
"authors": [
"7 Digit Dental Marketing",
"D3vtr0n",
"DustinDavis",
"ESultanik",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Mike.C.Ford",
"Rincewind42",
"Sam",
"SamFisher83",
"Samee87",
"Santhos",
"SevenSidedDie",
"Stephanie",
"TFD",
"comptly",
"cppeace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"sugandhi",
"user110084",
"user1570"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13567
|
Trick to keeping guacamole from turning brown
Is there anything you can add to a guacamole recipe to prevent it from going brown so quickly? Or a specific way to package it for very short-term storage (usually only about two days). I tend to make large batches when I do make it, and by the next day its already looking pretty sad. I usually just mix it up again and it doesn't look as bad, but I figured someone may know a trick to prevent it all together
Thanks!
I don't know this for sure as I've never made guacamole (avocados=green bitter snot), but lemon juice (or water with some lemon juice added) prevents apples, pears, mushrooms and other fruits etc from turning brown, so it might work here as well.
@elendilTheTall, I don't think that will help as guacamole is already made with lime juice.
Evidently not enough! :) Yossarian's tip for preventing oxygen getting to the avocado should work in any case - it works for pudding (custard) in any case.
acid would keep it from oxidizing but it has to be in greater concentration than you would want mixed in. Perhaps spritzing the surface with lemon would work (until it was disturbed.)
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9354/oxidized-avocado-whats-going-on-how-to-prevent-it
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46494/browning-avocados-what-helps
Guacamole seems to go brown with exposure to air, as does avocado. While it will not solve the issue entirely, covering with cling wrap directly on the surface helps maintain color for an extended period. Rather than pulling the wrap tight across the top of a bowl / container, place the wrap directly on top of the guacamole. Use your hand to smooth out the top so that no air is between the cling wrap and guacamole. This requires a bit extra cling wrap, as you need to get it up the insides of your bowl, but it makes a significant difference.
Wwesome! This sounds exactly what I might have been looking for, as I typically pull the cling wrap tight across the top of the bowl!
@willytate, hope you find it satisfactory. The guac will still go brown, but this slows the process noticeably.
Lime juice should help, or any citrus. This works for apples as well.
Would vinegar work?
Maybe. I think it is the acid in the citrus. But citrus doesn't add the taste of vinegar...
interesting info thanks. I eat avocadoes regularly as a diet food. I use lots of lemon juice (1 whole lemon per avocado) and add coarsely ground sea salt and black pepper and eat it by the spoonful, yummo! Often I will only eat 1/2 of the fruit at a time. So I squeeze lemon juice all over the exposed part of the fruit with some in the well where the seed was. Then I place it in a clip lock platic bag and place in the fridge for a day or two. It works like a charm. However, the skin is still attached but not the seed. Maybe something in that ?
I have not tried it myself, but it is always said that keeping the core of the avocado and sticking it in the middle of the guacamole prevents it from turning brown.
Keeping the avocado pit does help along with covering with cling wrap, but allowing the wrap to rest on the surface---minimizing the opportunity for the air to get to the mole
Bill Tate, I did not expect to find you here. I've found that lime juice works just fine to keep it from going too brown, in combination with the "saran wrap directly on the guac" trick. Then again, are you going to trust a guy who eat raw eggs?
ray...i love you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.383516
| 2011-03-29T19:57:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13567",
"authors": [
"Brian M. Hunt",
"Chris Haren",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Sobachatina",
"Will Tate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5508",
"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
}
|
14789
|
Difference between Maida and All purpose flour
I'm baking tonight and I'm out of All purpose flour. I'm lazy to run out to the grocery store. Can I replace All purpose flour with Maida (Maida is better known to Asian Indians - we use it for making Naans and such)
Maida is wheat flour similar to what is sold in the US as cake flour. Like cake flour, maida is finely milled, and it has less protein than all purpose flour. You can use it for bread and cakes, as well as chapatis, parathas and puris.
To achieve a flour more like all purpose or other flour types, you can add gluten to maita. According to The Fresh Loaf, maida typically contains 7.5% gluten (if anyone can find a more authoritative source, please edit accordingly).
Cooking for Geeks has a good article about the gluten content of other flours:
High gluten flour and bread flour is produced from hard wheat. High gluten flour has a gluten percentage of about 12-14% while bread flour contains about 10-13% gluten. Both flours are almost completely made of hard wheat, but some high gluten flours are treated to reduce starch content, raising the gluten content to around 14%. These flours are generally used for making breads. High gluten flour is reserved for breads that are extra elastic such as bagels and pizza.
Cake flour is produced from soft wheat and is low in gluten content (8-10%). This flour is used for making delicate cakes. Baked goods made with cake flour has a tendency to crumble because of the low gluten content.
All purpose flour is made from a mixture of hard and soft wheats. The gluten content ranges from 9-12%. This is the most versatile flour because it can be used to make both cakes and breads. However, breads won't be as chewy and cakes won't be as tender as if you used bread or cake flour.
Pastry flour is also a mix of hard and soft wheat flours with an emphasis on soft. Generally, the gluten content is 9-10% and is often recommended for pie crusts.
So, again according to The Fresh Loaf:
Then if you're interested in the details of the math, start out with a formula like (100parts/100parts * 7.5%) + (Nparts/100parts * 75%) = 10.5% [or 9.5% or 12.5% or whatever your desired result is], then solve for N. Skipping intermediate steps, simplification gives N = ((end-percentage-goal * 100) - 750) / 75 (Even this math is actually an oversimplification that's not quite right. It takes the not-quite-correct shortcut of directly adding percentages without accounting for the total being more than 100 grams. Hopefully though it's "good enough" ...)
The bottom line is: for every 100 grams Maida, add somewhere between 2.6 and 6.6 grams GlutenPowder. Adding 2.6 grams GlutenPowder will give a result with about 9.5% gluten, adding 4 grams GlutenPowder will give a result with about 10.5% gluten, and adding 6.6 grams GlutenPowder will give a result with about 12.5% gluten.
According to the original author of this answer, "You might find that bread and cakes made with maida don't keep as well as the same things made with all-purpose flour, but home baking never stays around for more than a day in my experience."
When you say home baking never "stays around", do you mean that it gets finished off quickly or that it doesn't last? I hope it's the former, because most home-baked goods should have no trouble lasting almost as long as those from bakeries.
"it gets finished off quickly" is exactly what I mean. OTOH with a strong flour like maida, breads taste better than with barley flour but do go stale quickly, which is why the French and Italians make a point of buying their bread on a daily basis. In those countries, they buy wholemeal bread (pain entiere, pane integrale) if they want something that lasts for more than a day. The Indian habit of making unleavened breads when needed is just another way around the keeping problem.
Thanks all! The scones came out okay - not great. And it tasted better the day it was made(than the next)
Maida is essentially very 'weak' white flour. I have used it in the past to make Indian breads like roti, but not cakes - I'd give it a try and see what happens!
Scratch my last comment - according to Wikipedia it has almost no protein, implying a very low gluten strength, so it should be fine for cakes (although the taste might be a little weird).
The point about maida is that it does not include the husk or bran. It comes from the centre of wheat grain - like white rice has the husk removed, maida is made from wheat with the husk removed.
Yup, I don't know I was thinking back in 2011...
Have used maida for making cakes/pastries/pizza/cookies/pasta/used as substitute for APF-all my life-no complaints ever! Dont know a shop that sells APF in India.
Well, I've made naan with all-purpose flour, and it worked just fine. So you should be able to do the reverse as well.
It doesn't quite work that way; AP flour sits in middle range of gluten strength, so you can use it for either pastries or breads; from what I understand, Maida has about the same strength as cake flour, so you'd have a hard time using it to make Western-style bread.
naan is a word that means different things in different places. If you were making a Kashmiri naan (with egg) to cook in a tandoor, it would work satisfactorily with either flour, but taste better with maida. A Bangladeshi naan is like a thick chapati, try that with all purpose flour and it is so heavy that it is barely edible. For Western-style bread, the French make their baguettes with a very strong flour, and maida works fine. Use maida to make an English style loaf, and it will be great to eat but will not be anything like as good the next day.
I have used Maida for making cakes, pies, pastries, breads and can say that it turns out okay. All purpose flour is not available in India easily (at least I have never seen it in any of the shops I have visited). The cakes turn out okay. The pies and puff pastries are crumbly. Breads are okay too. And they brown well.
Making pizza dough with maida is not a good idea, as it makes the dough very hard. One can even make cricket bat with it, so to speak.
Maida is a bread flour, and I would be very surprised if you can't make pizza dough with it. Maybe you used a wrong recipe with too little water? It can need more water than softer flours.
Actually, @rumtscho, maida is about as soft as it gets and it is a very weak flour. It's more like what is called "cake flour" in the US.
@Jolenealaska Good point. Now I have even forgotten why I thought this way back then. All I know is that up to date, I have seen many contradictory statements about the hardness of maida. I probably wrote this back when I only had heard one of them and assumed it's true.
I used a mix of Maida and APF to make the Pizza Dough and only the APF but it tasted nothing like PIZZA comparing with pnly maida which was excellent in taste
Maida is widely available in india but not around the world. . Maida is known as strong bread flour used to make dough for bread and yes pizza base , apparently this is only known by chefs. Other is weak flour or all purpose flour, used for making biscuits and cookies. Another flour is cake flour which by name you must have guessed what it's used for. I worked in a bread factory where we also make pizza dough balls for restaurants and take away . All purpose flour is for general public and is greatly available elsewhere in supermarkets. That is the reason why baking in home you never get the perfect recipe as ready stuff.
@JanDoggen the words "strong" and "weak" flour have a well-defined meaning - they are the BE terms for "high-gluten" and "low-gluten" flour, similarly to the AE "bread flour" and "AP flour" but allowing a bit finer grading if needed (e.g. pastry flour is weaker than AP flour).
@JanDoggen Yes, I suppose I should have written it out. "BE" is "British English", "AE" is "American English", "AP" is "all purpose flour".
I have used various maida brands for making bread for the last ten years
My experience is
. Expensive maida costing upwards of 40/kg is from hard wheat. That makes excellent bread with good brown crust
. Cheap maida at around 30/kg results in white crust. Must be from inferior wheat. It is great for cakes, but not for bread
Welcome! How do those different maida brands compare to all purpose flour? Would maida be usable as a substitute?
Using all-purpose flour is better than using maida, in cakes.
Why do you say so?
Can you elaborate?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.383842
| 2011-05-14T21:37:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14789",
"authors": [
"AINLEYTOP AIRPORT spam",
"Aaronut",
"BonnieLee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Erica",
"Instant CarFix",
"JJOhio",
"James Barrie",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marc",
"Mien",
"Narmatha Balasundaram",
"Spammer",
"SunnyCab Medical Transportatio",
"Tammy Price",
"Tom",
"chrki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99478",
"ismail",
"klypos",
"llama",
"navneesi",
"rfusca",
"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
}
|
14972
|
Baking chicken in oven, but keeping it moist
Here is the problem I'm facing:
I am on a diet, which doesn't exclude fat, but doesn't encourage it either. So I am trying to bake chicken in the oven, while also removing the fat that comes out, while also preventing it becoming too dry.
I am thinking of rubbing the chicken with seasoning, and then putting it on bars, with a pan beneath, so that the fats would drip down. But as far as i know, that may render the chicken to dry. Any solutions?
Thanks!
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1457/how-do-you-keep-chicken-breast-juicy-when-grilling
The technique you describe is pretty much just the standard way of roasting a chicken. A V-shaped roasting rack is excellent for this purpose. As for keeping it moist, the standard technique is to brine the chicken first. Done properly, brining a chicken results in a moist, tender bird with crisp skin, and doesn't involve adding any additional fat. I normally brine by putting the chicken in a stew pot, covering it with cold water, adding about a cup of kosher salt, and letting it sit for 90 minutes.
FYI, that cup of kosher salt goes for about a half-gallon of water, typically. If you're using table salt, it's less. I recommend searching for a proper recipe.
Personally, I tend to have trouble getting the crisp skin after brining. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make--the improvement to the meat far outweighs the detriment to the skin. Just wanted to put that out there
One last thing--I don't know your diet, but this would not be the way to go if it's a low-sodium diet
Yes, I thought so, so i discounted brining as not being an option. There can be no salt in my diet. Nevertheless, even without brining, I somehow got the chicken to still be moist, but also not be as fat. Epic success :)
@Ray: Letting the chicken dry uncovered in the fridge for a bit (after brining) will help with the skin.
If you're looking for moisture, your enemy is a combination of temperature and time -- if you cook it for too long (where too long depends on the temperature) the chicken is going to overcook and be dry.
Good methods are cooking it longer at a lower heat 'til it's cooked through, then giving it a burst of high heat to brown the skin. (there are also recipes done in reverse, where you pre-heat to a higher temp, then turn it down after a few minutes of cooking).
Brining can also help.
If you happen to have a blow torch on hand, it's a great way to brown a chicken at the tail end of a low-and-slow roasting. And, it makes a great finally at dinner parties!
You'll get chicken fat when you eat the chicken no matter what method you use to roast it. To minimize how much fat you consume, don't eat the skin. You can also shred the chicken meat and dress it with some of the juices and fat.
I like the beer can method for keeping the chicken moist which someone else has already mentioned. Other methods include putting a pan of steaming hot water into the oven to keep the chicken company. Another is to cover the breast portion with foil for part of roasting time and make sur not to over roast.
Yes, I have made the chicken with the beer can method, but this time I needed to cook parts, instead of a whole, so the method didn't qualify in my mind. Also, in my opinion, the chicken is not tender or "baked" enough, it almost seems steamed to me.
Do you mean just putting a pan with water in the oven with the chicken? Or do I need to heat the water first? I usually freeze chicken and then bake it, but it comes out really dry.
Using the beer can chicken method is a way to keep a roasted chicken moist. Variations of this recipe abound. You can use just about any kind of can with just about any flavorful liquid.
Cover the bottom of the pan with sliced onions to keep the skin from sticking to the bottom.
Place chicken in pan UPSIDE DOWN (i.e. Breast down).
When there's about 20 minutes cooking time left (about 130 degrees F)
flip it over, turn the heat up a bit and brown up the skin.
This way, all the juices flow into the breast, rather than out, and you end up with a very moist bird. I also like to pour lemon juice over the skin, and stuff the empty lemon half inside.
Just put in a more detailed answer here, but basically, try salting it for 20-30 minutes before you put it in the oven, and cook it until it's safe, but no longer. Use a probe thermometer to test it. Once it hits 160F, take it out, wrap it in foil, and let it sit for five to ten minutes to let the residual heat finish it off.
As Joe said, the enemy of moist chicken is overcooking.
You can cook a chicken a shorter time at a higher temperature. For example, my favorite way of preparing pieces of chicken on the bone is from Barbara Kafka's cookbook Roasting. Heat the oven to 500 degrees (F). Season your chicken. Put it in the oven, skin side up, for 10 minutes. Flip, and cook another 10 minutes. Flip again and cook another 10 minutes. The chicken will be done at this point and quite juicy. You can even do this without the skin, and the chicken still comes out well.
Higher temperatures leave the tissues less supple, especially for darker meats and connective tissues. Low and slow is the key to moist chicken all around.
Put 1kg (whole bag) of plain salt on the bottom of the roaster, put whole chicken on it, close the roaster lid and bake till the meat is done. The salt simply drains all dripping fat. The meat is delicious, the skin (in case you are eating it) is thin and crispy, all underskin fat is gone.
May be a bit more expensive, but definitely will have to try this one sometime. Thanks!
1kg of salt costs next to nothing here. The chicken is bought anyway, so what's expensive?
Stuffing the chicken with vegetables or fruits should help keep it moist as well as make it tasty.
Actually, depending on how you stuff the bird, it might dry it out. The problem is that as the stuffing came into contact with raw poultry, you want to heat it up to kill any bacteria ... which can mean overcooking the chicken. If you're not packing it in, and just using it as flavoring (not eating afterwards), you should be okay.
One thing people haven't mentioned though it was hinted at with Ray's post "your enemy is a combination of temperature and time".
The tip is this:
Use a smaller chicken if possible. Best would be a 3lb chicken cooked at very high heat (450+) for 45min or so. Make sure and let it rest for at least 10-15 minutes as well so that the juices have time to settle in the meat. Do not stuff it (unless its just tossing in some herbs or something small. You can also through some fresh herbs under the skin and just toss the skin when done since you are not eating it.
The small chickens are hard to find but it is possible at some stores like Trader Joes. Most large grocery stores tend to carry larger 5lb birds.
I put the whole chicken in a slow cooker with vegetables (but no extra liquid) and cook for 3-4 hours. I tried the beer can chicken once but didn't notice any difference from my normal roast chicken (maybe it was the beer!).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.384502
| 2011-05-22T17:30:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14972",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Bryan Adams",
"Janis Peisenieks",
"Joe",
"Michael A",
"Ray",
"andrej",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6247",
"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
}
|
21599
|
What type of flour should I feed my starter with?
Different sites recommend different flours for the feeding of my established starter, so I suspect it depends on the purpose, but I can't find a definitive answer. Should I be using the flour I plan to bake with next? Will mixing and matching make a difference? Do certain types produce more activity? Better flavor?
Possible Dupe: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21187/8305
@Jay - I don't think that's even remotely a dupe.
@rfusca I asked what type of flour to use for the starter... isnt this what she is asking?
Yours was a bit of a sourdough scatter shot and got answers as such. This is much more targeted, asking about activity, mixing, flavor, etc of difference starter options.
@Jay Also, I'm not trying to make a wild yeast starter. I have a starter from an established colony. When starting a new starter (yeesh, that sounds off), you want flour that will retain the maximum amount of wild yeast. I already have yeast. I'm curious if feeding it bread flour vs rye flour vs AP flour is going to make a difference to an established colony or in the final bread.
@Yam - I'm not sure if I can comment on all different types of yeast, but I use rye largely because its easier. There's very little gluten development, so its easy to work with.
Once my starter was established (started with organic whole wheat flour) I've been feeding it with unbleached AP flour (King Arthur) and that's worked fine. I do this simply because it's the flour I buy in large quantities to stock my pantry, and so it's generally the cheapest flour I have on hand.
If you want to "switch over" to a different flour you can always scoop out a bit of starter a couple days before you bake, and feed it with the different flour. Start with a small amount so you don't have to throw any away; just double the volume with each feeding. I don't usually bother, though.
I agree with Adam. Keep the mother alive with the 'cheapest' flour available. The yeast needs carbon hydrates. It doesn't matter much what flour you use to give it to them. Your other question, about flavor depends much more on your bread formula, bread flour, than on your mother or sourdough starter.
Whole grain rye flour is best. Because rye is better than wheat, and hole grain is better than ordinary flour. You get a better starter culture faster that way. So it is a good idea to start up with rye, even if you plan to use it for wheat bread later.
But I'm not trying to produce a culture, I have a culture. I'm trying to keep it alive and growing and use it to bake with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.385426
| 2012-02-22T00:43:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21599",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"kamituel",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21652
|
Why baste bread with cornstarch?
In this sourdough recipe, it suggests basting the bread with a cornstarch slurry. I would assume this is meant to promote crust development, but how does that work? I usually see such a slurry used to thicken liquids.
Other recipes that use this method:
Yankee Harvest sourdough
"Secrets of a Jewish Baker" glaze
Jewish Sour Rye on The Fresh Loaf
What's Cooking America bread machine tips
It appears to be a presentation thing (makes it look "professional") and possibly a Jewish tradition.
Edit: Do note that the question is "Why cornstarch? How does that work?". I understand the desire for a good crust, and I understand that the slurry is meant to promote crust development, but I fail to understand what it is about cornstarch that mimics good crust development.
I can honestly say I've never heard of that before.
@rfusca It's the weirdest thing I've come across, that's for sure.
http://www.kitchencookingrecipes.com/forum/bread-recipe-forum/247171-cornstarch-glaze.html amused me while searching for links: it appears to be talking about this technique, then some bot or something comes along and posts an answer about thickening sauces
I've seen bread recipes like the one that you described.
When bread is baked in an oven with steam- the starch in the crust is able to gelatinize before it all dries out and becomes crispy. This is what makes the crust crisp, shiny, and delicious- characteristic of "artisan" breads.
Most people don't have steam enhanced ovens (or the ability to hack their oven to add steam: How can I create steam in a normal oven to promote bread oven spring?)
The recipe you linked has water added for steam but then takes out extra insurance (they cheat) by adding the cornstarch glaze to mimic the effect. By adding extra, pure, starch on the surface of the loaf more gelatinization occurs. Additionally, cornstarch gelatinizes at a lower temperature that wheat starch. Conceivably, you should be able to use any starch and see similar results but, in the US at least, cornstarch is by far the most common.
It shouldn't be necessary if you are able to produce enough steam in your oven.
Cornstarch slurries are used because they make the crust of the bread shine. This happens because Cornstarch mixes are translucent; whereas flour mixes are opaque.
Why cornstarch and not plain water, then? Water is translucent.
The wash also can be used to allow seeds or oatmeal, for example, to adhere to the crust of the bread for aesthetic purposes.
This is something I'm still learning to execute beyond "theory". So, take it for what it is. My understanding from a chemical point of view is that the cornstarch heats, and on a molecular level breaks into a gel like substance on the surface of the bread due to the contact with the hot steam, and that gel like substance solidifies in/on the surface of the bread, making the crust, well, crusty. As noted before, wheat starches and other starches do this in the steam of the oven. For lack of much steam in a regular oven (though you can do some tricks to create it without a steam injection oven-- google it) the water part of the slurry will become the steam that's in contact with the cornstarch part of the slurry. So, steam via slurry rather than steam injection oven, and cornstarch gelatinization and solidification instead of wheat starch gelatinization and solidification to yield... dun dun dah dah... CHEWY CRUSTY CRUST without a steam injection oven! Cheers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.385652
| 2012-02-23T18:49:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21652",
"authors": [
"Bella",
"Elsie",
"Jeffery",
"Jen",
"Nicholas",
"Uma Shashikant",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"kando",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15844
|
Chiquapin Chocolate?
I ran across this historic reference to making chocolate out of Chinquapin (which I assume to be a type of Chesnut) nuts.
I have turned the internet upside down looking for information on this.
I found one tiny reference to Chinquapin as a substitute for coco.
How are Chinqupin nuts made into chocolate? Is it identical to how regular chocolate is made from cocao?
I am planting a chinquapin tree to experiment with =)
Hello JoeHobbit,
I have got two possible explanations for the connection between the word Chinquapin and chocolate.
First of all, the way I read your question; making chocolate out of Chinquapin, you are asking about a possible substitute; called Chinquapin, for cocoa mass, chocolate liquor, cocoa solids, and/or cocoa butter, to make a confectionary similar to chocolate.
The historic source you are referring to in your question describes the primitive and colonial history of South Carolina. And as most of us know, South Carolina is located in the Southeastern United States.
This point is important, as the first explanation I’m going to propose, originates from the food traditions of Native Americans in the Southeastern United States.
The second explanation I will propose, takes as its starting point your suggestion that the word Chinquapin refers to some species of Chestnut.
The First Alternative
The first alternative is the seeds of a plant native to Southeastern United States. The seeds are brown when ripe, and have a sweet taste.
The use of this plant as a source of food is ancient, and stems from the time when hunter-gatherer or forage societies were prevalent. This plant also has an Asian sibling, which similarly has been used as a source of food since ancient times, and still is a very popular treat.
The flowers, seeds, young leaves, and tubers (rhizome, root) of this plant are edible. The plant, especially its seeds, was a popular and extensively used source of food among Native Americans who eat almost every part of the plant (Carqué 1923:251; Cutler 2002:55; Moerman 2010:161; Newcomb 1961:324; Saunders 1976:35). According to Charles Francis Saunders, the ripened seeds, either roasted or boiled, are palatable and nutritious (Saunders 1976:35).
In the context of the question asked, only the seeds of this plant are of interest, so we’ll focus on them for the reminding part.
Similarity to Cocoa
What’s especially interesting from the point of view of your question, apart from the fact that the seeds are brown, is that one of the methods used to turn the seeds of this plant into an edible substance, is somewhat similar to the method used to turn the seeds of the cacao tree into cocoa mass.
The method I’m referring to was used by Native Americans in Arkansas. They soaked the seeds in water before dry-roasting them, then they deshelled them and grounded them into sweet meal (Fernald & Kinsey 1996:200; Moerman 2010:161).
The similarity to the preparation of cacao seeds should be obvious, but I’ll include a short description for those not familiar with the process. Cacao seeds in their natural form have an intense bitter taste, which makes the inedible. The method used to turn them into an edible substance is as follows: fermentation, drying, deshelling, and then grounding into cocoa mass.
Another point that makes the seeds I’m referring to interesting, from the point of view of making a chocolate substitute, is that these seeds have a natural sweet taste, whereas cocoa has a bitter taste. In other words, to turn these seeds into a confectionary would require less sugar then one would use when making chocolate from cocoa.
How to make it into Chocolate
I’m not an expert on confectionaries or chocolate production. Therefore, I would like to invite someone who is, to help us explain how we should go about making chocolate from the sweet meal of these dry-roasted seeds.
The plant
The plant I have been referring to in this first explanation, is Nelumboa lutea; commonly known as Water-Chinquapin, American lotus, water- nut, duck acorn, nelumbo, pond nuts, wonkapin, yanquapin, and yellow nulmbo (Allen 2007:302; Davidson 2006; Hanelt 2001:141).
There is a link between Water-Chinquapin and Chestnuts. Otto Carqué claims that the Water-Chinquapin frequently is referred to as water chestnut, whereas other authors claim that the name; Water-Chinquapin, originates from the taste of the seeds, which some sources say have a chestnut like taste (Carqué 1923:251; Bailey 1948:209; BTBC 1895:120).
The Second Alternative
The second explanation I will propose, has as mentioned above, its root in the chestnut theory put forward by JoeHobbit.
There is in fact a type of chestnut that was widely hailed as a sweet and edible nut, and used as a coffee and chocolate substitute by early settlers and Native Americans (Brown & Brown 1972; Duke 2001:88; Payne et al. 1994:62).
Moreover, early explorers in Carolina claimed that chocolate made from this nut was not much inferior to that made from cacao (Fernald 1996:26). Fernald also points out that there are only three plants in North America that are known to be used as chocolate substitutes. The first of these is Basswood; or Linden, of which the young fruit has a chocolate like odour and flavour when mashed. The second one is the root of Purple Avens, from which can be made a chocolate like drink. The third one is the nut we are currently discussing here (Fernald 1996:25-26).
The nut in question was well known to the first English settlers in North America. As early as 1612, Captain John Smith; one of the founders of Jamestown, described this nut as the great dainty (Sargent 1891-1902:18).
Charles Sprague Sargent (1891-1902:18) noted several historical references to this nut:
"They have a small fruict growing in little trees, husked like a chestnut, but the fruict most like a very small acron, this they call chechinquamins, and these, with chestnutts, they boile four or five houres, of which they make both broth and bread, for their chief men, or at their greatest feasts." (Strachey, Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia, ed. Major, 118.)
"The Chincopin Tree bears a Nut not unlike the Hade, the Shell is softer: Of the Kernel is made Chocolate, not much inferior to that made of the Cacoa." (Thomas Ashe, Carolina or a Description of the Present State of that Country, 7.)
The plant
The nuts in question, are the fruits of the plant Castanea pumila, commonly known as the Allegheny chinquapin, American chinquapin, dwarf or bush chestnuts, or just Chinquapin. The plant is a shrub, or a small tree, commonly found throughout the East, South, and Southeast United States.
Conclusion
Based on the literature I have gone through, it seems clear that the chocolate substitute you are looking for is the nuts of the American chinquapin. Although I also find the Water-Chinquapin as an interesting alternative.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any description of how you can turn the chinquapin nuts into chocolate. The only thing I have found out about consumption is that it was sometimes used to make a chocolate tasting drink. If it ever was made confectionary out of these nuts is unknown. The only thing I can say about the subject, is that the sources I have found do not mention confectionary in connection with chinquapin nuts.
This is perhaps not the answer you were looking for. Nevertheless, it should give you some pointers to where you can begin your search. The references below might reveal more clues than what I have been able to discover.
References
Books
Allen, Gary (2007): The herbalist in the kitchen, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Bailey, Robeson (1948): The Field and stream game bag, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Brown, Russell G. & Brown, Melvin L. (1972): Woody plants of Maryland, University of Maryland Book Center, Port City Press, Baltimore. Library of Congress
BTBC (1895): Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Volume 22, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y.
Hathi Trust - Library of Congress
Carqué, Otto (1923): Rational diet; an advanced treatise on the food question, Times-Mirror Press, Los Angeles, Reprinted 1971, Health Research, Pomeroy, WA.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Cutler, Charles L. (2002): Tracks that speak: the legacy of Native American words in North American culture, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Google Books - Library of Congress
Davidson, Alan (2006): The Oxford companion to food, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. Library of Congress
Duke, James A. (2001): Handbook of nuts CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Fernald, Merritt Lyndon and Kinsey, Alfred Charles (1996): Edible wild plants of eastern North America, revised by Reed C. Collins, Dover Publications, New York. Google Books - Library of Congress
Hanelt, Peter (2001): Mansfeld’s encyclopedia of agricultural and horticultural crops, Editor: Peter Hanelt, Springer Verlag, Berlin & New York.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Moerman, Daniel E. (2010): The herbalist in the kitchen, Timber Press, Portland.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Newcomb, William W. (1961): The Indians of Texas, from prehistoric to modern times. With drawings by Hal M. Story., Reprinted 2002, University of Texas Press, Austin.
Google Books - Library of Congress
Sargent, Charles Sprague (1891-1902): The Silva of North America; a description of the trees which grow naturally in North America exclusive of Mexico - Volume 9 Houghton, Mifflin and company, Boston, New York. Hathi Trust - Library of Congress
Saunders, Charles Francis (1976): Edible and useful wild plants of the United States and Canada, First printed 1934, Dover Publications, New York. Google Books - Library of Congress
Payne et. al (1994): Castanea pumila (L.) Mill.: An Underused Native Nut Tree Jerry A. Payne, Gregory Miller, George P. Johnson, and Samuel D. Senter, in HortScience February 1994 29:62-131. HortScience Online
Websites
Chinkapin: Potential New Crop for the South
Flora of North America: Nelumbo lutea
Texas Beyond History: Water Chinquapin
Wikipedia: Castanea pumila
Wikipedia: Lotus seed
Wikipedia: Nelumbo lutea
Wikipedia: Nelumbo nucifera
Wow. Awesome answer. I don't think I want to know how much time you spent researching this.
@ derobert, I spent some time. In fact, the question was the reason I registered here. With a passion for food and history, and being a researcher at heart, I just had to.
@LarsB wow, well welcome to SA! I, for one, look forward to your future answers with enthusiasm!
I like the answer, but I would disagree with the settlers Fernald mentions. Linden fruit tastes nothing like chocolate.
One of the most unique bits that make chocolate a unique food item is the fact that cocoa butter (the fat from the cocoa bean) is solid at room temperate but melts slightly below body temperate. (It melts in your mouth.) The flavor and color of chocolate comes from roasting the bean and then grinding them.
I would guess you can substitute roasted chestnuts for the roasted chocolate beans but finding an alternative to cocoa butter's unique properties will be difficult. Even carob when used to make a chocolate substitute has to rely on hydrogenated oils to produce a viable alternative.
Does coco butter have hydrogenated oils?
I found the answer to my own question on google: http://www.allchocolate.com/health/nutrition/fats.aspx
@LarsB: That sentence is awkwardly phrased, yes, it clearly means "…becomes liquid at a temperature below [less than] body temperature…". I suggest using the edit button.
@derobert, Sorry about that one. It was my fault. Was a bit too quick on the trigger, and got the logic upside down. Thanks for reminding me.
By chocolate, do you mean drinking chocolate?
If so, I'd guess that the nuts are roasted, grinded and then used as ordinary cocoa.
I too was unsuccessful finding anything relevant on Internet. It seems the most
common cocoa substitute is carob.
Perhaps the next thing to look for is whether/how other types of (chest)nuts are made into drinks.
I was meaning hard chocolate, but chocolate drink is fine also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.385992
| 2011-06-29T19:35:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15844",
"authors": [
"Anika",
"Dale",
"Jonas",
"Kasino",
"LarsB",
"Maike Ryan",
"Sparkler",
"Tara",
"codeshot",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7767",
"rumtscho",
"user33677"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53794
|
What is the diference between a quinoa burger, a quorn burger, and a soya burger?
I would like to know, what is the difference between a quinoa burger, a quorn burger, and a soya burger? Are their ingredients all different, or are some of these in common to the above? What about the industrial preparation process? And are quinoa and quorn just brand names of soya?
The word is burger. I'm not sure what this question is asking - the materials which go into the burger are different in each case.
True. Apparently the word bergher is used to describe people of half-Sri Lankan half-European ethnicity. My mistake.
Well, first and foremost, I wanted to know, are their ingredients all different, or are some of these in common to the above? What about the industrial preparation process? And are quinoa and quorn just brand names of soia? Thanks! :-)
The differences are as follows:
Quinoa is a pseudocerial coming from goosefoot wikipedia. It is one of the trendy "superfoods" because it has a very high nutritional value ánd is gluten free. I have always used it as a grain substitute and do not know if it's any good as the main ingredient for a burger.
Quorn is a meat substitute made of mycoprotein from fungus. wikipedia. In my personal experience quorn is a very acceptable substitute for ground beef, so a burger made of this material is likely to taste pretty decent.
Soy is a plant material traditionally used for instance in tofu. It has long been used as a meat substitute due to the high protein content. In my humble opinion it has been surpassed by other meat alternatives, mainly because soy based meat alternatives lack in texture.
All very different products then, where most likely the only common factor is the spicing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.386893
| 2015-01-20T03:09:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53794",
"authors": [
"Anne Rueb",
"Batman",
"F Gorman",
"Fortune Psychic",
"Intermodal Transportation",
"John Sonderson",
"Rafeena Razak Fausiya",
"Spammer",
"Tom Gardner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32749"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41331
|
How many calories does 8oz of de-fatted homemade chicken broth contain?
Does anybody know how many calories are in 8oz of chicken broth if I skim the fat during production?
I made my broth with a whole chicken, carrots, onion, celery, garlic, bay leaf, turnips, and sun-dried tomatoes.
While listing the ingredients is helpful, it would probably help to know quantities. As SAJ14SAJ points out, there is going to be a very wide range of answers to this.
Homemade chicken stock can have a variety of densities, from being almost thick enough to cut into cubes at room temperature, to being a very thin broth, depending on the volume of chicken solids you used in making it, and how much you reduced it. The variation is mostly going to be from gelatin.
With this level of variability, there is no reasonable way to give you a specific calorie estimate.
Live Strong estimates 75 calories per cup, but don't detail the nature of the stock they are assessing. Still, this probably a good baseline; your product is probably in the 50-100 calorie per cup range.
I don't think this is mathematically possible. An entire 4.5 pound raw chicken only has about 1000 calories. Add another 200 calories for the carrots, celery and onion, and you get an absolute maximum of 1200 calories for the entire pot. If you use this to make 16 cups of stock, that means the absolute maximum calories a cup of stock could contain is 75.
Now you have to subtract all the calories from the stuff you take out of the pot. If you chill it to solidify the fat and remove all of it (about 65 grams, some of which is probably still in the chicken skin, which you also took out), then you have removed about 585 calories of fat, leaving about 615 calories in the whole pot (38 calories per cup if you made 16 cups) and that's BEFORE you subtract the calories remaining in the chicken body and vegetables that you took out of the pot. I have no idea how many calories the boiled chicken and vegetables contain, but I would estimate that we are talking about a virtually insignificant number of calories remaining in the stock. Maybe 15 calories per cup, probably less. If you make "clarified" stock (which I don't), it's probably a single digit number of calories remaining in each serving of finished stock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.387068
| 2014-01-21T20:04:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41331",
"authors": [
"Mixed Rice",
"Mr. X",
"Omnintuit",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96335",
"tangobango"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36345
|
How far ahead of time can I make or bake a bread with fruit and honey in it?
I want to make several loaves of a honey-apple challah for Jewish friends for Rosh Hashanah. However I am going to be out if town for Labor Day weekend. If I bake some on Saturday night and seal in Ziploc bags and store it in the fridge, will it be fresh enough to deliver the following Wednesday?
Refrigerating bread promotes rapid staling, do you do not want to do that.
However, ironically, breads in general and challah in specific will freeze very well. You just want to be sure it is well protected against freezer burn. For a few days, a zip lock bag should do quite well; for longer storage, wrapping tightly in film wrap, and then putting in the zip lock type bag would be better.
Do make sure the bread is fully cooled before freezing.
You can optionally slice before freezing as well, should you want to, which can be convenient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.387405
| 2013-08-27T14:45:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36345",
"authors": [
"Chaitanya Trivedi",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Summer Niu",
"ThatDataGuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85291"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36653
|
Will old corn meal ruin muffins?
I have found a recipe for muffins that I'd like to make, and it calls for corn meal. I found some in the pantry, but I don't know when it was purchased. It doesn't smell like much, just kinda like corn.
It might be pretty old. Possibly years. Will it ruin the muffins? Would the muffins be significantly better if I bought some new corn meal from the grocer?
Is there a reason this is tagged raspberries?
If it is stale or rancid, you will get substandard muffins that simply don't taste very good. Usually you would smell rancidity.
It is unlikely to have suffered mold or other decay if it still smells just like corn, but.... cornmeal is quite inexpensive, at least in the US. You might want to buy a new bag.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.387516
| 2013-09-09T20:36:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36653",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13029
|
How to make roux-based sauce thicker
Sometimes when I make a roux-based sauce, it turns out too thin. Are there any ways to make it thicker after the sauce is done? Adding salt helps a bit, but I don't want to add too much for obvious reasons. Ideas how to prevent the sauce from getting too thin in the first place are also welcome.
I have no idea how salt would do anything other than make your sauce more salty. I wouldn't expect it to affect the viscosity at all.
Are you cooking it long enough, it can take a while to thicken
If your sauce is too thin, the problem is that your initial roux was either too thin (not enough flour) or you added too much liquid for the amount of roux that you made. Standard ratios are 1 Tbsp butter - 1 Tbsp flour - 1 cup liquid for a thin sauce, 2-2-1 for something in the middle and 3-3-1 for a thick sauce.
Once you've made the sauce and it's too thin, the best fix is to add a beurre manié, which is essentially butter and flour that you mash together in a small bowl and then whisk into your sauce. It's kind of like adding more roux after the fact. However, because it's not pre-cooked like the roux, you need to make sure you give it enough cooking time after adding to get rid of the floury taste.
As an alternative to corn flour, Arrowroot is a plant based starch of similar price to corn starch but with some better qualities
Important is sauces is that it does not cloud the sauce, and keeps a shiny appearance
Also, it doesn't require the heat level to set that corn starch does. So it can be added after a sauce is finished to increase thickness
Always mix Arrowroot with a little cold liquid (not milk) and then add that to the sauce
Agreed on arrowroot being a superior choice to corn starch in many cases; however, I don't think I'd use either in a roux. Arrowroot also has no protein, so it won't really "cook" or gelatinize like wheat flour, and it also breaks down under high heat, which a roux will tend to be subjected to. There's a lot to be said for choosing the appropriate flour for a specific roux based on protein content, but a roux made with no protein is going to be thin, flat, and flavourless.
@Aaronut The OP wanted "Are there any ways to make it thicker after the sauce is done?" A roux is made with flour, but if the finished product is too thin, Arrowroot is a quick fix
I understand. The first few words were "as an alternative" so I assumed you meant to use it instead of flour. Presumably that must have been in reference to the corn starch answer instead.
@Aaronut ah yes, that is a technicality with SE, it reads in a different order every time you view a page. Have edited to by crystal clear
Only for answers with tied votes. The highest-voted answer is always at the top.
One excellent way to thicker almost any type of sauce is to use corn flour. It is inexpensive and easy to use. When you've decided you want to thicken your sauce separately mix some cornflower with a little milk or water to make a smooth paste and then add to you sauce making suer you stir. This works well for soups too.
Thanks. Is there a particular reason to use cornflour instead of ordinary flour?
Cornflour works faster, and I find it gives a smoother, less floury taste. Whisk or stir constantly as you add it though, otherwise you'll end up with lumps.
Cornflour, is not a 'flour' it is the processed starch from corn meal. While wheat or corn meal flour will thicken sauces, you need a lot more product to get the same thickening level, and this will effect taste and quality
What the UK calls cornflour, the US calls cornstarch. (corn flour in the US is frequently a finer grind of cornmeal, used for making tamales and the like) see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca
While this is true in a general sense, I feel that it's kind of irrelevant to the specific question. A roux is, by definition, made from fat and starch, so either you are saying "use more flour", which is pretty self-evident, or "use corn starch instead of regular flour", which as @TFD says, is actually not a flour and thus not such a hot idea for a roux; you won't get the rich flavour you're supposed to get from cooked flour.
@Aaronut Well, no, considering the specific question was "Are there any ways to make it thicker after the sauce is done", "add a corn starch slurry" is in fact an extremely relevant (and useful!) answer.
A quick solution is to make a slurry.
Add 1 tbsp flour to 1/4 cup liquid and stir til combined, if too thick add a little more cold liquid. BTW, if you add hot liquid it will expand too quickly.
Once it is thinned out enough, add to the pot and whisk together.
When it is thick enough, add equal extra amount of butter or oil to balance flavour.
If you have this problem frequently, one solution is to make more roux than you think you'll need, then reserve some after you've cooked it, but before you've added any (or much) liquid;
You can then add the roux in at the end ... the easiest way is to get some onto a wisk and then wisk it in, and keep repeating until you think you've gotten enough in.
It will thicken up with time if you leave it at a simmer, but I think that might be partially from evaporation, so you'll end up with less. It'll also thicken up more as it cools down, so you want it a little thinner than the thickness you want to serve it at, or it might turn into a giant lump.
Very likely due to evaporation. A roux actually has a pretty small margin of error; too little water and the flour won't gelatinize, too much water and you'll end up with slurry. Normally one of the things you need to be extra careful of when making a roux is letting the water evaporate too quickly; if the roux balls up (i.e. is cooked) and is still too thin then it means you added way too much water at the beginning - better to just use less water next time than to try to "reduce" it afterward and risk overcooking the roux.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.387618
| 2011-03-11T05:55:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13029",
"authors": [
"2xj",
"Aaronut",
"Alex M",
"Allison",
"Doreen",
"Gabe Spradlin",
"Heather Jarvis",
"Jim",
"Joe",
"KimbaF",
"Paul",
"Rian Schmits",
"TFD",
"Will",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"meduz",
"user26991",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18729
|
What should go in an Italian Sub sandwich?
I think its provolone, salami, ham, prosciutto, lettuce, tomatoes, onion, oil and vinegar.
But I know that is just one variation.
Is there a standard Italian sub that all are measured against?
No, there isn't a standard sandwich, in Italy.
It's also not just what goes IN it, but what it goes IN. Really good Italian bread is very important, possibly the most important part of the sandwich. I like seeded hero rolls, with a good crust and lots of bubbles inside. Try to get bread made in New York (we have really good water for bread :), but be careful because NYC imports a lot of bread from other places for some reason.
I guess I was looking for recipes for an Italian Sub. since it can be different in different regions, I was looking for what is the most common ingredients.
I am voting against closure because of the last part--is there a standard? That seems to be on topic and answerable.
Closing because, despite the "is there a standard" question at the end, the question (especially the title) clearly is a poll, inviting everyone's favorite answers.
I know of three ways for a recipe to become standardized, and I doubt that any of them applies to your sub.
The first one is: someone creates a recipe and is well-known enough for people to imitate him. Then it gets called the name he gave it originally. Example: Sachertorte. There is just one recipe for it, created by Franz Sacher, and any deviations are considered non-classic. I doubt very much that this is the case with your Italian sub, but there is a tiny chance that this is how it happened. It is what happened with "Italian beef" in America: obviously it is a known and imitated meal, at least in the Chicago area, but there was one restauranteur who started it, so you could say that his recipe is authentical. For more info on Italian beef, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yevJMRceuvE&feature=related (thanks to @hobodave for the link).
Second, you have a case a well-known meal of unknown origin, which everybody prepares the same way. At some point, a name sticks, and nobody knows why. This is what happened to the Wiener Schnitzel. Even though it is a well-defined recipe, and undeniably Austrian, cook books listed it under different names until at least the beginning of the 20. century. The recipe has so little variation, you can be always sure what the real Wiener Schnitzel is. As you say yourself that there are many variations of an Italian sub, this is clearly not the case here.
The third possibility is when a dish is prepared in many variations and there isn't a clear-cut name, but an established author comes along and codifies a taxonomy which becomes so popular that everybody starts to follow it. This is the case with French sauces. Even today, I know lots of people who confuse Hollandaise, Bearnaise and Mayonnaise. In fact, the stuff you can buy in a tube in a supermarket and is often eggless shouldn't be called mayonnaise at all. But since Carême wrote his work on French cuisine, and Escoffier elaborated it, cooks know that there is a difference a layman is often not aware of. This case supposes that there is a reference book recognized by the whole industry, and I am quite sure that nobody has written such a book on American cuisine. While I am sure that many have written books with such content, none has become influential enough to be considered canonical. So the Italian sub can't have become standard in that way.
If you can find more on the origins on Italian subs, there is some chance that you will strike a nice story like the one behind Italian beef. But it is much more probable that countless sandwich places just put the two or three Italian-sounding ingredients they have lying around in a sandwich and call it "Italian".
Oh, and to make it clear about the name: The fact that it is called "Italian" doesn't mean that it is a standard sandwich made in Italy. It is very common for food called after a country to be either totally unknown in the country itself, like this sub or Italian beef, or to be used for a single of many preparations known in that country - "Belgian chocolates" applies to a specific style of chocolate, no matter where it was manufactured, and you can find many different styles of chocolate in Belgium, the internationally known "Belgian chocolates" being only one of them. The sub sandwich is a very typical American meal, and while it is well-known around the world by now, giving one variation the name "Italian" shouldn't make you think that this is how Italians eat their sandwiches, or that all Italians eat their sandwich the same way, or that they have even heard about this specific sub.
It's an American sandwich, not actually Italian, and as such is subject to the whims of a thousand urban sandwich shop entrepreneurs. The only variations I know of from your description are to drop the onion, add pepperoncini peppers, or to drop the prosciutto (pricy) in favor of cheaper lunch meats (mortadella, bologna, or even turkey).
Good Italian Sub Good roll crunchy on the outside but soft on the inside. Capicolla, Sopressata. Prosciutto, Lettuce, Tomato, Onions, Salt, Pepper, Oregano, Olive Oil. Vinegar is not on a traditional its one of the many versions.
An "Italian" in New England is made with fresh homemade sub rolls. Tomato, onion, pickle (NO LETTUCE, NO, NOT EVER) and hot pepper relish, oil and vinegar to compliment the ham, salami, capicola and provolone cheese.
Don't ask me if I want mayo or mustard or olives or peppers on that...it's an Italian, learn how to make one or get out of the sandwich business. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.388110
| 2011-11-02T21:55:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18729",
"authors": [
"Bill Hamilton",
"Cascabel",
"Gareth McCaughan",
"Hastur",
"N Runn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Serenade",
"Soft Play Design",
"TestWell",
"Whinja",
"amirdeq",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90017",
"paul",
"zompz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41448
|
Is it feasible to use anchovies to improve the taste of random dishes?
I'm not a fan of anchovies on pizza, because when you get a biteful, it's overly salty/fishy.
Years ago, I saw an allegory about a king (or a person of some high importance), who warned his new chef not to use anchovies, because he hated them. The king loved the chef's cooking, and when he asked why it is so good, the chef confessed that he put anchovies in everything. The king said, "Keep on putting anchovies in the food then".
How much of this story is based in reality? Can I improve the taste of my food by putting anchovies in it? How can I avoid making it taste like anchovies?
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about culture/myth
Our site is intended to help cooks make better food. Your story is interesting, but whether it is a legend or authored literature, it is not a cooking problem you have, sorry. Maybe you can ask it on literature.stackexchange.
Well, the story when I read it, was in the context of explaining to people who to best use anchovies in their cooking and how anchovies can improve many sauces and foods. The story was about food and in particular about anchovies. Maybe I should repost it in a programmer's forum, because they eat a lot of pizza and people put anchovies on pizza.
The context of the story doesn't matter. What matters is that you are not trying to cook something and asking us to help you solve a problem you had with cooking, because we only specialize in solving concrete problems of the process of preparing food. Stories, even stories about preparing food, are off topic.
This question still reads as "Where can I find this a link to this story?"
OK stone-breakers. Is this any better?
"What can I make with X?" (and "what goes with X") are too broad; we've long closed questions of that form, so the question in the body in bold isn't great. The question in the title is much better. And I'm not a huge fan of trying to ask an off-topic question by pairing it with an on-topic one.
This is a "Doctor, it hurts when I do that" question. If you don't want the anchovies, don't put them in. There are a myriad other options for adding the so-called umami elements, including hard cheeses, soy sauce, worchesthire sauce, meat, mushrooms, maggie, fermented yeast spread and so on. BTW, the doctor says "So don't do that."
You seem to be willing to change your original question completely as long as the anchovy story stays in it. So I edited it to a form which is on-topic enough to be reopened. No guarantee that people will like the question though, or that they will be able to help you with finding the story source.
Thanks @rumtscho for salvaging this one; I think it's a reasonable question now, since the part about the story isn't so long as to completely distract from the actual cooking question.
@rumtscho, Yes, I've been trying to leave the "story" aspect in, because ultimately I would like a reference to an original source of that story to work into something that I am writing. I've edited it a few times to try to comply, but your edits make it more concise, and hopefully if there is a reader out there who knows that story and the source, and follows the trail of comments...
If you really don't like anchovies at all, the others who have said "don't use anchovies if you don't like them" are right. Don't use them.
But if what you object to is a bite of food that just tastes like anchovies, you can certainly avoid that. Just use them spread evenly through a dish. For example, if they're minced and mixed in during cooking, the flavor will be well-distributed, giving a more mild umami and fishy flavor. If the dish is something the anchovies go well with, this might work out for you. And since the flavor is mixed in, you can use more or less as desired, while if you're putting sizeable chunks of anchovy filet on a pizza, there are always going to be bites that'll have a lot of anchovy flavor.
So, random dishes? Probably not. But things that they go well with, sure. For example, a lot of people who wouldn't like anchovy pizza will like greens braised or sauteed with garlic, anchovy, and parmesan.
(That said, my grandmother's anchovy pizza just has little bits of anchovy pressed into the dough, before anything else is put on top. The flavor spreads a bit; it isn't at all overwhelming but it is noticeable and good. And the people who really like anchovies get to eat the rest of the tin.)
I'm not looking to avoid anchovies. I use them in my tomato sauce, and I've used them in other pasta dishes (spaghetti with broccoli and garlic is usually served well with a subtle anchovy flavor and pecorino romano). My Dad keeps trying to emulate my late grandmother's recipe and he kills it by overdoing the anchovies IMO. Wonderful story about your grandmother's technique. Was she a royal chef in a previous life? Just checking. ;-)
The core of truth on the base of this tale is tiny. Certainly not large enough to warrant emulation.
Anchovies are a source of concentrated umami flavor, and people tend to like umami flavor, but most of them don't recognize its presence. So, if you were to add a little bit of umami to food, it is likely that many people will find it well seasoned.
But anchovies are really not the best source of umami to add to food. They just contain too much of other flavors (salty, frequently also sour) and aromas (fish aroma). It is like hearing that most people like the taste of sweetness and start adding a bit of beetroot juice everywhere, because it has a high sugar content.
There is no way to add anchovies without adding fish taste. You can use tiniest amounts, but then of course the effect of the umami would be tiny. If you add more, it will taste like anchovies, there is no way around that.
If you really want to have more umami everywhere, you should start adding pure MSG. This is similar to adding sugar to foods, and won't result in off tastes.
All in all, the story may have some teaching value as a parable, but following it in real life is akin to saving a mad-with-pain lion from a trap with your bare hands. Leave it to story heroes.
Update Many disagreeing comments mention one or two foods which do get better with anchovies. I didn't bother writing about that exception, because the question was whether you should use anchovies everywhere, and my argument was that they are like every other food: there are a few places where they fit well, but are not a use-it-everywhere spice like salt.
If your food is already very high in umami, and also has strong aromas, anchovies will fit well there. The reason is that people already expect the umami there, and when it is stronger than expected, it is perceived as more pleasant, more tasty food. A small amount of anchovies is enough to emphasize the already present umami taste, and the other aromas cover the slight fish aroma.
But you cannot generalize from that exception class to other foods, just like you can't say that, because lemon zest makes yellow cake taste better, we should start putting lemon zest in all our foods. So I disagree when a long list of comments says that my answer is not true because beef/tomatoes/mushrooms/whatever high-umami-rich-taste stew tastes even richer with anchovies.
I'd disagree - I've had recipes, notably for British-style baked beans, that called for anchovies, and tho the jar I fished the oil-packed fillets from smelled strongly of fish, the taste of the fish was tempered out by other ingredients and the "richness" of the dish greatly increased. (I tried it with and without the anchovy fillets). A similar effect was noted with anchovy-filled olive tapas I've had in Spain - it accentuated the sweetness and robustness of the olive variety used in a pleasant, non-fishy way. I'll try to track down a culinary source online or in print to corroborate this.
I've gotten comments from people who hate fish tell me my tomato sauce is pretty awesome and they ask what I put in it. I do believe it's the small amount of anchovies that adds depth. Some people put cocoa or dark chocolate in moderate amounts into their chili for a similar reason. It doesn't make it taste like chocolate chili, but it does alter the flavor in a satisfying way.
Maybe it's tweaking our senses in a pleasurable way without being BAM! FISH! or BAM! CHOCOLATE!
Anchovies are considered to be a very high source of glutamate which is perceived by the human palette as what is described as umami. It makes things taste more "savory." MSG makes things taste good because of glutamate (hence the G in MSG). Anchovies are in fact an excellent way to improve flavor in a distinctive way, and often they don't add any fishiness. I for instance use two finely minced in my boeuf bourguignon and often recieve complements that it is the "meatiest" and "beefiest" beef stew that a person has ever had.
All of the examples listed in the disagreeing comments are about adding them to foods which are already high in umami, and also rich in other flavors. This is a narrow case where a small amount of anchovies emphasizes the already present umami taste, and the strong other flavors mask any anchovy aromas. But I stand behind my point: most foods won't benefit from anchovies in amounts small enough to not notice the fishiness. The exception class is well-defined, there is no need to enumerate its elements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.388564
| 2014-01-25T19:24:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41448",
"authors": [
"Apurva Singh",
"Brianna Berry",
"Cascabel",
"ControlAltDelete",
"Fauxcuss",
"Goutam Hebbar",
"Heather Benedict",
"Jake Nixon",
"KatieK",
"Marry Dave",
"Matthew",
"Mr Shane",
"Philip AndClaire Sandercock",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"RNB",
"Rent A Tool NY",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SeveralPeople-a",
"ShyPerson",
"Spammer",
"edhubbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97400",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20287
|
Is high gelatin concentration in cheesecake unsafe?
I made a home made no bake cheesecake tonight. The cream would not thicken so I added extra gelatin.
Is it safe to eat? How long can I keep it in the fridge?
The ingredients are:
1 egg
white sugar
sour cream
double cream
cream cheese
lemon juice
2 sachets of powdered gelatin
It's been in the fridge for 3 hours. It has set, but I'm not sure if it's safe to eat because of the extra gelatin powder.
Dear louise, welcome to SA. I changed the formatting of your question to make it easier to read, but preserved the original meaning. You can see your old version in the edit history, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/posts/20287/revisions.
It is definitely safe to eat. Gelatin is a normal part of animal meat and bones, and you get it in large amounts when you cook tough pieces of meat slowly. It is not toxic or dangerous, even in large concentrations.
The amount of gelatin does not change the time your cake will last, so you can treat it as a normal cheesecake. To see how long it keeps, it is best to use a database like stilltasty.
Edit Stilltasty assumes a baked cheesecake. As noted in the comments, the raw egg reduces the shelf life of the cheesecake. My best guess is that it will keep up to four days (based on the shelf life of other raw-egg preparations), but I am not a specialist for that, if in doubt, it is better to use it up sooner.
Just wondering if the raw egg might make a different from regular cheesecake since its no bake...
@Jay: That doesn't have anything to do with the gelatin. But: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/is-it-safe-to-eat-raw-eggs
@jay Good point, I concentrated a lot on the gelatin and forgot that the egg goes into the cheese mass and not into a layer. Then I would say it is probably similar to mayonnaise and other raw egg products, up to 4 days.
@Jefromi: My comment was in reference to rumtscho's answer in regards to his additional information about shelf life. That's why the comment is in this answer rather than on the question.
If anything, more gelatin will increase the storage life because it reduces Available Water. However, the rule of thumb for refrigerated raw egg is three days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.389299
| 2012-01-09T20:15:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20287",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"John",
"elisabot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jscs",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38236
|
Do I need to peel a red kuri squash?
I was just preparing red kuri squash for a soup, and as usual during preparation I snacked some pieces. The skin did not seem very thick and I took a bite of a piece with some left on it. While it was a bit harder than the skin of an apple, it wasn't really that hard.
I hope keeping the skin might lead to a darker color of the soup, which I'd prefer. I am not that concerned about pieces left, when I eat alone I don't mind pieces, when I cook for more than myself I would blend the soup before serving.
Assuming it has been washed and is from an organic farm, do I need to peel my squash?
Most Japanese varieties of pumpkin do not need to be peeled. More precisely, most Japanese are content to eat most Japanese varieties of squash unpeeled (maybe rough peeled where knobs are present). I can't really recall treating red kuri any differently, but I don't find it very often, so I can only speak from limited experience.
The typical preparation of any squash in Japan is nimono, in which squash pieces are gently simmered with kelp, soy sauce, mirin, sugar and salt until tender. The regular kuri variety (the green one with some occasional knobs) is well suited to this, but is even accommodating of being deep fried or roasted skin-on, and I've used that variety for soup and other preparations with the skin on. I would be surprised if red kuri weren't at least suitable for nimono skin-on, as I don't think the Japanese market would be particularly accepting of a squash that you would have to skin.
There is, for what it's worth, a site that suggests that the skins are harder on red kuri than normal kabocha varieties, and that the skins are not eaten. And the same site says that regular Japanese kabocha skin is not eaten, so they appear to disagree with basically all of Japan.
At least one soup recipe in Japanese for the red kuri squash says that the skin should be left on.
Anyway, the short answer would be: Try it and see. The worst possible outcome is a texture that you're not fond of, or perhaps some bitterness.
I don't have experience with this specific squash, so perhaps someone with direct experience can give you a better answer; googling indicates it is a thick skinned or winter squash similar to a pumpkin.
As a thick skinned squash, it is normal to peel it (or to scoop the roasted flesh from the peel), because as you note, the peels are tougher.
They are edible, so it is an aesthetic and palatability judgement on your part. In fact, if you google pickled pumpkin rind, you will find many recipes for pickling that squash's skin, which can probably be used for the red kuri as well.
Yes, you can eat the skin. This squash is also called Hokkaido pumpkin in Germany, and most of the recipes say to keep the skin on. Made a great soup from it.
Keep the skin on. It gets soft when baked or cooked. If you prepare a soup of the Kuri/Hokaido pumpkin you can puree the soup with the skin. One less step to take in preparation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.389605
| 2013-11-07T15:04:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38236",
"authors": [
"Biker",
"Catherine Williamson",
"Evil Elf",
"Joseph Pernerstorfer",
"MammaBear",
"OptimumKitten",
"Spammer",
"Wolf Burgers",
"fw gw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90081",
"uriyabsc",
"user90074",
"vercingitorix"
],
"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
}
|
56615
|
Will chopping hard destroy my new knives?
I bought a new set of knives and my dad used the chopping knives to cut onions.
Instead of chopping by slicing the onions with the usual technique, he was using his two hands to hold the knife by the extremities and chopping the onions this way. Is this going to destroy my knives?
I'm not sure -- what I suspect could be an issue is that if he's using both hands, he'd be more likely to pull towards himself as the blade hits the board -- and that's more likely to pull the blade out of true. It's more difficult to do this with one hand, as the blade would pivot instead.
So the blade won't be affected? It will stay sharp?
not exactly. It might technically be sharp right near the edge, but when you look at the whole knife, it just won't cut things as easily as the blade isn't properly aligned.
Check your dad's knives to see if they're warped or otherwise damaged.
They won't be damaged unless they're ceramic or otherwise brittle knives, or if the chopping is done on an improper surface. And you should not try to eternally preserve sharpness as moscafj's answer hints at, as that entails keeping them sealed away from oxygen and never using them.
Hard chopping will not destroy the knife, but it will dull the knife faster. The edge of a knife is extremely narrow. As a result, regular use will push the edge to the left or right, leading to burrs. Hard impacts accelerate this process, and can even cause the edge of the blade to chip. Knife blades stay sharp longest when they are used gently and on soft cutting surfaces.
He probably didn't "destroy" them...all knives dull with use depending on what you are cutting, what you are cutting ON, frequency of use...etc. Whether you slice, dice or chop, you should get in the habit of sharpening and honing your knives regularly. Higher quality blades stay sharp longer (and take a sharpening better), but over time, all knives need care if you want them to have a useful life
Probably not, if it's onions
Onions are a soft product so the damage from chopping this (weird) way is much more affected by what kind of cutting surface he's using rather than the product itself.
This is because the greatest impact pressure on the knife will be the point where it hits the hard surface of the board.
If you're worried about knife damage, just make sure he:
* Uses a softer cutting board (those cheap, thick white plastic boards are pretty good for this)
* Doesn't try to do this with products harder than onions, like coconuts, bone, or his own fingers...
"weird way"? Sound like mincing to me...
If it's mincing then I agree it's not weird. The OP used the term chopping, so I was visualizing something different, ie using the knife in a vertical chopping rather than a rocking mincing motion.
Bringing the knife straight down, handling it two-handed, is something I often do myself if I want to mince the living daylights out of something that is still in big pieces (eg aromatics pile for a thoran). Advantage is that you give things less incentive to roll off the cutting board. But then, not something I tend to use the most recently sharpened, most fragile knife for....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.389888
| 2015-04-12T11:18:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56615",
"authors": [
"Jamee Rose",
"Joann Karijo",
"Joe",
"Matthew Read",
"Napster",
"Pauline Wright",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sandy Hill",
"Sandy Smith",
"Spammer",
"Trevor Lawless",
"Vanessa Friesen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"tohster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30027
|
Is there a rule of thumb when replacing flour with whipped egg whites in a cake/muffin recipe?
I was trying to use up some old bananas yesterday and decided to make banana muffins. I find that my (improvised) recipe that I pulled from the Internet is a bit dense.
I have a sponge cake recipe that calls for 10 whipped egg whites. This makes up the majority of the cake. It's light and moist and fluffy.
So I thought that perhaps I can replace some of the flour in my normal banana muffin recipe with whipped egg whites. My thinking was that the reduction in flour will be off-set by my whipped egg whites, it would hold it's shape and I wouldn't get a sloppy mess.
I went from
2 cups flour + 2 eggs + wet ingredients + sugar
to
Slightly less than 1.5 cups + 4 yolks + 4 whipped egg whites + wet ingredients + sugar
For the most part this seems to have worked but it clearly needs adjustment. Have I stumbled upon an actual technique? If so, is there a guide on what the correct substitution of flour to whipped egg whites is?
sounds like a chiffon cake to me.
While I suppose this is technically possible, I would never consider trying to make this substitution.
Muffins are are form of quick bread. Their structure is based on gelatinized starch from the flour, leavened by chemical leavers such as baking powder or baking soda.
In chiffon cakes, sponge cakes, and angel food cakes, the whipped egg whites or meringue form the primary basis of the structure as a foam with mechanically beaten in air. These batters are much much thinner than quick bread batters, generally, so that the other ingredients can be folded with the egg whites while maintaining the foam.
Instead, I suggest you take a different approach:
Find a better quick bread recipe--there are many, many good banana muffin recipes easily searchable. If you don't find a muffin recipe you like, you can always use any banana bread recipe for muffins as well, since quick breads and muffins are the same thing, just baked in different shapes.
Find a recipe for a banana sponge cake or banana chiffon cake. You can always bake these recipes in cupcake form if you like.
Finding a good coherent recipe will almost certainly by easier than trying to adapt a muffin recipe you are not happy with into something else.
If you are really wanting to transform recipes more generally, you need to learn the basis on which they work. You might want to read Michael Ruhlman's Ratio, as a starting point--however, the ratios of ingredients are only part of the story. The other part of the story is the method or technique by which they are prepared.
In the world of cakes and muffins and quick breads, these include the muffin method, the creaming method, the reverse creaming method from Rose Levy Berenbaum, and--I don't know a general name for this method--but the whipped egg whites folded with other ingredients technique.
Each of these methods works optimally with different ratios of ingredients, but also achieves different outcomes with the same ingredients.
So you would have to analyze the individual recipe, adjust the ratio of ingredients, and possibly modify the method by which the ingredients are prepared or combined.
Frankly, to lighten a muffin recipe, I would first ask: are you measuring correctly? Too much flour is going to lead to a dense outcome, and flour is very easy to mismeasure. I would suggest always baking by weight, not volume when you can. Reputable recipe sites for baked goods will tell you the weight of flour in addition to the volume measurement, or at least tell you what the standard weight of a cup of flour is. If no such guide is provided, I find that using a 4.5 oz (US) standard cup for flour is pretty generally successful.
My second approach would be to very, very slightly increase the amount of baking powder, maybe by 1/4 tsp increments in two different trials.
If that fails, you might try reducing the flour by 25% or 50%, but not increasing the number of eggs; instead, change your method from the muffin method to the whipped egg white method, separating the eggs, whipping the egg whites, and then folding them into the other wet ingredients, then gently folding in the dry ingredients.
Still, when you do these kinds of changes, you need to test your recipes, keep careful notes, and so on. I still would start by researching already tested recipes that achieve the outcome you desire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.390205
| 2013-01-13T03:19:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30027",
"authors": [
"Den Warren",
"Fred",
"Joe",
"Jon Walter",
"M Letort",
"Patrick Sanan",
"SeeDerekEngineer",
"c faulk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70039",
"usernone"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20980
|
Fresh vs Frozen Broccoli for soup?
Is there a substantial difference in using fresh vs frozen broccoli when making Broccoli Cheese Soup? And if I do make the substitution, should I thaw it first or put it in frozen?
Please read the tag wiki for [ingredient-selection] before using that tag again.
If you use frozen you will not have the option of having a thick cheese soup with more crisp broccoli; i.e. if you were considering adding the broccoli toward the end after blanching it for a more toothsome floret, this would only be fruitful with fresh.
I am unsure about the blogspot link in Sebiddy's post, but my experience with frozen broccoli is that it gets the job done but not very well. As a point of logistics, using frozen without first thawing will net you a hearty release of water from the broccoli if you don't thaw first and may cause your mornay some heart-ache if timed poorly.
I can't imagine there would be a great difference as it's a soup and if you're worried about them becoming mushy then in broccoli cheese soup it should not make much of a difference as they're going to be blitzed anyway. If you were using them though you can keep them from going mushy and keep them green by adding them frozen to a hot pan with just a little water in, stirring often, more here.
Hope this helps!
Just because it's a soup doesn't mean you won't notice a difference with superior produce.
@mfg The produce will be of equal quality just it may be mushy from being frozen.
I would disagree for the same reason that it is better to use fresh, rather than almost rotten ingredients; " This is a very bad idea, unless you like to start your soups and sauces with a watery, bitter, insipid, poorly balanced liquid"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.390569
| 2012-02-01T15:02:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20980",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Sebiddychef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20701
|
Adding lemon to cookie recipe
What is the best way to add lemon flavor to a cookie recipe? I know lemon juice is highly acidic, I don't want to throw off the PH of the dough. Is lemon extract the same way? Lemon zest? Is there a way to compensate for that?
Is there milk in your cookies?
@Mein I'm looking for general tips, but the most likely recipe I'll modify does include a tablespoon of milk. Other recipes for the same type of cookie do not, however, so if that turns out badly I might try a different base recipe. I know what I want my end result to be: the same as the box mix I tried last night, except actually tasting good instead of crappy ;)
I tried adding lemon zest and lemon juice to a rolled sugar cookie recipe earlier this month, and while the unbaked dough was heavenly, the baked cookies were... eh. I think this might have been because I used brown sugar (an option provided by the recipe to end up with chewier cookies) instead of granulated.
Try using lemon zest (lemon peel shavings) and lemon or lime juice. You might try sprinkling the zest over the top of the cookies right before you put them in if you don't get enough flavor from adding it to the batter
Just make sure the lemon is unwaxed and used a microplane grater for best results
The easiest way is just use a recipe for lemon cookies. I'm sure you can find lots of them online. If you really want to use a recipe for normal cookies (because you really like it), you could certainly add lemon extract to a regular batch. Don't add too much, the flavour is really concentrated. Since you won't use a lot of it (a teaspoon will do), the liquid:dry proportion practically won't change, but to be sure, you can cut back the milk by the amount (e.g. a teaspoon). You can also add a bit of zest without a problem.
I wouldn't add lemon juice because you're adding milk in your cookies. The milk would curdle (in some cookies that is exactly what you would want to achieve). However, you can try to add lemon juice instead of milk.
I said here 'a teaspoon of lemon extract', but this amount depends of course on how much cookie dough you have.
Thanks! I'm trying to make a better version of the exact cookie that went disastrous over the weekend, which claimed to be a sugar cookie with lemon rather than a lemon cookie. I've got half a dozen sugar cookie recipes from Christmas Cookieganza this year, so I planned to use one of those.
What was wrong with the cookies? And what did you try for lemon taste?
@Mein Everything. It was a mix I bought online and I was downright offended at how bland the cookie was and how overly-sweet and not-at-all raspberry-tasting the raspberry icing was. It was like a blue-raspberry sour straw but twice as sweet instead of sour, slathered over a bland cookie that had maybe once, long ago, had a dream about a lemon.
Since lemon is acidic, you would want to reduce the quantity of baking powder and add some or more baking soda to neutralize the acidity.
What if you add an acidic ingredient to a recipe with baking powder? You will need to add a little soda. Let's say you are making cookies and substituting 1/2 cup lemon juice for the water in order to make lemon cookies. The recipe calls for 2 teaspoons of baking powder, but you will need to neutralize the acid in the lemon juice. Substitute baking soda for one teaspoon of the baking powder. Corriher says that baking soda is 4 times as powerful as baking powder, so use only 1/4 teaspoon baking soda for each teaspoon of baking powder in the original recipe. -- from http://www.thekitchn.com/pantry-basics-whats-the-differ-40514
What I ended up doing was taking my base sugar cookie recipe and substituting soymilk for milk to prevent the curdling issue. I then divided it into four portions, putting one straight into the fridge unmodified. One portion received zest, one received juice, and one received zest plus juice. The juice cookies may have been softer than the zest cookies (but there were some issues with baking that could have caused that), but all cookies rose the same amount (not much at all, by design). Sure enough, the ones with more lemon tasted more lemony :) Thanks for the help, everyone!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.390743
| 2012-01-23T14:32:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20701",
"authors": [
"Iama Techie",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Runj",
"TehJabbit",
"Wudang",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7129",
"noonand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36259
|
What's the difference between Santa Cruz Rum and Jamaican Rum?
Reading through a book of cocktail recipes from the late 1800s, I notice some recipes call specifically for Santa Cruz rum and some call for Jamaican rum. Is this a mere place of origin reference, or is there some qualitative difference? For example, would one of them be what we now call spiced rum? Or light rum vs dark rum?
Cocktail historian David Wondrich discusses this very topic in his book "Imbibe!", pages 74-75. (It's structured around Jerry Thomas' first cocktail books—perhaps it's in one of those you're seeing the spirit referenced?) The references are indeed to places of origin, but there are qualitative differences as well.
Modern designations like "light" and "dark" are essentially meaningless (2, 3). Spiced rum is typically poor-quality, neutral spirit with sugar and artificial flavoring added. It's a style that only took off in the 1980s with the advent of Captain Morgan, and can safely be omitted from any classic (or modern craft) recipe.
Rums of the 60s and 70s were characterized by light body and clean taste, in order to compete with vodka, the popular new kid on the block. Their blandness—which opened the doors for Captain Morgan's popularity—was (and in too many cases still is) a far cry from the rums of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.
Jamaican rum was (and still is, in many places) regarded as the "best," or at least the most flavorful. Heavy-bodied, funky, and delicious.
Smith & Cross is probably the best easily-sourced rum that might get close to the strength and flavor of rums that one may have seen 150 years ago. Hamilton Pot Still Jamaica and Doctor Bird are also excellent choices. Hampden Estate (which has been in continuous operation since 1753) rum is very good, but current offerings are more expensive than you might want. Rum-Bar and Plantation Xaymaca are fairly solid, 100% pot-still picks, but fairly mild in terms of strength and "hogo." Appleton is solid, though similarly mild. Coruba, Navy Bay, and Myers's are pretty far from the recipe-creator's intent, but worlds better than, say, Bacardi.
Santa Cruz rum—the "un-Jamaican,"—was lighter than the Jamaican rums of the era, but not nearly so light as today's multicolumn rums from St. Croix, Cuba, or Puerto Rico.
Given how little we know about the Cruzan rums of yesteryear, you've got a fair bit of leeway. Try to find a rum that's got at least some age (which shouldn't be guessed by the color), some backbone and bite but not too funky. A tough of vanilla from the oak and grass from the cane.
Wondrich offers the following blend to approximate the profile of Sta. Cruz rum: 1 part Smith & Cross (or other full-proof, 100% pot-still Jamaican rum), 2 parts lightly aged rhum agricole (paille or ESB), 3-4 parts young Cuban-style rum (like Don Q or Havana Club).
To keep things simple, you can probably get "close enough" with a milder blended rum like Appleton Signature, Denizen Merchant's Reserve or Dark Vatted, Chairman's Reserve, Mount Gay Black Barrel (Eclipse is OK but pretty rough with a too-big hit of ethanol), the Probitas/Veritas collaboration from Foursquare and Hampden, a mild-ish pot-still rum like Rum-Bar Gold, or even something US-domestic like Richland or a local rum distillery you want to support. If you have a favorite rum (not a spiced/flavored one), try it in a recipe and see what you think! Heck, even Cruzan—as different today to its forebears as it is—should still be OK.
Also, given this was originally posted nearly 8 years ago, let us know if you have any updates :) Cheers!
Thank you! I would not call myself a rum connoisseur but I've enjoyed a variety of rums since then. I don't recall what cookbook it was but it was touted as the oldest recorded cocktail book.
@Yamikuronue, great! Yes, it was probably Jerry Thomas' 1962 "How to Mix Drinks or The Bon-Vivant's Companion" aka the "Bartender's Guide," widely regarded as the world's first cocktail recipe book. If you're still interested in this topic, I do highly recommend David Wondrich's "Imbibe!," second edition. It puts the drinks (and those of his contemporaries) in historical context, and helps you decipher the recipes, ingredients, and execution. Cheers!
The difference seems to have been smaller than that. (I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did read this page.)
You can probably use any aged rum here; light rum would probably have too little flavor and spiced rum probably wouldn't fit. Of course, it depends on the specific recipe.
If the cocktail is from the 1800's it's just the place of origin. Nowadays the two are both fairly strong rums. They taste almost the same except the Jamaican Rum (where I live) is cheaper.
Were they also strong in the 1800s?
IN the 1800's the rum wasn't that strong. You can hear stories and such but today's rum has the "enhanced flavor of spicing and hard/soft rums".
Source, please. Or are you actually an anthropologist with a specialization in cocktail recipes?
@Bob I just know. It helped Yami.
As a side note, reading this () says that rum used in the navy in the 17th century was usually more than 57% alcohol.
() http://gizmodo.com/a-beginners-guide-to-navy-strength-rum-1694043250
The reference to Jamaica rum refers to a heavy dark rum like Meyers. Santa Cruz was a lighter bodied rum. The Jamaicans do also make light rums like Appleton.
If you can share references for your statement about Santa Cruz rum, that would make this answer even better. I've seen this term debated even by cocktail historians such as David Wondrich.
I found this site that describes it as
Rum produced in Saint Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Typically
light rums with a sharp flavor.
This makes a lot of sense as Saint Croix in French translates to Santa Cruz in Spanish. Unfortunately, it doesn't have another citation so it could be wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.391100
| 2013-08-23T22:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36259",
"authors": [
"AJAY",
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Doug Pacholke",
"Max",
"May PCC",
"Serkan",
"Yamikuronue",
"Young Guilo",
"cryanbhu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94519",
"logophobe",
"piratejabez",
"user85071",
"zakarta"
],
"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
}
|
6868
|
Can I clean enameled cast iron with steel wool?
I've got a new enameled cast iron skillet that I've been cleaning with stainless steel wool along with a standard dish rag.
It occurs to me that scratches in the enamel might eventually cause problems. What's the consensus? Is steel wool safe to use on an enameled surface?
Thanks.
it is perfectly safe to use stainless steel wool on a Vitreous enamel. I presume that the cast iron skillet has a Vitreous enamel finish.
The reason is simple:
Vitreous enamel is essentially a type of ceramic and has a hardness of around 5-6 on the Mohs scale. Steel has around 4-5 on the same scale. This means that generally, you can not damage it with the steel wool.
Also no not confuse the "grit" of the steel wool with its hardness :P
The only thing that will happen is that the enamel will get very small scratches and that things will stick a bit better in them. You can get rid of most of them with a good polishing compound if they disturb you to much.
Personally I would advise you "not to need" to clean it with steel wool in the first place, but is something burned up badly and you do not have heavy cleaning agents nearby steel wool is an acceptable solution.
If it is just for cleaning leftovers , usually soaking in soap water and a hard plastic brush does a very good job as well.
Remember that even thou Vitreous enamel is very hard and durable it may be damaged by overheating or crack if dropped.
I can't think of any use for steel wool in cleaning cookware other than getting rust off of cast iron. For just getting off stuck food, you'll be damaging any cookware you use it on. I use the same combo as Michael (non-abrasive scrubbing sponge, occasional Barkeeper's Friend) for most of my cleaning. Barkeeper's Friend particularly helps with burnt-on oil.
For cleaning enameled cast iron, all that is usually needed for stuck-on foods is to let it soak for a while in warm soapy water. I've seen recommendations for adding baking soda to the soaking water, but I've never needed to do it. If you've already managed to discolor or scratch your enamel, Le Creuset makes a polish/cleaner that is supposed to restore the appearance of the enamel. Again, I haven't yet needed to use anything like that to clean or maintain mine.
I'd recommend a regular scrubby sponge, and when it need a little deeper cleaning, Barkeeper's Friend cleanser.
Steel wool comes in different levels of abrasiveness but all are still quite abrasive. I'd avoid using them on enameled cast iron as it will likely damage the enamel. If you need to do it once in a blue moon, you'll probably be ok, but I'd try very hard to keep those instances as few as possible.
For non-enamel cast iron, other stuff will work just as well without pricking your fingers to death but the pan will be fine. I personally never use it because I don't wear gloves to wash dishes and steel wool hurts like mad when it jabs you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.391807
| 2010-09-07T00:33:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6868",
"authors": [
"Gary J. Espitia S.",
"Jean Huie",
"Minh-Triet Pham Tran",
"Will Sams",
"bakingwithadæmon",
"brooke gritch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14128",
"ultranaut",
"user759630"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7237
|
UK alternative to corn syrup?
I've noticed that often when using recipes from the US that corn syrup is called for, and I was wondering what the best alternative to it would be to get in the UK?
I've heard some people saying that golden syrup is comparable, but when using it in cooking (particularly baking) it always seems to give a sticky / stodgy texture that I don't think is meant to be there?
Any ideas?
What are you using the syrup in?
Usually baking - but when using the golden syrup it tends ot make everything much stickier than I expect it to - however as I don't really know what corn syrup is it could be turning out how it should be!
Corn syrup does tend to make things sticky. One of the classic uses for it is to make pecan pie, which is a sticky, sugary, yummy mass.
As far as I understand the basic chemistry, golden syrup should do well for you.
A different option is to dissolve a lot of sugar in some hot water and then to slowly reduce it to the right consistency, which should be more or less identical to corn syrup.
Golden syrup should work. But corn syrup in the US usually has added vanilla. You may want to add some vanilla extract to get the same flavor.
Note that for candy making (including fudge), the sugar-dissolved-in-water trick will not work. The reason you add corn syrup to many candy/fudge recipes is that the different types of sugar molecules (fructose vs. glucose vs. sucrose) interfere with each other, thus preventing crystallization.
I did attempt too make hard blue candy for a "Disney Frozen" birthday cake with golden syrup. Now I know why they say "use corn syrup" - as the golden syrup affects the color of the candy. While the color was wrong the candy came out really nice.
Hello and welcome to the site! I took the liberty to edit your question a bit: We usually skip "the niceties" like greetings and just give the bare facts. This keeps the site easier to read. If you do object, you may rollback my changes any time.
Liquid glucose will work well I use this in a lot of my own recipes when I need to you can buy in chemists and supermarkets.
I made modelling chocolate by substituting corn syrup with honey and it was great!
85g honey (I used a bark honey, which isn't as sweet as flower honey)
225g chocolate (I was using white chocolate)
1.25c (296ml) sugar dissolved in 0.25c (59ml) hot water is equivalent to Light Corn Syrup.
Unfortunately, that is not totally correct. If you just need a liquid sweetener, your method works, but chemically speaking corn syrup is mostly fructose while ordinary sugar is saccharose, i.e. half fructose, half glucose in joint meolcules. For candy-making thebahviour is quite different. Welcome to the site, btw.!
Golden syrup should work just fine as it has a similar texture.
There's already an answer saying this, with a little more detail. You'll probably find your posts better received if you have something new to add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.392174
| 2010-09-13T14:47:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7237",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chad Buryanek",
"Dibstar",
"EMILY",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Ranch dressing",
"Stephen Lagana",
"Stephie",
"T Lamb",
"Turtle3intimidator",
"Weston",
"Zsuzsanna Flösser",
"awithrow",
"bryan kennedy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"liz Uden"
],
"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
}
|
11708
|
What do I need to know when moving from an electric hob to a gas hob
Soon I will be moving into a flat with a gas hob, and I've only ever had experience with electric hobs before.
What do I need to be aware of in terms of the differences between them? I've heard that gas hobs tend to heat up more quickly - is that the case? If so, will I need to adjust cooking times?
The main difference is speed that it changes temperature. So when you turn the hob on it is at the heat you turned it to almost immediately, if you turn it down it is cooler that second.
This won't take long to get used to but if you have recipes which say something along the lines of "Bring to the boil before reducing to a simmer" you can now do exactly that as opposed to the best approximation electric gives.
Another important thing to note is that you want the flames under the pot, not going around the edges: so you need to use the right size pan; usually you want to put it on the largest ring which means the flames are under. If flames do go around the edges you'll find pan handles won't last long and you might have more trouble getting the temperature you want.
You will also find that you have more flexibility with choosing new pans as the thermal contact isn't just at a flat surface: woks, or pans with ribbed or curved surfaces will work better. Pans you might not have liked much before could become new favourites!
You'll love it, I don't think i could ever go back to electric.
Overall, most of the enthusiastic cooks I know prefer gas because of the better (ie. instant) temperature control.
However, one downside of gas ranges is that they often have trouble with providing very low heat because if you turn it too low, the flame will go out. Some gas stove tops will have a special "simmer" burner that is smaller and that you can turn down quite low. We use ours when cooking rice ... we'll start it on the regular burner to bring it up to the boil, then move it to the small "simmer" burner for cooking. When we tried leaving it on the regular burner, even turned to the lowest level, it would still bubble over. Of course, due to the instant response time (ie. there's a flame or not), it's no problem to move pots around like this, unlike on an electric range, which you'd need to "pre-heat".
You also have to be more aware of fire hazards since you have an open flame. So be more careful in terms of cleaning up grease and when using alcohol in cooking (don't pour from the bottle is the usual advice because you may catch the contents of the bottle alight if you're unlucky).
I even switch burners on an electric stove; I'll move rice or even boiling water for pasta to a smaller burner to free up the larger burner for someting else. (it works for the pasta water as you only need to maintain temp, not increase the temp)
notice that some gas stovetop ranges have a very very tiny burner, which in my country we use to make coffee. That tiny burner is a lifesaver for any recipe that requires simmering. It as also very handy for keeping stock hot when making risotto.
As someone who did this several years ago, I can tell you that there are two main differences.
Most electric plates have much higher thermal mass, which means they change their heat level quite slowly. In practice, this means that on gas your pan is going to be ready to use noticeably quicker and when you turn it down, you only have the mass of the pan holding heat.
Electric plates at full can be hotter than gas hobs at maximum. The very cheap electric range where I'm currently renting have no thermostats on the plates and I was constantly burning things until I realized they got hotter than the gas hobs at my previous place. Or even the glass ceramic plates at my parent's place.
I've only ever had to use electric hobs at my grandparents home when I was young, and occasionally on holiday. They are very difficult to use for a person who uses gas, mainly because of the lack of response time. Gas is pretty much instant control, traditional style electric hobs seem to require excellent foresight.
Amen! Gas hobs are so much better in terms of control.
@Orbling - I'm told that one way to deal with the speed problem on electrics is to keep multiple burners hot at different temperatures, then move the pan from burner to burner as needed. This is only workable if you have enough spare burners.
@Michael Kohne: My only problem with that (and another serious general problem) is that poses a large health hazard. Having lots of hot plates without things on top of them. This is a general hazard with electric hobs as they do not cool down very fast, so you either have to leave pans on them (which is not ideal), or stay well away. Particularly a problem with children in the house.
@Orbling - agreed that it's a safety issue, but as long as you aren't in the habit of putting random limbs or objects on the stove, you won't have a problem. As for kids, well, mine are now 10 & 7, and neither one had a problem with 'don't put your hand on the stove'. Ordinary care will prevent any mishaps.
@Michael Kohne: Whilst stupidity will guarantee them. I've lost count of the number of times I've burnt myself on the hobs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.392463
| 2011-01-31T23:04:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11708",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jason Ip",
"Joe",
"Michael Kohne",
"Orbling",
"Papawayne",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"keldwud",
"ran8",
"tummychow",
"user3341874"
],
"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
}
|
9131
|
How does dried cilantro relate to fresh?
Is coriander dried cilantro seed? Has anyone used dried cilantro, and if so how does it compare to fresh cilantro. I assume fresh is better but please describe the difference (less pungent, etc...)
Coriander, the plant, is the one whose leaves are called cilantro in many regions - the Spanish name for the plant. Of course, in some regions, the leaves are called coriander (or coriander leaves) as well. Coriander, the spice, is indeed the dried fruit/seeds of the plant, commonly sold both whole and ground. The seeds have a very different flavor from the leaves.
As for dried cilantro, the leaves? They're going to be pretty much flavorless compared to fresh cilantro. Cilantro loses its aroma quickly when heated or dried. Obviously there's still something left, or you wouldn't be able to buy dried cilantro, but it's not going to be a striking addition to a dish. If you can get it fresh, it's worth it.
Just to double check, because the web has various conflicting information, coriander the spice, is from both dried fruit and seeds of the plant but not the leaves.
@D W: Right, that's definitely what it means where I'm from. I think because the seeds actually have flavor when dried, while the leaves lose most of it, if anyone ever talks about a spice, they almost certainly mean the seeds. (Although for example I know people from New Zealand who call the fresh herb coriander as well, since that is the name of the plant, so they might well call the dried leaves coriander...)
You are better off just leaving cilantro out of a dish if all you have is dried. It bears no resemblance in flavor, texture or aroma to the fresh herb. Or substitute parsley - while also nowhere close, it at least contributes some "green" aroma.
@Michael indeed! and this especially goes for salsa / pico. dried has a bitter presence in comparison.
Just as a clarification on international terms: in the UK, "coriander" is the plant and can refer to either leaf or seed. "Coriander leaf" and "coriander seed" are the two things used from the plant. Some people just say "coriander" when they think the context is clear; fortunately they taste so different and are treated differently so you can usually figure out which is meant!
These are the seeds:
These are the leaves of the more common variety (there are many others):
While dried seeds are full of aroma and flavour, dried leaves are not.
BTW, it is VERY easy to grow cilantro (as parsley) in a pot, just use the seeds ...
Instead of drying the cilantro, why not just plant the other half in good potting mix? You won't have to run to the store for fresh then. It grows quickly too!
I have both dry and fresh. The dry doesn't stack up. It has a much less pungent flavour. It's good in a pinch.
Indoors, with plenty of light and water, the stuff is practically a weed. It stops growing much after flowering, so I've kept 2 eight inch pots going about a month apart. That yields an endless supply.
It tastes foremost of "generic dried herbs" - the typical hay-like, bitter taste with a note of cilantro. It is mostly sold so people can put a checkmark next to the "cilantro" line in a recipe.
While applications exist and have been mentioned in other answers, it is not a valid substitute for fresh or frozen cilantro (which I heard exists in some places - not here unfortunately, and it does not home freeze well).
Frozen coriander leaf (as we call it here) is fairly easy to find in the UK and works pretty well. It's not quite as good as fresh, but it's so far ahead of dried. You wouldn't use it for a garnish, but if you're stirring it into something you get a good hit of coriander flavour out of it.
Dried basil is great, but dried Cilantro smells like dry grass clippings and tastes like it smells.
So that would make dry grass clippings a valid substitute for dried cilantro?
Dried cilantro brings a mild herbaceous favor to soups and stews but it is not a substitute for fresh cilantro. If you take the notion of subbing for the fresh stuff off the table, dried cilantro is interesting... I often use both because they bring completely different things to the party.
I made home made salsa and used dried cilantro in a tin that I bought from the store. I threw the salsa out and gave my dried cilantro in the spice tin away... It was awful awful awful and didnt taste a thing like fresh cilantro. It ruined mmy salsa... never again will I buy it in the grocery store.
To make things easier - dried coriander (leaves) looks like dried parsley - that is green.
Coriander seeds are yellowish and therefore the ground version is also grey yellow in color.
The tastes are completely different - the ground seeds have a pungent taste and are not used in salads or cold dishes.
The leaves, whether dry or fresh can be used as is without cooking, e.g. add them to a salad.
I have heard to use twice the dried if the substituting for fresh in a recipe. Joy of Cooking has good substitutes listings including dried for fresh.
This may be true for some herbs - ones that retain flavor when dried - but cilantro loses essentially everything when dried. You could put ten times as much in and it still wouldn't taste like cilantro.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.392908
| 2010-11-15T07:54:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9131",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"D W",
"Darren Hanson",
"Matthew Walton",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sophia Aragon",
"Spammer",
"Ven",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99127",
"lucy pugh",
"mleykamp",
"rackandboneman",
"tponthieux",
"user18685",
"user18732",
"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
}
|
6140
|
how to grind pistachio nuts so that they stay dry
I've become a bit obsessed with making macarons and have actually managed to make them come out nicely, so I'm looking to take them to the next level and start using different nuts from almonds.
When I tried to grind up pistachios (or hazelnuts) into a fine powder they become more of a paste (i'm presuming due to the fact that they are more moist), and was wondering if there were any tips for grinding nuts into an extremely fine powder without them becoming a paste?
Thanks!
Since some time has passed since you originally asked the question, may I ask what worked out best for you?
I have had some luck with other oily nuts by grinding them down into semi-large pieces, and then letting them dry out on a flat cookie sheet. Then, step-wise, grind iteratively, with dry steps in between. If you can do this one time with a lot of product, you can save some in an air tight container for next time.
When you say grind, is this with a food processor / pestle and mortar or something else?
I have used a food processor. A mortar and pestle may be something to try as well.
A food processor + hazelnuts = hazelnut butter, end of story. The best you're gonna achieve is bad hazelnut butter, i.e. grainy and clumpy. Like I said a year and a half ago, if you want nut flour, you need to use the proper tool: a nut grinder.
The more liquid texture is a result of the oils in the nut being released as it is crushed. To avoid releasing the oil, start with cold nuts and shred or grate rather than crushing. Any kind of blunt trauma will squeeze the oil from the nut, making it gloppy. Keeping the nuts cold will cause the oil to solidify, keeping the final product fluffy.
This makes me wonder if it would actually be useful to freeze them. Pretty much anything frozen will "shatter" rather than "crush", which is exactly what's desired here. But I haven't tried it...
I will give freezing / cooling them a go - sounds like a simple but effective solution!
I would suggest investing in a proper nut grinder. Despite the name, these actually grate, rather than grind, the nuts, and thus give you the flour-like texture you want in a pretty foolproof way. In a pinch, a hand-held rotary cheese grater can be used, but your hands will get pretty tired.
When grinding almonds I first blanch them in hot water, then spread out thinly on a baking tray & allow them to dry out in the oven at 90 C for at least 30 minutes. When they are completely cold they can be finely ground to a flour & used for making marzipan. This is the only way I have found to make it successfully. I make marzipan in 1kg quantities for my Easter Simnel cake & also for making marzipan figures.
Have you successfully done this with pistachios as well as almonds?
I think you should remove the oil from pistachio. Actually I'm trying to make pistachio macaron. And I have Kirkland salted pistachio. If I grind it straight from the packet then it'll become pistachio paste which I definitely don't want. So I'm trying to remove excessive oil from it. To do it I have to boil the pistachio few minutes then dry it in the oven. I'll give it a try. If it works then I'll write about the outcome ok?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.393357
| 2010-08-27T09:51:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6140",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dibstar",
"Eric Hu",
"Erica",
"Leigh Ann Stewart",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"laura mcalpine",
"nicorellius",
"penny katschke"
],
"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
}
|
14249
|
Is this a true? You should use garlic with pork and ginger with beef and never vice versa?
"You should use garlic with pork and
ginger with beef and never vice versa."
This is coming from my dad who says that fact has been handed down from generations and generations of Chinese cooking. He says if I mix it (i.e. cook pork with ginger and beef with garlic), there will be an unpleasant taste. Maybe he's just exaggerating, I'm not sure. Do you think there is any truth to this saying?
I've certainly never seen this in print; it sounds like some strange family tradition to me.
maybe it is just that Dad doesn't like it any other way ...
No, not true. Garlic should be used with everything, pretty much.
Whether or not it's a good idea is subjective, but the Chinese seem to break that rule a lot! For example, Northeastern Chinese sweet and sour pork (guō bāo ròu) is characterized by an intense ginger flavor. The Sichuan classic twice cooked pork (huí guō ròu) calls for boiling the pork with ginger. A common condiment for beef dishes/sauces is black bean garlic paste (蒜蓉豆豉酱). Perhaps this saying is associated with a specific Chinese regional cuisine?
Whenever I see never I feel uneasy and want to try it anyway :)
Beef + garlic works very well. It's often used in middle eastern and Japanese cuisine for example.
Pork and ginger is a common combination in Chinese cooking.
I guess its up to your personal preference, there are a lot of beef dishes with garlic and one good example is beef and broccoli also with pork most of the Asian stir fries uses pork and ginger and they do taste great.
I am surprised seeing this too. It has been eons since my Dad used to tell me a lot of about NOT using ginger on pork, but garlic on both is not bad.
It's all about ginger and pork having a chemical reaction that is bad on the aspect of the yin/yang balance in the body as my dad explained it. It releases a certain chemical as well that when your immunity is low, could trigger some conditions adverse to health. From that info, never use ginger on pork dishes too.
My dad was born in the 30s, so I assume that his wisdom on this emanated from older generations handed down to him as well by a long line of cooks from our family.
Uses of ginger in pork dishes could be regional, or maybe the younger generations making the infamous NorthEastern sweet and sour pork FORGOT that the ginger in that dish wasn't raw when added in cooking but rather already in a commercially available ready-made sauce that that HAS the ginger in it already. IT IS IN THE SAUCE that was separately made. NOT cooked through with the PORK. Cooking the ginger with the pork is what releases what my Dad described as the culprit that needs to be avoided. Just to clarify. Hope I made some sense. This to me, as my Father passed on to me, I will retain in my future cooking wisdom. :-)
It's a myth - look at the number of steakhouses that serve steaks with garlic butter sauces/dressings.
The pork marinade we use in our family even combines the two: one part each of sesame oil, soy sauce and sherry, equal amounts of ginger&garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.393652
| 2011-04-22T04:58:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14249",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Debbie A",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5800",
"ridvan harlicaj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25464
|
Finding the right cooking classes?
I'm new to this whole cooking business. Not - can only cook spaghetti bolognese new. More - "Frozen pizza? Nope - that's hard. Order in".
However - there's hope for me yet! I recognize how much of a life skill cooking is and before I get too far along in this whole aging process I should really start acquiring it.
I've started looking around at cooking classes in my area but from what I've seen everything appears to assume some prior knowledge and is specializing in dishes from some country or other that the West thinks themselves better than.
What kind of classes are appropriate for me? Is there a 'term' for basic cooking classes that I'm missing (I did try searching for "basic cooking lessons" but Google in all its power returned nothing).
How do I learn these utter basics so I can start enjoying food I've prepared, not purchased?
Cooking classes aren't the only way to learn cooking - in fact, they're a relatively expensive way to go about it, especially as it's hard to introduce all the various techniques in one lesson.
There are any number of beginner's cook books out there that introduce basic concepts and techniques extremely well. There are masses of videos on YouTube covering just about every cooking topic and recipe*. Food blogs abound online. Check them all out, start with basic things like sauteeing onions, boiling eggs etc, and take it from there. I know this works, because it's pretty much what I did (though I started before I had the benefit of YouTube).
Another good way of learning is to find a friend who does cook and help them out chopping veg etc, and have them talk you through a basic recipe (like spaghetti bolognese) as they go. And of course, you can always ask the wizened sages of Seasoned Advice.
If you do decide to go for cooking classes, don't discount those focusing on a specific cuisine; food has to come from somewhere, and they all use the same basic set of techniques. There's only so many ways you can chop and heat foodstuffs after all. I started cooking by learning how to make a decent Chinese stir fry, for example.
*I realise I recommended YouTube in my answer to your other question, but it is a great resource. I don't work for them :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.393938
| 2012-08-04T09:46:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25464",
"authors": [
"Anna Thornton",
"C. Ray",
"Qasim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58338",
"sandy2friends",
"sirjonsnow",
"user253929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124010
|
What's the safe temperature for cooking alligator meat?
I've got some alligator in that I plan on cooking this weekend. I'm trying to figure out what the safe temperature is, but the internet is giving me very many conflicting responses, everything from 145F through to 190F.
What is the actual safe temperature for alligator?
Does any species have a particular "done" temperature? As cow can be served as steak tartare and beef borgonour it does not seem obvious. I would have thought it is the usual questions of palatability and food hygiene that apply to any meat.
The USDA publishes safe cooking temperatures. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-internal-temperatures . I want to know the safe temperature for aligator. "Done temperature" where i am means "safe temperature"; googling "pork done temperature" gets you the minimum safe pork steak temp of 145. So yes, species have "done temperatures".
The safe temperature depends on the hygiene standards from the butcher to your dinner table which depend among other factors on jurisdiction. For pork handled according to US hygiene standards the safe temperature is 145 F. Pork handled according to German hygiene standards can be eaten at any temperature including raw for the first 12 hours after purchase.
Doneness temperatures exist, but they are not the same as the safe temperature. Also, each meat has multiple doneness temperatures (for different stages of doneness) and only one safe temperature per jurisdiction. If you didn't find the alligator safe temperature on the USDA site, it probably hasn't been defined at all. But there is of course the chance that some other country has done it, if alligator is more commonly eaten there.
Note that this answer can change based upon geographical region and species. The important part about the time over temperature (it's not just temperature alone), is that those critical limits are established with specific pathogens of concern in mind. "Which" is determined during the product's hazard analyses process, which is why poultry products within the domestic US is typically 165°F (for salmonella, based on the outdated ― but still commonly cited — Thompkins study), and beef and swine 160°F (campylobacter jejuni plus a couple others). The same should apply here.
Seems I misspoke, the Tompkin's study was for Salmonella's holding/stabilization temperature point (44.6°F), I can no longer remember the study that the 165°F figure was derived from off the top of my head. And it would appear that it doesn't matter either way, as FSIS revised Appendix A & B back in December 2021.
I've gathererd some potentially useful resources for your reference. Where applicable, I've also included backup copies that I'm hosting on my own cloud storage for access redundancy in case of broken links.
Disclaimer
Please note that as you did not state a locale, I am proceding under the assumption you are referring to the American Alligator (Species Alligator mississippiensis, The Reptile Database), which may include but may not be limited to:
...
Crocodilus mississipiensis [sic]
Daudin, 1802
Crocodilus lucius
Cuvier, 1807
Crocodilus cuvieri
Leach, 1815
Alligator lucius
— A.M.C. Duméril & Bibron, 1836
Alligator mississippiensis [sic]
— Holbrook, 1842
...
Resources
Regulatory
FDA: Seafood HACCP
Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance June 2022 Edition (backup)
REGULATOR'S HACCP MANUAL (backup)
50 CFR § 17.42 Special rules — reptiles (backup 05/24/2023)
Guide to Direct Marketing Livestock and Poultry (refer to page 14) (backup)
Industry
FMI Center for Retail Food Safety and Defense — Retail Product Warehousing and Transit Controls in compliance with Current Seafood HACCP Regulations (.pdf backup)
Association of Food and Drug Officials — HACCP Laws and Guidance
Additional Reading
HARVESTING OF AMERICAN ALLIGATORS - THE FDA WAY (.pdf backup)
FDA Archive Search: "alligator"
There isn't one. There are 'safe temps' for controlling bacteria like Salmonella, and parasites like Trichinella, but the alligator is already dead, and controlling for bacteria and parasites is certainly covered at USDA. In fact all USDA recommendations, of which there are very few specific to a specie, are based on only those two criteria. You may wish to render some of the fat as well to increase digestibility and edibility. Various sections of body fat may need Time & Temp to render, so time may become a large question depending on whether you are also controlling for infection. Some 'cuts' or organs, may be more preferential cooked or uncooked. Some may prefer a chemical cooking, or heat, others will be more educational to your eater by being served naked and raw. For eaxample, were you to cook the brain, you would probably not need to control for either a parasite or bacterial infection and would probably not exceed 130F. If you were to use some of the bile to flavor a blood sausage, you should probably cook to 160F or higher. In some cultures digestive tract and Anus is eaten. I would assume this meat would have a higher likelihood of needing to be controlled for both bacterial and parasitic infections.
I think this is totally correct. "Safe" means killing the things that could harm you, and this is a reasonable review of the things to consider..
@User65535 I can't agree with that. You are forgetting that food borne illnesses stemming from biological hazards come in three distinct routes: infection, intoxication, and infection-mediated intoxication. Lethality would certainly eliminate those that arise from infection, but you cannot "cook out" toxins. This is what makes spore-forming gram positive pathogens (e.g., listeria monocytogenes) such a significant concern, as the only way to keep food safe is by prevention of direct or indirect adulteration, e.g., cross contamination.
@Arctiic I see that you are concerned, yet apparently misinformed? please cite sources regarding your statement "this is what makes spore forming .. yadda yadda". I am unclear that bacteria produces spores. Your concern seems to point to explaining that you do not trust cooking FOOD versus cooking alligator. this is problematic.
@BenMunday I am not concerned, because I am informed, unless the ten years I worked as an industrial food safety practitioner was just one long fluke? I didn't believe it necessary to cite what is considered to be common knowledge, but certainly, I have no issues with providing some literature: USDA Ask FSIS, or...
...this FSIS publication. Notice, if you scroll down to "Staphylococcus aureus" under the prevention column, it states: ".. Because the toxins produced by this bacterium are resistant to heat and cannot be destroyed by cooking, preventing the contamination of food before the toxin can be produced is important. Keep hot foods hot (over 140°F) and cold foods cold (40°F or under); wash your hands with warm water and soap and wash kitchen counters with hot water and soap before and after preparing food..."
You are correct in that my concern is regarding the processing and handling of food in a macroscopic sense, but I speak from the perspective that all foods should have hazard analyses conducted accordingly in order to determine the associated hazards and risks, and the necessary controls to mitigate or reduce them. Whereas more commonly found food commodities have a much deeper "data pool", so to speak, to pull from, less commonly processed ones conversely have less available data to reference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.394164
| 2023-04-22T18:36:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124010",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Ben Munday",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34875
|
Mexican ceviche vs. Japanese sashimi
Except for the different flavours, how similar is Mexican ceviche to the Japanese sashimi. Do they have the same basis and the same fish types?
Complementing @user24309 's answer, typical mexican ceviche is good but it pales in comparison to Peruvian-style ceviche. The amount of lime juice used in the mexican style drowns a lot of flavours. Peruvian-style ceviche is one of the tastiest dishes I've had in my life!
Even with the same fish, sashimi and ceviche are very different dishes:
Sashimi is sliced, raw fish that is in its natural state. Note the glossy, translucent nature of the slices:
Sashimi is also just the fish, although the plate may have additional garnishes.
Ceviche is technically uncooked, but has been marinated in citrus juice which coagulates proteins and turns the flesh opaque in a manner similar to cooking. Ceviche is often combined with onions or other complimentary vegetables.
Note the opaque, white color of the flesh:
In terms of the fish used, sashimi is often made with oily fish like tuna, yellowtail, or snapper; ceviche is more often made from white fish, or even shrimp or squid. However, there is considerable variation in both cases.
See also: Food Lab article on ceviche
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.394805
| 2013-06-23T08:44:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34875",
"authors": [
"BiloxiGrannyT",
"Effie",
"Mysteez",
"breaddrink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81353",
"sgorozco",
"xngtng"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91372
|
Does resting stew lead to more succulent meat?
My wife makes a very delicious chicken curry. Part of the "recipe" is let it rest for 2 hours or so until it reaches room temperature. She claims the meat relaxes and reabsorbs gravy from the curry, making the chicken more tender and succulent. She claims if it is served immediately or chilled in the fridge, it never gets this opportunity.
I've heard of resting steaks or roasts. The idea is getting the moisture that's already inside the meat to stay there. But will resting a stew in fact help make the meat pieces more tender?
It has nothing to do with meat absorbing liquids, that doesn't happen just as you explained it. Once meat has become dry, it doesn't get succulent again by somehow spongeing up liquid. The recipe is right to have you wait before serving though, because the flavors keep improving at least for the first day after cooking a stew. It is about aroma, not about texture.
For more detail, see What causes flavors to "marry"? and What happens chemically when flavours 'mingle'?, probably also other questions.
Hm, let me clarify. It is not about the "flavor" but rather the texture: the apparent softness and juiciness of the meat. I know that stewing meats require longer cook times to render connective tissue. But if that explained it, resting would just be adding to the cook time with carryover heat. If that's all it does, then that helps me understand.
That's what I was trying to say: the texture doesn't need rest. Stew is frequently rested for flavor, and somebody came up with a wrong explanation relating to texture. People are very good at making up plausible sounding explanations and believing in them.
You can slop together Chile Verde in under an hour. It doesn't get really good until you've barely simmered it for three or four hours.
@WayfaringStranger I agree with you about the importance of a good simmer, but I think we are talking about different things here. Resting is about the time between taking the stew off the heat and eating it, no matter if it was simmered before or not.
@rumtscho Yes, I think so. Just wanted to be sure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.394943
| 2018-07-31T18:52:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91372",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10464
|
What temperature to cook a pork tenderloin at?
What temperature do you normally cook a pork tenderloin at? I was searching on the internet and saw anywhere from 325°F (165°C) to 450°F (230°C) and couldn't seem to find a good answer.
Also, does it depend on how long you want to cook it or in how you prepare it before cooking?
possible duplicate of How long should roast pork be cooked so that it stays light pink?
With a pork tenderloin:
Season the meat, sear all sides in a very hot pan, and then finish in the oven at 350°F (175°C) degrees until the internal temp. hits 145°F (63°C). Then let it sit for 10 minutes, and cut 'er up.
If you need it done faster, a higher oven temp will accomplish this, but may compromise quality. But like I said, for a tenderloin, you don't want too low, or too high. Just watch the internal temperature, that is the key.
I like bbqing best, but still the same sear/cook approach.
I like the BBQ option as well, but the books I've looked at always say to cook pork to 170 which I find makes it a little too dry for my liking. I'll have to try your idea of pulling it at 145 and letting it sit. Do you do anything to keep it from getting too cold?
Tent it in foil to keep it from getting too cold.
Despite the currently accepted answer, there is no single best method to cook pork tenderloin. The main issue is getting it to a final internal temperature of about 145 F to 155 F (63 C to 68 C) depending on your preferences. If cooked to well done (above about 165 F, 74 C), it will be tough and rubbery as it has very little internal fat or collagen.
The actual temperature you cook it at can vary considerably depending on the method. In all cases, you want to check the internal temperature with an instant read thermometer.
In all cases, a resting period (which empirically allows more of the juices to be retained) of about 5-10 minutes is a good idea before serving or slicing.
The method advised in the current accepted answer is certainly effective, and can be delicious, but any method which gets the pork to the desired internal temperature without overcooking it will also work.
This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including:
Pan roasting. Pan searing and then finishing in a moderate oven (about 350 F, 175 C although there is flexibility here if you have other dishes to finish) is certainly one very effective method for cooking a pork tenderloin, but any method that brings it to the desired temperature will work.
Roasting then searing. The reverse technique, which may give more tender results, would be to cook it in a slow oven (95 C) until it reaches the desired internal temperature, and then pan sear it for browning and deliciousness—the initial cooking dries the surface and allows the sear to develop flavor rapidly with minimal over cooking of the exterior.
Grilling, first searing then indirect. While more difficult to control, this idea can be applied on the grill: sear the tenderloin over the hot part of the coals until it has a nice golden crust, then move it to indirect heat to cook through to the desired temperature. On a grill, controlling the absolute temperature is more difficult so I am not mentioning them, although you can take the oven method temperatures as a guide.
Sous-vide. Some modernists might suggest putting it in a sous-vide water bath at 145 F (63 C) or even 135 F (57 C) for 2 1/2 to three hours (or until convenient to serve, although Yossarian recommends no more than 4 hours for lean meats like pork tenderloin to prevent it becoming mushy), and then finishing it with a torch or by pan searing. This allows complete control of the final internal temperature, but makes the final sear more difficult as the exterior is not dried.
Sauteed medallions. Pork tenderloin is also often cut into medallions and then sauteed, which promotes considerable fond, allows a nice pan sauce, and makes for a nice presentation. Medallions are thin, and so more difficult to measure the temperature of directly with an instant read thermometer, but with experience (to avoid overcooking), this is another extremely effective technique.
For the sous-vide method, "several hours" should not be longer than 4, or the meat will start to denature and get mushy. In general, with cuts of meat that don't require long cook times to break down collagen, you want to keep the cook time to the minimum to reach temperature or, in the case of pork, to pasteurize. You should have no issue with a final sear. Just dry the meat and use a screaming hot pan or blowtorch.
My survey of sous vide recipes shows 2 1/2 to 3 hours is typical, at 135 F (57 C), although that is a little low for my taste. Not sure I would go this way--I like the roast then sear method.
There's no need to cook intact tender muscles of pork sous vide for a long time, trichinosis, which is the main nasty you are worried about, is killed after three minutes if the core temperature is held at 58C. See pg 238 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2001-title9-vol2/pdf/CFR-2001-title9-vol2-sec318-10.pdf
I agree, pork should never be overcooked or it will become nothing but a dry meat. I always season my pork tenderloins, then pan-sear for a crispy brown outer crust, then put into the oven at 350 degrees for about 45 minutes to one hour. At 45 minutes, I begin checking the internal temperature of the meat. When it reaches just under 150 degrees, I remove the roast from the oven and let sit uncoverd for 10 to 15 minutes. The roast will continue to cook internally while sitting and should rise approximately another 3 or 4 degrees. The meat should be a light pink color. If any more red, I suggest that you buy a new thermometer. Happy eating! :-)
Pan searing is a new delicious twist. But, I cook these all the time and don't need the extra dishes. I foil a pan, roll in olive oil in pan, nick and insert sliced fresh garlic cloves inbeded in roast, season with season and coarse ground black pepper, with oven sometimes pre-heated to 375, throw in for 25-30 minute, then check temperature looking for 150 degrees, flip over towards the end after the 25 min. mark, and... Shizam! Super delicious...
We were talking 145°F (63°C) not 165°F (74°C). I just tried it and the pork came out pink. Over here in the UK we like pink lamb and even steak tartare but pink pork will take another century or so despite what the US may tell us we are still advised to cook pork to 79°C (174°F).
Pink is okay. I predict that UK authorities will change their recommendation to 63C much sooner than 2114.
Regarding the recommended 79°C, you may get different information depending on where you look. The advice from safefood.eu (an advisory board set up by the British and Irish governments) is that pork "must be cooked to a core temperature of at least 70°C for 2 minutes or equivalent (75°C instantaneously i.e. the immediate temperature reading obtained on inserting a temperature probe into the centre of the food)." The quoted text is wrong in surprisingly many ways, but I would be far happier to cook pork to 70°C than 79°C.
I cook mine in the smoker. Two hours at 225F take out at 145F/ nothing better.
Don't sear in advance.
Cook indirect heat (oven, back or side of BBQ w/burner turned off under the pork) until temps hit ~140.
Bring to high direct heat (high!) and develop level of sear/crust you prefer, let rest 10 minutes.
This will give you the best possible results. Searing in advance DOES NOT lock in the juices/result in moister meat, scientific testing in recent years in food kitchens has shown the exact opposite.
Do you have a link to the scientific testing you are talking about? That sounds really interesting as I've always been taught to sear then cook.
I have fed my young children Pork Tenderloin for years without incident.
With a convection oven set at 435 (actual temp 25 less = 410) I cook for 13 minutes @ actual 410 to kill bacteria,
then set temp at 350 (actual will be 325) and cook @ 325 for 18-22 minutes depending on thickness of roast. I cut into to check color and never use an thermometer to check center.
No incident here.
145 F may well break down collagen but does it kill the nasty little Trichinella spiralis that pigs can harbor. Thiat is why 205F for pork came into being because that ensured the little horrors were killed.
205F?, Are you kidding me? That's charcoal. 165F for at least 15 seconds kills even the extraordinarily rare Trichinella spiralis. The parasite is so rare anymore in farmed pork that even the ultra-paranoid USDA has dropped the "recommended for safety" temperature to 145.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.395163
| 2010-12-23T22:18:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10464",
"authors": [
"Aaron Guillory DoubleA",
"Bob",
"Carey Gregory",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Debbie Mattson",
"Fennesa Baskette",
"Fléchère Foisy",
"Gale Colby",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josue Iturio",
"Michelle",
"Nicola Sap",
"PACKMAN VAPES",
"Paulb",
"Rosie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra Imlach",
"Stefano",
"Tuorg",
"Wally Lawless",
"Woodford",
"amurra",
"dee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80522",
"jladan",
"pbaldridge",
"smcg",
"yossarian",
"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
}
|
25725
|
Roasted chickpeas for houmous?
I accidentally bought roasted, salted chickpeas (I've never heard of this - why would anyone want that?) instead of normal, dried chickpeas. To be clear, these chickpeas are dry and powdery, rather than boiled chickpeas roasted with salt to make a soft/crispy snack.
Can I still use them to make houmous? Or should I give this one up?
sounds like the little rocks could be ground and seasoned to make instant-dried-eat-only-in-emergency houmous.
@PatSommer What an awful idea. I can definitely imagine someone trying to market that ;)
At 3000 meters and hungry, it passes for food.
Roasted, salted dry chickpeas are a snack food.
I would not expect for you to be able to make humus out of them; for one thing, they would have way too much salt, and the texture would be wrong. It might be possible with a lot of experimentation, but you'd need to go through several failed batches before you got one which worked. Personally, I'd just go back to the store.
I've had them soaking for 24 hours, and they seem OK (rehydrated). I'm going to pressure cook them, and see how it goes. I figure at that stage, I've basically lost nothing. But yes, I'm going to pick up some proper chickpeas when I'm next shopping.
Having cooked them (in a pressure cooker), the texture is about right, but they have a washed-out flavour.
@Marcin perhaps add that as an answer?
"I've basically lost nothing" - except a potentially tasty snack...
I soaked the roasted chickpeas for 24 hours or so, with a few changes of water, and they seemed to rehydrate just fine.
I cooked them in a pressure cooker until tender (overall, about 50 minutes, in 15 minute stretches), and they ended up with about the right texture, but with a washed-out taste, and the water looked like a thin, white, chickpea broth. I didn't waste any ingredients trying to actually turn that into houmous.
I should think this is a viable way to make hummus.
Check out this recipe for Roasted chickpea hummus.
Any comments on taste differences?
Hey thanks, but the chickpeas are already dry and roasted.
different 'roasted' altogether
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.395869
| 2012-08-18T16:28:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25725",
"authors": [
"ANK",
"AncientSwordRage",
"Barb Reisner",
"E Daveron",
"Helen",
"Manish Malik",
"Marcin",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"slim",
"user59009"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24080
|
How can I specify the correct type of bacon in the US?
I'm in the US, looking for bacon like they have in the UK and (possibly?) Canada. However, if I ask for Canadian Bacon, I receive what is basically a processed ham product that I find far less tasty. How can I specify the cut of meat I'm looking for?
+1 for calling it "the correct type of bacon" :D Those tiny thin streaky strips of fat you guys call bacon are an abomination to humankind.
This is known as "back bacon" in Canada, and when brined rather than smoked, it's peameal bacon. Canadian bacon is, sadly, usually just some sort of processed ham product meant to resemble back bacon. It's also known here in the US as Irish rashers or British rashers (a rasher is the british term for a slice of the sort of bacon you're after). It can also show up as simply Irish bacon or British bacon. Google any of those terms to find internet vendors.
In Canada, we have lots of different types of bacon. I believe in the states, "Canadian" Bacon, as far as I know generally refers to back bacon. Standard Bacon (Also called, side Bacon, Strip Bacon; which comes from the belly), is usually just known as "Bacon". I believe this is true in the states.
What happens when you just ask for "Bacon, please!"?
Wikipedia link of different cuts of bacon. The link also includes the different local terms for bacon.
"Bacon", no qualifiers, in the US refers to what they called in the UK "streaky" bacon.
As for the wikipedia link, it claims "Canadian" bacon should be back bacon, but it's not. Everywhere I've had Canadian Bacon, it's the smoked ham they refer to in the disambig page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_bacon
Then what are you looking for? You actually looking for the back bacon? In my travels in the states, I can usually get the same thing I find here in Canada. Ask around for "back" bacon maybe?
Is there an actual butcher near you?
Unfortunately, no. I'm looking to order online or get very very lucky in a supermarket (maybe a high-end one or one that boasts a lot of imports)
You're looking for something like this? http://www.realcanadianbacon.com/ (Disclaimer: I have no idea the reputation of this place, I just found it via an article about fake Canadian Bacon....)
No, I want rashers like http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00722/SNN3118Z_682_722857a.jpg . I was probably misinformed when I was told I could find it in Canada easier
Canadian Bacon is available only in the US. It is not available in Canada at all. What is available in Canada is pickled pork loin, usually rolled in pea meal and sold as Back Bacon or Peameal bacon. The American Product, called Canadian Bacon is really more of a ham made from the loin.
Base on your image http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00722/SNN3118Z_682_722857a.jpg I think you're looking for shoulder bacon, which is generally not available in North America.
I've definitely seen that product here in Calgary, but I couldn't tell you where, or what it was labelled as...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.396077
| 2012-05-29T20:31:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24080",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Leslie M",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"Linda salazar",
"Mark",
"Patricia Oneill Linard",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"nicko66",
"ringo",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20611
|
What makes a good vessel for storing sourdough starter?
I was going to buy the King Arthur set of starter + crock, but the crock is on backorder, so I plan to instead locally source a vessel for the starter. What should I look for? Should I find a similar crock? A jar of some kind?
ETA: More specifically, what should I be looking for? Size? Materials? Lid type? I read elsewhere that I don't want an airtight seal; I'm looking for more advice like that.
Jam jar works for me.
Admittedly I have only stored my starter in a glass jar, but I wouldn't want anything else.
You should look for a size that is neither too large, nor too small. It should comfortably hold your sourdough starter when you are simply feeding it - I usually store 200g of starter, at 100% hydration (100g flour, 100g water) or thereabouts. However, when actually making sourdough starter you make more - perhaps 400g or so, depending on how much bread you are making, plus you want to have something left to restart your bread. A typical recipe might call for 20% starter, so 200g for a kilo loaf. The other solution is to of course have two separate jars, and only use both when doubling for bread.
When I say it must be able to hold that much, I mean that it will have to hold it fully risen, which means around 2x to 2.5x of the original size. In addition, narrow and high is better than low and wide, since it makes it easier to tell how much it rises.
Also, you will want a wide opening, so that you can easily clean it.
As for covering it, I just use a sheet of plastic. Just take care not to get it gooey. It will hold in the moisture so the sourdough doesn't dry out, but won't trap the carbon dioxide.
Good luck
I use a regular wide mouth canning jar with an inverted coffee filter over the top, secured by a canning jar ring. It's worked great for me. if the coffee filter ends up getting stuck, as they eventually will, I just replace it with a new one. The filter breathes and also allows more yeast to get in.
I recommend the Harsch Fermenting Crock. I use the smallest one and it is pretty large, but I have never had a problem with my starter overflowing. The water seal on this crock lets gas out and provides a good seal. I always worry about using glass jars. You can't seal too tight or they might explode. I also don't want bread that tastes like the inside of my fridge. They are expensive and I have not been able to find an alternative. However, if you are serious about maintaining a starter I think it is worth it.
as long as it's not airtight, in my experience you can use almost anything: a large jar with a loose lid, a tupperware container that has a small hole in it... that sort of thing.
I use a mason jar with a loose lid. I wouldn't recommend a plastic container for long term storage- I've found they get really gross and hard to clean.
@Sobachatina That's exactly the kind of advice I'm looking for.
i use a (hard) plastic container made for sourdough that i purchased from Leeners.com, and it's been easy to clean so far. but i understand the appeal of glass, too.
@franko- I used cheap plastic containers that discolored, etc. I suppose you get what you pay for.
My experience is airtight = bad – active sourdough tends to 'suffocate' and spoil without fresh air. I use a big glass jar covered only with a cloth or paper towel. Yes, dries out a bit, but what is a problem to add a bit of water and mix it from time to time.
A mason jar (Einmachglas) with the lid closed but without the rubber seal is perfect, been using them for years. There's no need to spend lots of cash on fancy gear.
Years ago when I worked with sourdough a lot I used a stoneware crock that was just the right size for the amount of starter and it had a lid that was not air tight, so it worked perfect for the job. Over the years of not having a starter (I stopped doing it when I had to go back to work) and moving a couple of times, I misplaced that "perfect" crock and it's nearly impossible to find a crock the size of the one I had, but I happened across a website that has what I think will be the right vessel for the job. It's a 1.5 Qt wide mouth glass jar, made in Italy by Bormioli Rocco and it is a really good price. If anybody is interested it's on the breadtopia website at: http://breadtopia.com/store/sourdough-starter-jar/
I have already ordered mine. Maybe this will help someone out there... I hope so.
The King Arthur crock is a nice size and looks good. The logo clearly distinguishes the contents. However, I prefer to be able to see through to the contents. A tall wide mouth glass canning jar seems ideal to me. With the ring on loose (or fitted with something breathable), I would not worry about it exploding.
If a shorter, wider container would fit your space better, Pyrex makes 7 cup glass storage containers. You can buy them with airtight, silicone-sealed glass lids, but plastic lids with vent tabs also are available.
I find wecks jars perfect. I rest the glass lids on top. So the gasses can escape if they need to. I use the straight sided ones. I like a clear jar so I can see when the bubbling starts after feeding.
I use a glass jar with a fermenting lid. In other words, vented. This jar will auto release gas or you can set the release manually.
No more worry about your glass jar breaking under pressure or anything icky falling in.
I use a 1400ML or 1.5 Quart jar like the one in this link from Amazon.
Wide mouth glass jar with a piece of wax paper loosely rubber banded over the top. Keeps it from drying out, but if the starter goes nuts, it just pushes the wax paper up and out of the rubber band--no worry of exploding glass.
Half gallon Mason jars with the 2 piece lid work great.
Leaving the ring portion of the lid loose allows the gas to
escape by lifting the flat portion. Otherwise it is sealed.
I found that a wide mouth Mason jar, folded cheesecloth and a rubber band extremely successful! Success the first day!
I use a 64 oz pickle jar and store it in the refrigerator. I take out starter out of it for recipes. Each day I put in 1/2 of my starter that I feed every 12 hrs and I use the oven light to keep the smaller jar at a constant 75 deg. I stir the larger starter jar before putting it back into the refrigerator to add air. I have had great results using this method. I tighten the lid AFTER I know there's no gases being formed.
The question is about what makes a good container, not how you use it or where you keep it.... perhaps you should expand on why the jar you use is a good choice to improve this answer.
The starter is acid so do not use any metal. I like to use a one quart cylindrical crock which I cover with a loose fitting saucer/plate. I have been experimenting with starters of varying degrees of sourness. I keep each batch in a separate pint jar with loose fitting lid to let the CO2 out. Don't want the starter to explode out when the lid is removed. The starter is sticky so wide mouth containers are easier to extract the starter from and clean.
"Metal" is not accurate. You probably don't want to use copper or aluminum, but you can store it in stainless steel without a problem. You can store things with even more acid than sourdough in stainless steel as well.
If you have the kind of sourdough starter that doesn't require extra yeast, do not use glass, as it can explode. I use a crock with a spring-loaded lid. Have had my starter for over 40 years.
Glass doesn't necessarily mean airtight. Not sure why glass would explode just from being in contact with starter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.396361
| 2012-01-19T16:18:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20611",
"authors": [
"Aveek Bhattacharya",
"Cascabel",
"David Olvera",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Keri Thomas",
"Michael",
"Nikki Negus",
"RedSonja",
"Rohit Kumar",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sha",
"Sobachatina",
"Yamikuronue",
"andrewtweber",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73645",
"nico",
"paul",
"satish kumar",
"user123123"
],
"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
}
|
21022
|
Ways to speed up this chai recipe?
This site has what looks to be a good recipe for homemade "Chai" spiced tea; however, it requires a lot of prep and won't work with my current routine, which is the modern English style tea preparation for loose-leaf tea: boil water in an electric kettle, pour into pre-warmed teapot with leaves, steep, dump into travel mug, add milk and sugar, run out the door late as usual. Total time: about 5-6 minutes.
Is the boiling of milk with spices necessary, or can I dump pre-ground spices into my brewed tea along with milk and sugar? Can I boil a large batch of milk with spices and store that in the fridge and add to brewed tea instead of my usual vanilla soymilk?
EDIT: I appear to have misread part of the instructions; it calls for boiling water with spices then adding milk, rather than boiling milk with spices directly. The comments, however, insist that the milk needs to come to a proper boil as well. So, the real question appears to be: is that true, or can I toss the spices in with the leaves in my pot while the tea steeps and add milk as usual later?
That recipe actually says there are two ways you can prepare this:
There are two ways to do this: throw just about everything in a pot of
water and simmer, then add the milk, tea and sweetener and brew for a
few minutes; or, let the spices soak overnight in the water then
simmer in the morning with your tea leaves and milk.
(emphasis mine)
Have you tried the latter? That way you still only have to heat things up once.
I'd be hesitant to boil milk with spices and then store it cold, reheating again. If you're using dairy milk, that is. If you're using anything other than non-fat (skim) milk, you'll get a "skin" on the top of the milk when you're boiling it - that's one of the classic signs of masala chai for me. But anyway, it becomes substantially less appetizing if it has time to cool into globules and is then reheated again. I'm not sure what problems, if any, you'd encounter using non-dairy milk like almond or soy.
You could dump the pre-ground spices into your brewed tea with milk and sugar, but the flavor profile will be a little different. Boiling the spices with the milk and tea gives everything time to meld nicely and provide a really smooth flavor blend. But I don't see any especially compelling reason that you couldn't do it.
I would like to point out, though, that boiling enough water for a travel mug's worth of tea doesn't take any more time to do on the stove than it does in my electric kettle. Adding milk shouldn't make too much difference; I'm willing to bet that after you get familiar with the routine, you can follow this recipe and still have it take 5-6 minutes. :)
Purists will insist that the spices must be boiled with the water, but those are the same people who would scoff at you adding cold milk to your tea in the first place. There's no reason why you can't, other than it might cool down the rest of your tea.
It does seem to take longer in my stovetop kettle than my electric one, and I've often got multiple things on the stove in the mornings (say, an omelette, some chicken, and some pasta to pack into my lunch). Now that you mention it it appears I misread the recipe slightly... editing question
@Laura "but those are the same people who would scoff at you adding cold milk to your tea in the first place", I'm sorry but when boiling milk, it becomes totally different, and I would certainly recommend it when making chai.
@cederlof The question is asking for ways to speed up the recipe. The way to speed up the recipe is to do it incorrectly. If you read my answer closely, you'll see that I did recommend boiling the milk as well because it doesn't really add significant extra time, but that if she wants to cheat, she can. Yes, it's a different flavor, but if she's really trying to maximize speed, not taste, then she can use her normal tea routine.
Whether a kettle or stove is faster depends on where you live. US 120v makes kettles very slow, which is why they never really caught on. UK/EU kettles can boil a pint in a minute.
The milk content of chai is generally about 20% or so of the water. I dont see a reason why you cant bring such a small amount of milk to boil on high heat while the rest of the tea is simmering. It is always possible to mix in the milk with the water, but thats not authentic and gives me a little "off" taste. not sure if acutual or psyco effect.
Any spice has chemicals that give aroma / flavor. To get the aroma / flavor, one has to boil with preferably with water. Therefore, its better to boil the spice / tea with water, which you can freeze it. When required, can add sugar / milk (hot or cold).
I've got a baked chicken recipe that says not all spices must be boiled. Cracked pepper on salads proves not all spices need to be heated, even. Bite into a cinnamon stick and you'll have flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.397074
| 2012-02-02T19:46:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21022",
"authors": [
"Laura",
"Tetsujin",
"Yamikuronue",
"cederlof",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808"
],
"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
}
|
21415
|
What role does a stoneware bowl play in the baking of Artisan bread?
I'm looking into baking sourdough bread; I've read that I must have a stoneware or earthenware baking bowl in order to make it come out with a nice crust. Is this strictly true? Or can I substitute something else, say, baking it directly on my pizza stone with a pan of water underneath to provide steam?
You can indeed do what you ask - baking on the pizza stone with a steam pan. It works better to pour hot water directly in the pan when you put the bread in though, rather than just leaving water in the pan. You get a burst of steam and then a consistent small amount. It's a method that Peter Reinhart advocates.
The other common option - especially with high hydration doughs - is to bake it in a covered dutch oven for the first half. This approximates some of the effect of the earthen/stoneware. The steam from the bread itself keeps the environment moist.
You certainly don't need those pots for fantastic bread.
Tonights loaf - no earthenware ;) (I rushed it for dinner, so the crumb isn't what it could be.)
I don't see any reason to buy anything like that. It is correct though that steam is key to great crust!
You can simply use a spray bottle with water.
What I do, is preheat a flatish sheet in the oven at as high the oven goes (I usually go for 275 degrees C), on the bottom rack. Put the loaf on the pan, and mist the sides of the oven and quickly close the oven door. It's important that you don't have the oven fans on at this point (convection oven).
Reapply mist to the sides of the oven to create steam every 3 minutes or so for 15 minutes, or until you see a firm, nice crust forming. At that point, lower heat to 200 or so, and LET ALL STEAM ESCAPE. I set my oven to use it's fans at this point. Bake until finished (about 40 minutes more when I do my bread).
The reason I put it on the bottom rack is because the pan seals in moisture to the bottom of the loaf, or something like that. Atleast I get better results if I heat the bottom more.
Edit:
Of course, a preheated pizza stone is even better than the pan idea! I just don't have a pizza stone. Go ahead and use that, and you won't be disappointed. You could probably just set it in the middle of the oven, since the preheating will make the stone retain alot of heat.
Baking on a sheet rather than a pan certainly gives more top-crust.
A lovely dusting of flour on top for thick chewy crust is one traditional option where addition of steam is not ideal -creates plaster!
A nicely oiled metal pan can create a lovely crispy side-crust esp. after rolling dough in seeds or oats etc.
A shiny crust is achieved by a brief fine spraying immediately after baking (not for floured loaves).
The thickest chewiest country sourdough loaves I know are 'Doppelback', double baked, meaning baked longer and slower but never literally double unless you want caramelized pumpernickel...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.397715
| 2012-02-16T19:18:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21415",
"authors": [
"Audrey Klein",
"Djordje Tankosic",
"Gobalakrishnan",
"JMMX",
"Moiz Ahmad",
"OwenP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47458",
"lemonz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20055
|
How long can savory cream cheese dishes last?
I made this recipe here and have some of the black bean, onion, cream cheese mixture left. My question is .. how long will this last? For some reason, the thought of heating down the cream cheese to become a sauce will not last very long..
Thanks for any recommendation!
According to North Dakota State University, cream cheese, opened should last about two weeks between 32'f and 40'f. For the cheese itself, unopened, they recommend to "Use within one week of the 'best when purchased by' date". Unfortunately, in this situation, you cannot simply cut away the mold from the cheese since it is a mixed dish.
When you factor in the fact that the cheese was not only unwrapped, but heated along with other components, and likely sat out for some time on the counter in addition to in the pan, with added protein (the black beans especially), the math for how long cream cheese can last in your fridge shrinks and shrinks.
Personally, I would follow the cooked meat guidelines to be on the safe side. This means that well-wrapped leftovers, quickly taken out of the danger zone range of temps (40'f - 140'f), should last for 3-4 days after cooking.
If there is no sensible data to support your question - I would just handle Cream cheese as if uncooked. So if cooked before it's expiry date - treat it as if it will last until it's expiry date.
Cooking takes the cheese back to "square one" where the product is considered less enticing to bugs and bacteria. There is no data to support this guess, thus I would just adhere to the expiry date of the cheese - regardless what you do to the cheese.
Expiry dates apply to unopened packages of cheese typically. Once opened it's a whole new ball of wax, or fat covered in wax as it were
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.397971
| 2011-12-29T19:50:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20055",
"authors": [
"Ben Whyall",
"DeusXMachina",
"Hunter2223",
"gauravmanral",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43874",
"mfg",
"user152978"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14760
|
Bamboo Cutting board
I recently purchased a bamboo cutting board and it's shedding fine splinters of wood. Is there a way to clean this off or did I buy a bad quality board?
I've tried washing it but water doesn't seem to rinse off the fine splinters of wood very well. In fact, the water makes the fine splinters of wood stick!
You didn't run it through the dishwasher, did you?
@Aaronut: nope, just unpackaged it and scrubbed it in the sink with a dish cloth/scrubber.
It sounds like the one you got may not have been of good quality. I don't remember them being terribly expensive ($40?), so I'd take yours back. If you get a good one, it should last you for years and years, so don't be afraid to invest a little. Your new one should NOT be splintering.
And don't put your new one in the dishwasher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.398154
| 2011-05-13T18:21:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14760",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"EDL",
"GEORGINE",
"LordParsley",
"Prayag Verma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5918",
"nmc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12643
|
Why do chefs insist that cleanliness is next to godliness?
From what I've heard and seen, chefs seem to be very concerned that the area that they are working in is kept spotless. For instance, when cutting up veggies, they are careful to keep everything on the cutting board and are quick to clean the counter if anything gets on it. Is there more to this, or is it really just because they want a clean and orderly area?
Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_place
and watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ochyO45Jb0g
Having your work area tidy mirrors the tidyness that you need to have in your thoughts when carrying out a large number of tasks in sequence. No matter if it's preperation or during service, there is an easy way and a hard way to do everything. It turns out that keeping your work area miticulously tidy is actually easier that leaving a mess all over the place.
I'm not saying you should take the above film literally - but there's a lesson in there somewhere.
The only problem I see is that with DE or everything in its place is that it's appossing the fundermental nature of human beings. We as human beings are unstable, irreaction creatures of nature. You could say its in our nature to do things at the last minute because we didnt forsee the event unfolding. Kind of like the black swan. You cannot plan for the un-expected.
Yes, that when you move into mass production of items you need order in the organisation structure and the kitchen. This is because there is a inherit profit associated with having a proccessed optimised in bussiness to make money. Though to apply that to our own personal lives leads to OCPD with trying to be perfect all the time.
Indeed - the film can be seen as a study of mental illness. But there is (in my opinion) a certain need to both be obsessive (commitment and attention to detail) and compulsive (second nature) when working in a high stress environment. You need to focus on working quickly but with a high degree of precision.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.398261
| 2011-02-27T22:16:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12643",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Michel",
"calumbrodie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5020",
"nivek",
"schalkneethling",
"user320125",
"user8814"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12635
|
Is it safe to leave cooked poultry at room temperature overnight?
Assuming that I've already cooked the poultry (or eggs) to recommended temperatures - does it need to be refrigerated immediately, or is it safe to eat if it's been left at room temperature overnight?
No. Cooked eggs and poultry should be stored in the refrigerator within two hours of cooking.
and poultry flesh is the same way
We’re always taking hardboiled eggs on picnic trips and often there pass (substantially) more than two hours after cooking. So this is unsafe? Do you have any references for this? I never had a problem yet.
@Konrad: Technically, yes it is unsafe. -- I can walk across a street with my eyes closed, that doesn't mean it's a safe thing to do.
Right, that’s what I figured. Why, though? Since the proteins are denatured and the egg is still almost (!) sterile, I find it plausible that it should be safe.
Copied from elsewhere: 'within two hours of cooking' is woefully inadequate; hot foods which are going to be chilled should be chilled as quickly and rapidly as possible. Leaving freshly-cooked poultry on the counter for two hours guarantees that it will be sitting in the danger zone for quite some time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.398460
| 2011-02-27T17:52:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12635",
"authors": [
"Amy C",
"Cascabel",
"Craig the Egg",
"Erica Cable Meyer",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Matteo Scotuzzi",
"Ramius",
"Sue",
"Tran Dinh Khanh",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"sarge_smith",
"user26090"
],
"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
}
|
11745
|
How can I make vegetarian marshmallows?
My girlfriend is vegetarian and we have been trying to make marshmallows at home but so far after over four tries with agar agar we have yet to be very successful. We have made one batch that were tasty - but too dense to really be marshmallows (but sweet and we coated them with roasted coconut so they were quite edible) but our other tries have resulted in gooey, sticky not very tasty concoctions.
So what are the secrets to making vegetarian marshmallows at home?
This is definitely one of those times where I wouldn't recommend substituting agar for gelatin; it's simply far too stiff for marshmallows.
If you can get hold of some methyl cellulose, it works great for marshmallows. Unlike other gelling agents, methyl cellulose hydrates in cold water and sets when heated, so you can roast it with direct heat and it will still hold its shape. All you need is methyl cellulose, vanilla, sugar, and water.
You can find the full recipe at playing with fire and water (see "methocel marshmallow", second on the page).
Be sure and read the comments on that post, there are a whole variety of methycelluloses categorized by a letter and number code, you need the right one if you are going to exactly follow that recipe.
indeed - though I have had vegetarian marshmallows which were pretty stable - i.e. they didn't collapse after 15 mins as the article notes these may. I'm curious how these were made (had at a fantastic vegetarian restaurant in Chicago on a recent trip)
@Shannon, those won't collapse after 15 minutes if you use the right type of methylcellulose and set it correctly; just don't refrigerate them. See the same author's post on methylcellulose. If you really want them to have long-term room temperature stability then you can sacrifice some of the softness and either use A type or combine some E with A.
Try using mallow root. It is where the confection got its name, and is the very ingredient that has been superseded by gelatin.
Mallow root isn't a "standard" ingredient - could you elaborate, please? E.g. how to use it or even a recipe? That said, welcome to the site! Please consider taking the [tour] and visiting our [help] to learn more about how this site works.
NB One of the recipes in the famous Texture hydrocolloid recipe book uses mallow roots and gum arabic. Others use xanthan, methycellulose, a mixture of the two, or the same mixture plus other hydrocolloids.
@Stephie - I haven't tried it, but mallow root is probably treated something like Sahlab (orchard root) - the root is dried and ground fine and used in desserts for thickening and flavor, it is starchy and heat-thickened. Sahleb recipes recommend corn starch as a substitute, so to make a sweet of it, I'm picturing something like Turkish delight. Mallow root sweet may need aerating to make it fluffy, but maybe not much, since it can be sub'd for (egg-white)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halva#Sesame) for texture in some recipes - so the result might be between Divinity and Turkish delight.
You can buy vegetarian gelatin quite easily I believe. One thing to be careful of is the amount, as sheets of gelatin vary in size; I made some marshmallows a while back that called for 12 sheets, but the ones I had were half the size of those used by the recipe author.
Also, leave them to set overnight, regardless of what the recipe says, or it will be like trying to pry week-old gum out of the pan!
where do you get "vegetarian" gelatin? In general that isn't possible - there are alternatives that have a similar purpose (agar agar, methycelluloses etc but these are alternatives not direct replacements for gelatin.
I think they are gelatins in name only. See http://www.oetker.co.uk/oetker_uk/html/default/debi-7nacm3.en.html for example. This one is a mix of carageenan and locust bean gum, in powder form. Most come with instructions for substitution with animal gelatin.
Kosher gelatin is also usually vegetarian. However, my experience with all of these substitutes is that they're only useful for a very limited subset of gelatin applications which doesn't include marshmallows; many of them contain agar and most contain an actual non-reversible thickener like dextrose or guar gum.
hmm the Kosher gelatin I found on a quick Google search was pretty clear that it was Bovine in origin but I'll look further the next time I see it in a store
Sorry to disappoint, but kosher gelatin is almost never vegetarian. All that kosher means in this context is that it's from a kosher animal -- thus it could be from cows or chickens, but not from pigs. See here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7491/is-gelatin-vegetarian/7497#7497
"vegetarian gelatin" will be agar usually, which has been discussed unsuitable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.398628
| 2011-02-02T03:45:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11745",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Farnabaz",
"Martha F.",
"Megha",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Vormwald",
"Peter Taylor",
"Shannon John Clark",
"Stephie",
"TheOneNOnlyQ",
"allzz",
"ethalfrida",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"laggingreflex",
"rackandboneman",
"user24160"
],
"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
}
|
3720
|
What is the point of a salt mill?
Salt mills and pepper mills often come in pairs. I understand the purpose of the pepper mill: It breaks open the pepper corn and releases the aroma. But there is, to my knowledge, no such thing as a salt corn, at least on the macroscopic level
So what do I gain by grinding the salt at the table or at the stove instead of just buying the smaller version to begin with?
I understand that there are different kinds of salt, but it seems they ought to be independent of the size of the bits.
"corns of salt" == rock salt -- History of Corned Beef
Trying to get to the bottom of the issue, I decided to take a few pictures of a few different types of salt. The pictures shown below were taken by me and are all proportional (the camera was the same distance away from each type of salt, so you are getting an accurate size comparison).
The picture illustrates my suspicions, which is the difference is the surface area (ignoring of course mineral content and different types of grinding salt). Standard table salt is a compact little cube, effective when it’s to be dissolved in a liquid, but not so much when it comes to direct contact with the taste buds. Place one cube on your tongue and you get 1/6th of the surface area in contact, meaning, a lot of salt without much saltiness. Sea salt, with a more rectangular shape is closer to 1/4th the surface area touching your tongue. Ground salt is more like shards of glass, so nearly half of the exposed area could be in contact making things taste that much more salty. Also with a much finer texture, you are left with many more particles in a wider area, meaning, a saltier taste with less salt.
It’s a good way of finishing a dish when the salt is going to be lightly dusted on top or mixed with an oil where it will not dissolve at all. When you are dissolving it in a liquid, it really makes little difference which type you use. When it comes down to it, it’s all about how picky you want to be with it.
"a saltier taste with less salt"is the key
The shape is not the crucial factor for increasing the surface, the size of the individual particles is. Just consider splitting a cube into 2×2×2 cubes with half the edge length. You have the same amount of material, but twice the surface.
You'll use less. At least applied at the table, salt is a flavoring which only does it's work at the interface between tongue and food. You don't need a lot, just enough to coat the surface and facilitate the flavor transport. Kind of like grating cheese rather than just blanketing a dish with it. Sometimes less is enough, and smaller flakes of salt would qualify. Smaller flakes also reduce the risk of oversalting or hitting salty spots in which large crystals of salt haven't broken down.
This just raises the question, why not buy salt that is already finely grated and put it in a shaker?
@Psychonaut, have you ever seen salt in a shaker clump together in humid weather? The smaller the grains and the larger their surface area, the more likely that is to happen. That may be one reason why most store-bought salt is formed in those nice uniform cubes, and not too small.
"Smaller flakes also reduce the risk of oversalting or hitting salty spots in which large crystals of salt haven't broken down." That's not necessarily a bad thing! "Fleur de sel" is a "finishing salt" made up of large, flat flakes that are (deliberately) hard to distribute evenly on the food, and the salt crystals are hydrated so they don't dissolve as easily. The idea is that you get a pleasantly intense burst of saltiness each time a crystal comes in contact with your tongue.
@Josh: No, I've never seen that. I guess none of the places I've lived have humid enough weather to make that a problem. But I suppose that larger crystals make sense if you are in a climate where salt is prone to clumping.
Some grinders have an adjustable size output.
I was given a pair of pepper and salt grinders.
I initially thought, hmm, isn't the salt usually not a grinder.
The one I have does make sense though, because its grinding size can be adjusted (there is a little knob in the middle of the grinder that tightens or loosens the area in which the crystals come out.
So the container is full of larger sized sea salt, larger then you would ever sprinkle over any dish, almost like little rock candy (in appearance, not taste of course) and depending on what I am doing with it, I can control the size.
Normally I just use my box of Kosher salt, but at least I have the option of various sized sea salt without having to keep a bunch of different containers of it.
You'll use less - it takes more effort to grind salt than it does to simply shake it onto your food.
I suspect it's just marketing. I don't think there is much point unless you need to grind rock salt. If you need a fine grained salt, buy table salt or a fine sea salt. If you want coarser grain use a kosher salt or a coarse sea salt.
I keep my kosher salt in a salt cellar similar to this one. When cooking it's convenient to just open and grab a pinch, or dip a measuring spoon in. I don't provide salt shakers at my dinner table for guest use either.
This is a bit of a stretch. Surface area.
If you are buying the sea salts that have large crystals you can just sprinkle them over the food. However, grinding them adds surface area to the salt and enhances flavor more effectively.
You don't have this surface area problem with finely ground table salt. You can tell the difference between "normal" finely ground table salt and many salt packets at take-out restaurants that are very finely ground. Again, surface area.
Anyone agree?
Larger crystals absorb less moisture. But may be kinda lumpy for the palate. Also, 'culinary' salts (made by nature, with different trace elements) are naturally larger.
Can you really taste the difference? I think I can.
I need something to grind black salt. I've found black salt in a store but it comes in HUGE chunks, like rocks. I would imagine a salt mill would be very important to have for this purpose. Otherwise, a lot of salts you can get in specialty shops are not ground very finely. Like pink salt and some sea salts. I imagine a salt mill would be valuable if you don't want big chunks of salt on your meal.
There is no use for a salt mill. It has a lot of myths surrounding it, but at the end of the day it's merely more "trendy" than a regular salt dispenser.
All the ones I've tried grind the salt much worse than expected, leading to actually using more salt, or disgusting salt chunks.
When cooking, it's merely annoying, since the salt dissolves anyways.
A mill or mortar allows you to use salt without any of the additives that most pre-ground table salt has to keep it from slowly turning back into a large solid piece.
Also, if the mill allows you to get a coarser or finer grind, it is useful - very fine salt eg is very helpful if you want to make real fast-foodish french fries (since the fine salt will actually cling to them and get very quickly dissolved and noticed in the mouth).
EDIT: finger grind -> finer grind, since a salt mill is unlikely to ...
There's no point to it - salt is a rock, ultimately. It's a cute affectation but otherwise serves no considerable culinary purpose.
Unless you are using a completely air and moisture tight container, which you may be, small salt particles attract moisture from the air and stick together. In order to combat this in regular salt shakers people often use rice, which is strange and icky and barely actually works. Dispensing salt out of, say, a prepara evak container, since that is about the only moistureless airless container I know of that is convenient to use for dry ingredients, is extremely inefficient, and is just asking to accidentally over-salt your food. As a matter of fact, most standard salt shakers will also over salt your food if you are not careful. A salt grinder serves several purposes. Using larger pieces of salt, while they still attract moisture, they are not clumped together in the same way, and are broken into smaller pieces only as need be. Also the inside of most salt grinders, while far from airtight on most models, is at least not letting in a lot of air, and is generally a good place to keep your salt, because, let's face it, you have to keep it somewhere. Also, it's aesthetically pleasing, it's alchemical, and fun, and when it comes to food and cooking, these things are important.
It's not just marketing. It really does make a difference in the flavor. It's simply common courtesy to place salt and pepper on the dining table. Not everyone reacts the same way to the amount of seasoning in food. I often want more salt than my host has used to season a dish. Older people especially often need to use more salt as the sensitivity of their taste buds declines. Men often don't have as acute a sense of smell as women and may want more salt.
I'm not clear from your answer whether the point is to change the salt in some way, or is aesthetic (salt mill matches the pepper mill)... Or both?
Symmetry with the pepper mill?
Otherwise it isn't too bad a way for you to dispense salt without putting on too much.
I ended up with a salt grinder solely because in my small NH town there was no such thing as a solo pepper grinder to replace my very elderly pepper grinder when it died - so I had to buy a set. Figured I'd use up the silly pink stuff it came with. Lo and behold, I love it. Don't know that the salt tastes different, but I'm using the finest grind so it's much easier to control the amount of salt so the food itself tastes better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.399165
| 2010-07-29T20:03:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3720",
"authors": [
"Alan C",
"Erica",
"Johnna DeMoss",
"Josh",
"Jota",
"Kev B",
"Kimberly Reed",
"Melissa Rousey",
"Neil",
"NoAlias",
"Psychonaut",
"Rikon",
"Robert Livingston",
"Smitha M",
"TFD",
"Tim",
"Wrzlprmft",
"Yochai Timmer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8864",
"jrpetersjr",
"levitopher",
"mike",
"orluke",
"rberaldo",
"slandau"
],
"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
}
|
21509
|
What am I doing wrong with my pressure cooker?
Every time I try to cook beef in my pressure cooker it gets dry and inedible.
Today I tried with 2 x 450 g (2 x 1 lb) beef, with .5 l (2 cups) water and 25 minutes.
The result was very dry and there were .7 l (3 cups) liquid.
What I was hoping for was the meat would be so tender that it would pretty much fall apart when trying to cut it.
I have seen charts like this one, but that would cover the meat in water. Can that be right?
I suppose that .5 l water is way too much, as I ended up with .7 l afterwards.
Question
Have anyone experience with beef in pressure cookers, and can guide me on what the problem could be?
Should I have fried the beef on a pan before putting it in the pressure cooker?
I use a pressure cooker quite often and its all about the cut of the meat. Much like slow cooking, using a often cheaper, fatty cut with lots of connective tissue - a chuck roast for example, yields much, much better results. Lean cuts of meat are make for fast searing and that's about it. If you try to coax them to be fall apart fork tender, you'll fail - those are the cheap, fatty cuts that go that way.
Exceeding interesting! To get the fall apart fork tender result, do you cover the meat in water, or do you just add a small amount, so it it the steam that cooks the meat?
I used a slab of chuck and it still came out dry and hard. I once read somewhere that dry and hard means you cooked in the pressure cooker too long and wet and hard means you cooked too little. Is that true? I cooked it about 45 minutes for a 1.5 lb single piece of chuck.
You just figured out what the problem is with "overcooking" something in the pressure cooker - basically, all of the liquid from the meat went into the cooking liquid and made a pretty delicious stock. No amount of additional pressure cooking is going to put the liquid back in the meat leaving just a hunk of tough, dry fibers.
There are a couple issues that gave you tough dry meat from the pressure cooker.
The first problem is the cooking time - the 25 minutes recommended on the site you linked to excessive. You didn't specify what cut of meat you used but you gave the cooking time they recommended for a beef steak - I recommend pressure cooking this cut of meat for just 10-15 minutes.
Another important part of figuring out how long to pressure cook something is to understand what pressure your pressure cooker can reach, and for what pressure the time chart you are using is written for. There are no indications on the chart you linked to for what pressure that cooking time is recommended. That's not helpful.
Usually the best source for the right cooking time is your pressure cooker's booklet- most include common cooking times. Next time, I would look there first.
The second problem is using too much cooking liquid. It sounds like you wanted to make a "braising" type recipe and ended up with boiled meat. The way to braise meat in the pressure cooker is to use the minimum amount of liquid your pressure cooker needs to reach and maintain pressure (also called minimum liquid requirement). You'll find what that quantity is in your manual, too. But generally it's 1 cup for stovetop and 1 1/2 cups for electric pressure cookers.
Most cuts of beef are not really suitable for the pressure cooker
If your want moist and fall apart texture you need a slow cooker, or covered in a slow (low temperature) oven
A slow cooker cooks at less then 100°C (210°F), while a pressure cooker cooks above 110°C (230°F)
Corned beef (whole piece cured with salt and nitrate) works in a pressure cooker. Make sure to add a little acid to react with the salts e.g. vinegar. With corned beef, you can do this from frozen with acceptable results
I also thought that a pressure cooker couldn't possibly replace a slow cooker - but then I did a bit of quick searching, and found things like this: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/pressure-cooker-beef-stew/
In my experience you never get that real fall apart texture with the pressure cooker. You can make casseroles since the fluid loss is acceptable as the fluid is part of the dish, but only with certain cuts
I can attest personally, that stews like that and larger, fatty roasts do fall apart in the pressure cooker. I use it quite regularly for such.
@Jefromi Is a "slow cooker" a piece of equipment or a term?
@rfusca I am very curious to hear how much water you use. I.e. should the meat be covered in water or just steamed from a small amount of water? And how do you estimate the cooking time?
@SandraSchlichting: It's a piece of equipment.
From what I have seen on many Internet sites, as well as in the manual for my electric pressure cooker, generally cook time gets reduced down to 1/3 to 1/2 the normal cook time (in an oven or stove-top). For me, I would generally cook a beef chuck pot roast in the oven low and slow on 250 to 275 degrees fahrenheit for about 5 hours to get it falling apart tender - so 300 minutes. The recipe I just made said to cook in the pressure cooker for 80 minutes, and then use natural release. So, there would be some cook time as pressure builds, then the 80 minutes under pressure, followed by about 15 minutes or so releasing pressure (where carry-over cooking is still happening). So, all and all, that's roughly about 1/3 of the time I would have cooked in the oven. And, it worked perfectly. Personally, I would not think 30-45 minutes (as suggested on some recipes) is enough cook time for a tough cut of beef like chuck - although, maybe those recipes yield a more slice-able roast as opposed to fall apart tender. Just my opinion though. Maybe others have had a different experience. I would suggest starting at 1/3 normal cook time as a start, and then experiment from there if you aren't happy.
However, I just discovered that my electric pressure cooker only cooks at about 10 PSI on the high pressure setting. So, it makes sense that longer cook times are appropriate for my machine versus stove-top models that can reach 13-15 PSI.
I have a Cuisinart electric pressure cooker, and I used their recipe for Beef Brisket 2 LB., and it turned out perfectly cooked and I was able to pull it with two forks easily. 2 LB beef brisket. 1 & 1/2 cups liquid. 55 minutes on high pressure, then natural pressure release. It was juicy, tender and delicious. I did the same thing with a larger 4 LB bone-in pork shoulder roast, and it turned out the same - tender, juicy and delicious, and pullable with forks. Generally, i agree with others here that the smallest recommended amount of liquid is best, and it makes a difference whether you use natural or quick pressure release. Generally, for most meats, you want to use natural.
By the way, the instruction booklet for my cooker says to use 1 cup liquid if cooking your dish for 45 minutes or less, and 1 and 1/2 cups liquid if cooking longer than 45 minutes. Also, just as with regular cooking, when you cook meat, it is important to rest the meat for some period of time (usually tented with foil) before cutting into it. If you cut the meat without resting it while it is still extremely hot, all the juices tend to run out on your cutting board - leaving the meat dry. You generally want to let it rest at least 15-20 minutes before cutting, and longer for larger cuts. And,remember to cut your meat against the grain to help with tenderness if you aren't shredding/pulling it. Good luck!
Finally, cook times for pressure cooking start after pressure has been fully built. So, it will take some time for the pressure to build, then your cook time, followed by the time it takes for pressure to release. So, your dish will actually be cooking longer than just the cook time. If you are counting your cook time from the time you close the lid to the time you open the lid, you may actually be under-cooking.
Update from 2/15/2016: I just did a beef chuck pot roast for the first time in my pressure cooker. 3 & 1/4 LB. chuck roast. I cut it in two pieces and seasoned and browned each on all sides. Added 1 & 1/2 cups golden lager beer as the liquid. Set the machine for 80 minutes cook time, and used natural pressure release. When done, I took it out and tented it with foil and let rest 15 minutes. It was moist and falling apart tender. I pulled the meat with forks and put back in the cooking juices to store and used the meat for sandwiches. Delicious!
Update from 2/17/2016: I made another beef chuck roast similarly to the one a couple days ago. 3 & 1/4 LB. beef chuck pot roast. Cut into 3 pieces to fit in cooker. Seasoned all sides with salt, pepper and grill seasoning, and then browned all sides. Put meat back in cooker. I added 1 pkg. dry Italian salad dressing mix + 1 pkg. dry ranch dressing mix + 1 pkg. dry beef gravy mix (these three ingredients I got from another recipe online somewhere). Sprinkle all the dry mixes all over the beef. I added one whole onion cut in fourths, 2 bay leaves, 1 can cream of mushroom soup (right on top of beef), 1 can cream of celery soup (also on top of beef), and slightly less than 1 cup golden lager beer in bottom of pot. The soup plus the beer made plenty of liquid to get to the 1 & 1/2 cups. Set on high pressure, and set cook time at 80 minutes, and did natural pressure release. Let meat rest tented with foil for 15 minutes, and it was falling apart tender and juicy. I shredded it and put back in the juices to store - which by the way on their own made a great gravy! Be careful not to over salt the beef. All of the packaged dry mixes as well as the soups have some salt in them.
NOTE: I do find that with pressure cooking with a somewhat fatty cut of meat, the fat and connective tissue does not really completely break down and render into juices as it does with slow braising in the oven for several hours. So, I did have to deal with more manual fat removal with the pressure cooker method.
You can edit your answer to include what you have said in comments by clicking "edit" under the answer. It's recommended that you do so because comments don't necessarily stay put. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Check out the tour and help center for more information about how things work here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.399936
| 2012-02-20T00:49:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21509",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diane Williams",
"Emma Sleghel",
"Fabio A.",
"Frederic Kahler",
"Ian Hartland",
"Jim Stewart",
"JohnHaines",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kirstie Cook",
"Nicholas lautee",
"Reinert Stokkeland",
"Sandra Schlichting",
"Susan Court",
"TFD",
"cristina chase",
"highBandWidth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6867",
"julia baker",
"ohreallyowl",
"rfusca",
"user47717"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87536
|
If a recipe calls for 'ready-prepared potato wedges', what exactly does that mean
Does it mean the frozen potato wedges you can find in supermarkets, or does it mean fresh potatoes that I've cut into wedges (if so, does that include/exclude the skin, or is that optional?)
Where is the recipe from? My (UK) experience is that unlike chips (fries) ready-prepared wedges are seasoned. This may not be the case everywhere
"Ready-Prepared" typically means a packaged product. Many 'ready-prepared' potato products are par cooked and coated lightly in oil before freezing, so cutting your own may be a problem.
A specific recipe would be useful, so that we can give recommendations on how to deal with freshly cut potatoes (par cook vs. adjusting time/temperature of the whole dish)
Potato wedges are potato wedges, whether you cut them up yourself or purchase them already prepared. Depending on the recipe and personal preference, skin is optional. Recipes call for "ready prepared" ingredients when the author is attempting to save you time. So, in this case, it probably means store-bought, already prepared wedges. Really, it takes little time to peel and wedge a potato. Plus you will be able to get a fresher product, and it will probably cost you less. Of course, you may have to alter cooking time, depending on whether or not the prepared item is already cooked.
Some store bought products that LOOK like pieces of cut potato are actually compounded potato products (eg some types of ready made fries are)...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.400715
| 2018-02-04T23:10:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87536",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
72905
|
What's the Hungarian Ashkenazi Yiddish name for burned rice at the bottom of the pot?
My mother-in-law used to make Chicken Paprikash, and she would usually burn the rice at on the bottom of the pot. Her three sons, my husband being the youngest would fight over it. There was a name for the burned rice at the bottom of the pot, but I can't remember what she called it and neither can anyone else. I don't know what to tell my grandchildren! What is it called?
It's a name for a variation of the dish with burned rice? Or a name for the rice itself?
What is the burned rice at the bottom of the pot called. It has a name and no one remembers it and anyone who would have is dead and I'm 71 years old.
Thanks for clarifying! I hope we're able to get you an answer - Hungarian Ashkenazi Yiddish sounds awfully specific :)
I don't speak Hungarian, but the Hungarian Wikipedia links this https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurungdzsi from the English page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_rice Does that ring a bell?
Sorry, the best I could come up with is a partial answer.
Tah-dig is the Persian/Farsi/Iranian name for the equivalent of what you describe - the crispy rice crust left at the bottom of the pot. It isn't usually "burned", per se, not carbonized, but rather golden brown and crisp, is only called overcooked or burned compared to the rest of the rice. It is very highly prized. The same technique, or texture, can also be found in some potato dishes, or even spaghetti, where the bottom-most layer is allowed to adhere to the pot after draining the cooking water, and become crisp and brown with added oil - very similarly to a western dish having the top deliberately browned in an oven, even if it was cooked stove-top previously.
The Iraqi version is named hikakeh. This is served in pieces (unlike tah-dig, which is served as a single thick crust) and is a slightly looser layer. The wikipedia article on hikakeh cites an encyclopedia of Jewish food, so it might be a starting place for to look for a yiddish version of the dish or name.
Beyond those two, I looked up and found Nurungji, the Korean version, Guoba which comes from the chinese, and cơm cháy for the Vietnamese, Okoge in Japan, and Cucayo (or pegao, concolon and others) along the Caribbean coast. The translation of each dish tends to be something like scorched rice, or toasted rice, or bottom-of-the-pot rice, and refers to the the way the bottom-most layer of rice tends to overcook in traditional cooking (ie, over a fire), and which later becomes sought after in its own right - and can be extended to non-rice dishes with a bottom crust.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find a specific name for the Hungarian, Yiddish, or Ashkenazi versions of the dish. If none of the above names are familiar to you, or you don't want to just pick one and go with it, they still might serve as a starting point for a) how to make the dish, if you want to recreate it, or b) how to ask for the name among the people in those communities (it's a bit easier to "translate" a dish name than to start from raw description, I found the above names because I knew about tah-dig).
I have tried to Google it and have asked relatives but no one remembers, and you are right it is not burned, it is the crisp brown crunchy bottom of the pot. Yiddish is different in every country just like dialects. I'm hoping I can find someone from the area my husbands grandmother came from.: OR I can tell my grandchildren that the relish stuff they get is called tah-dig
@IreneHirschman - I'm glad you found it helpful :) Someone might still find the right word, but until then I figured the list might have something that sounded familiar, or help spark off a memory - and even if it didn't, there's nothing wrong with borrowing a word until something better comes along.
I would ask on the main jewish genealogy group on FB. THere's a lot of hungarian jews there https://www.facebook.com/groups/tracingthetribe/
If you want to add another one to your list, it's called the socarrat on a paella.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.400872
| 2016-08-05T23:51:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72905",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Double AA",
"Irene Hirschman",
"Megha",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8291",
"rbp"
],
"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
}
|
76424
|
How much meat do I need to serve 26 adults?
Hello everyone i am cooking for 26 adults and 4 children
menu is :
rare roast beef served on crusty bread with horseradish
main:
slow roasted pork belly with cider and cream gravy
roasted lamb
served with Mediterranean veg and Yorkshire puddings
I really need help with how much raw meat to buy please thank you I am in south africa
Kind regards Lea
related http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/59215/67 ; and for holidays http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/36861/67 . (but those are likely geared towards estimates for overweight Americans)
Generally speaking, a 1/2 lb per person should be plenty assuming you have some food other than meat they will be eating, and it sounds like you do. I'd recommend buying 15 lbs total and you will definitely have enough.
Since you are going to have multiple meats, that makes it a bit more challenging because you have to guess which is going to be eaten more/less.
This article from The Kitchn would actually recommend a bit less than 15 lbs for you since the meat is not really a main dish on it's own in any of your dishes.
Go with 15 lbs to be safe, and just think through how much of each meat you will need.
I would indeed say 15lbs is probably on the high side, but then: Better safe than sorry. Whenever I cook for more people than my own family, I definitely prefer leftovers over disappointed faces. My family can be easily appeased the next day :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.401208
| 2016-12-13T15:31:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76424",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
77310
|
Difference between burritos, chimichanga, and enchiladas?
What is the difference between burritos, enchiladas, and chimichangas?
+1. Never knew the difference. A generous amount of sampling across europe (without any research on my part, I must confess) made me give up on any variety: They all turn out the same: Weird pancake shaped discs of mediocre quality, which may or may not be deep fried, of dubious quality. At least now I have something to categorize and compare against.
An enchilada is a corn tortilla wrapped around some filling (often meat and/or cheese), covered in sauce. The sauce is really defining here: the word is derived from a verb meaning "to season with chili". The sauce usually involves chili peppers, but doesn't always, especially for Tex-Mex and American Variants. Since it's covered in sauce, you eat it off a plate presumably with a fork. The tortillas are usually 6-8 inches in diameter - small enough that you can put a few enchiladas in a row on a plate.
from Homesick Texan
A burrito is a flour tortilla wrapped around filling, with the ends closed. In the US, they're often pretty large and substantial. They're generally just the tortilla-wrapped thing, so you can hold it in your hand and eat it. They are also sometimes served "wet" or "smothered" in sauce, but that's a variant. The tortillas are usually bigger to allow folding around a decent amount of filling. You'll see "burrito size" tortillas that are as small as 10 inches or so in stores, but the kinds you get in restaurants might be easily 13-16 inches. The big ones are also called Mission burritos, and are often wrapped in foil for easier eating. (That's the tortilla diameter; the actual burrito is substantially smaller after the folding to close the ends.)
from Los Altos Taqueria on Yelp
A chimichanga is a deep-fried burrito. It often comes with queso and/or sauce over the top, but that's not a defining characteristic. Usually they're served on a plate, with the idea being to cut into it with a fork and knife.
first from Wikipedia (completely covered), second from Trudy's in Austin via The Fat Artery (visibly deep-fried)
The really big burritos are 'Mission burritos' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_burrito ... which is squeezing out the other styles of burritos in the US.
@Joe Thanks - I haven't heard that name commonly used for things like Chipotle, but I suppose it is the original right name, anyways.
While I always order fried, most Mexican restaurants on the mid-Atlantic coast offer chimichangas baked or fried.
@Cindy In my experience the default is deep-fried, so if it's baked you say "baked chimichanga" - is that the case there too?
@Jefromi That's kind of correct, though there really is no default. On the menus you will see the description along with "chicken or beef" and "baked or fried". If you don't specify each when you order, you will be asked. Probably a weird regional thing like the white dipping sauce you get in addition to salsa when they bring the tortilla chips to the table.
Now can we cover the difference between a Soft Taco and a Fajita?
@SeanR This question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23504/whats-the-difference-between-fajitas-enchiladas-and-tacos may give you an answer. Typically, 'fajita(s)' is referring to the grilled meat and veggies that can be used to fill tacos, burritos, etc.
@SeanR Not sure how serious you are, but you're welcome to post a new question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.401448
| 2017-01-09T23:00:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77310",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"SeanR",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32898",
"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
}
|
18956
|
Why is Ice Cream used in Hot Buttered Rum?
I'm looking at recipes for Hot Buttered Rum, as I have plenty of rum and it's cold out. Several of the recipes call for vanilla ice cream. Is that traditional? What is it for? Wouldn't it just cool off some of the water and possibly interfere with the steeping of the spices? Would it be better to just toss in some vanilla and extra sugar, or does the milk content actually change anything?
Example with ice cream: http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink5667.html
Example without: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/hot-buttered-rum-cocktail-recipe/index.html
I don't think I've ever even had hot buttered rum, but I can take a stab at some of your questions:
1 part ice cream and 2-3 parts boiling water will still average out pretty hot. If the ice cream is at, say, -20 to -10C, that'll get you in the 60-70C range initially, which is I think fairly normal for hot drinks. And of course, if you keep it in the refrigerator instead, your drink will be hotter!
I suspect mixing ice cream with butter will help it all mix together better in the end, by helping disperse the fat.
Ground spices aren't going to need a ton of steeping. I imagine the boiling water would be enough, and if not, the pre-cooking could easily compensate. And since some recipes just have nutmeg sprinkled on top, it sounds like steeping isn't necessarily the goal. If you're really aiming for spiced hot buttered rum, you'll probably want more spices than those recipes, and perhaps to cook them briefly with the butter.
If you intend to freeze the "batter", including ice cream will help keep it soft enough to scoop/slice. If it were just butter and sugar, it'd get quite hard in the freezer.
Yes, the milk/cream content of the ice cream would make the drink a little creamier - but I don't know whether hot buttered rum should be a bit creamy. It sounds like it'd be fine either way - personal preference, perhaps?
Thanks, that's the sort of pros and cons I was looking for :) I'll experiment some later this week.
Bullet one is rather incorrect. It assumes zero latent heat from melting. If I do take it into account, 1 part ice cream at -10C and 2 parts boiling water at +80C would end up at (-10-30+80+80)/3 = 40 degrees Celsius. (Depends quite a bit on the ice recipe, how fat is it?)
@MSalters: My estimate was conservative. The 1:2 or 1:3 ratio is assuming you've refrozen the entire mixture. If you're just mixing it up and then using it right away, as the recipe says, only the ice cream was frozen, and the other ingredients were heated, so you're definitely okay. As for latent heat, it's not as bad as you estimate. The given recipe has roughly 200g sugar, 225g butter, 250g ice cream. So the water content is actually pretty low: 125-150g of the ice cream (if it's not light) 40g of the butter, so maybe 1/3 by weight. (Also how exactly is your water boiling at 80C?)
Eh, I might have peeked at the recipe that used boiling water and non-boling rum. The butter also melts between 0C and 50C, so its latent heatalso enters the equation (although it's smaller).
@Jefromi Very good +1
No Hot Buttered Rum I've ever ordered has involved ice cream, though I would be interested in trying it out.
The original involves only rum, butter, sugar, spices and hot water. I've seen some bars make and keep their own pre-mixed spiced butter with honey, molasses and dark sugar. I guess the ice cream is an extension to that pre-made mixture.
For the purist's Hot Buttered Rum, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9wNGIgN_f8
I tried the recipe with ice cream this weekend. It was a hit with my guests - we found we didn't particularly want to try the recipe without, as the ice cream seemed to be lending a nice mellowness to the drink that made it particularly palatable to those of us who were not heavy drinkers. It also didn't freeze solid, instead remaining easy to scoop.
Having made it both ways, ice cream has earned the spot as my go to. With all do respect to the science, it just tastes richer, smoother and compliments the spices more than just sugar. Enjoy!
I've seen this a lot, too. I'm guessing the ice cream acts as a creamy emulsifier, helping to integrate the fat of the butter without diluting the total fat content or flavor. It also stores at a good consistency in the freezer, and may also help mellow the butter flavor if it seems overpowering.
Here are some additional Hot Buttered Rum recipes to compare. Cheers!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.401739
| 2011-11-14T21:48:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18956",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Keith Morris",
"Kyle",
"Linda",
"MSalters",
"MatthewRock",
"Paul Sikorski",
"PixelArtDragon",
"Sebiddychef",
"Yamikuronue",
"brightfunction",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920"
],
"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
}
|
36861
|
How much turkey should I plan per person?
For the holidays, I plan to do a turkey, but I need to order in advance since the place I'm buying from is popular and usually sells out in pre-orders. Estimates of how much turkey to plan per person vary widely across the internet; does anyone have authoritative data on how much turkey to buy? There's clearly a difference between a small child and a hefty eater, for example, and I'd imagine the meat-to-bone ratio changes as the turkey gets larger or smaller. I also want to plan to have leftovers, since my family enjoys leftover turkey sandwiches. Does it matter how many sides I plan to make?
Note that this is for Americans at Thanksgiving, so portion sizes are intended to be larger than normal.
Larger than normal portions including everything, yes, but given the number of dishes in a typical Thanksgiving meal, may well be smaller than normal portions of turkey.
I would also recommend buying multiple small birds instead of one large bird. It's much easier to properly cook a 12 lbs. turkey than a 24 lbs. turkey.
Unless you're feeding 20, chances are you want the smallest bird they have. It doesn't really matter if you should have 1 lb per person or 1.5 if you have 8 people and their smallest bird is 12 pounds - and I'm willing to bet that's the case.
That said, I generally allow 1 lb per person and don't count the smallest children (say, haven't started school yet.) I also tend to send a lot of leftovers home with other people. Our feasts are very veggie heavy, but as I mentioned above you may have less control over this than you think.
My friend in US donates the leftover to a homeless shelter.
I work in a deli and over the holidays we cook and debone a lot of turkeys. I can tell you from experience that a 20# turkey will yield about 8-10 pounds of meat. This is because when the turkey cooks it releases a surprising amount of liquid. Add in all the bones and you loose a lot of your starting weight. So you really do want to figure 1 1/2 to 2 pounds per person, especially if you want leftovers.
Typically for any whole animal (turkey, pig, or chicken) cooked for a holiday feast I plan for 1lb (dressed weight) per person. If there are going to be a lot of children, you can revise that down a half lb for each child under 12. In my experience this formula usually ends up with enough leftovers for people to take some home, but not so many that you're stuck eating turkey for 3 weeks.
For example, last week I cooked a 5 lb turkey breast for 5 people, after dinner there was approx 1.25 lbs leftover, which is easily enough for 3-4 sandwiches or a pot pie. Keep in mind that this meal did not include a lot of heavy side dishes, so it yielded a few less leftovers than a typical holiday dinner would using the same formula.
Butterball's planning calculator suggests 1.5 lbs per adult and 1 lb per child if you want to be sure to have leftovers and are "light eaters". I think that's probably overkill and/or their way to sell 50% more turkey... especially if you plan on having 3 or more side dishes.
We found a 7lb turkey which, for the three of us, gave almost no leftovers. So clearly the 1-lb per person measure breaks down at sufficiently small numbers of people :(
That would suggest that Kenji Alt Lopez's assessment (mentioned in SAJ14SAJ's answer) is correct -- it varies based on the size of the bird. So it sounds like you need 2+ lbs/turkey for a really small bird. (The one time I dealt with that small of a group, I got just a breast ... which was still 5+ lbs or so)
At Serious Eats, Kenji Lopez Alt says:
As a general rule, larger birds will have plumper breasts (a higher
meat to bone ratio), so you'll want to use a little bit less turkey
per person by weight. [...] if you're the type who likes leftovers (I
do). I'd aim for 3/4 pounds of live weight per person to be safe.
This is in line with my own experiences. It matches the Butterball recommendation for Turkey Breast, as well, although they don't seem to post on their main website a recommended estimate for whole turkeys.
I think if you have a 3 to 4 adults, a 3-pound boneless turkey, plus 1 or 2 drumsticks alongside the breast is a VERY ample amount of meat....and some leftover too!
Where do you get boneless turkeys? Is it something that the butcher does before selling, or is it some pre-packaged thing, so people can make their own turduckens?
You should first know how many people you are inviting for the Thanksgiving, are they five or ten people, are there three or six children. Secondly how are you going to prepare the events; are you going to cook a variety of food such that your guest will have turkey, pumpkin, potatoes, bread, pie, drinks, dessert etc.
If you will prepare that many variety, then the guest will likely try all of them, meaning they will just eat enough of turkey, pumpkin, potatoes etc.
Turkey will probably be the special part of the Thanksgiving. Many people especially with their family and friends in mind, would normally prepares one full turkey. I suggest you buy one big turkey for this event also considering how many guest you will invite. Also cook it well enough so that people will be satisfied with the turkey even before they get to eat it.
Is there some estimate or guideline for how large a turkey?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.402133
| 2013-09-16T18:51:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36861",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Davidson",
"ESultanik",
"FriendlyFire",
"Gale Roy",
"Joe",
"Nomenator",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95951"
],
"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
}
|
28464
|
Why are my dumplings made of evil?
I made a fairly simple chicken-and-dumpling stew recipe; however, after one bite of dumpling, I have the most wretched aftertaste. The soup is fine; however, the dumplings taste totally nasty, kind of bitter and repulsive and a little like vomit (My fiancee describes it as "metal and bad"). If there had been anything in my mouth by the time that taste hit, I'd have spit it out instinctively.
The recipe calls for 1/3 cup Bisquick Heart Smart baking mix and 1/3 cup buttermilk to make the dumpling dough; I doubled it because I was making a large pot of stew. The stew tastes fine once I ditch the dumplings; it contained chicken broth (made from bouillon cubes), milk, cornstarch, cooked chicken, parsnips, carrots, celery, and onions. The dumplings were dropped by spoonfuls into the stew and cooked for about 7 minutes, as per the recipe directions. I have not made this specific recipe before. The consistency of the dumplings seemed fine; they were a little bland due to lack of seasoning, but otherwise all was well until that aftertaste hit.
What could have gone wrong? The buttermilk was purchased just a few days before, well within its expiration date (Nov 24th), and the baking mix had been used for pancakes earlier in the week (which were a little bland but not disastrous)
Was the baking mix old? Had the buttermilk gone bad?
@smcg Knew I forgot to add something! No, both ingredients seemed fine.
metal taste is probably too much baking powder. But from a mix it seems unlikely
It might help if you specify the ingredients of the baking mix.
@ChrisSteinbach http://www.bettycrocker.com/products/bisquick/Story the "heart smart" version. Enriched flour, canola oil, leavening, dextrose, sugar,tricalcium phosphate, salt, DATEM, cornstarch
Like Kate said, the taste you describe is exactly what too much baking powder tastes like, especially if it's old - the bitterness too, not just the metallic taste. It's bizarre that it didn't happen with your pancakes.
Frankly, I upvoted this just because of the question title.
Baking soda decomposition starts around 80C, meaning after short cooking in water most of it will remain in the strong, unpleasant sodium bicarbonate form. Frying or baking exposes soda to much higher temperatures, causing full decomposition.
Spoiled buttermilk wouldn't give a metallic aftertaste, but I wouldn't expect old baking mix to do so either.
I would suspect that your box of bisquick is either contaminated, or you may have gotten a bad box. Sometimes manufacturing processes don't go right, so it might be that your box got far too big a portion of baking powder, or some other component of the mix. In the manufacturing process all the ingredients are supposed to be well mixed but it isn't unheard of for a clod to make it through the process intact. I'd throw the box out.
The metallic aftertaste is because the mix had a unbalanced baking soda to phosphate ratio. Whenever your finished cook product is either yellow or has a orange spotted tint within it you have a unbalanced mix. The phosphate must have something to react with. A unbalanced PH will cause the aftertaste. (Metalic =too basic)
I believe that this mix uses a combo phosphate ratio. (V-90 plus Active-8= Stabil 9) One phosphate reacts immediately with water and will rise 80%. The balance will rise when heat activates it. The second phosphate rises 20% with water and is a primarily a heat activated phosphate.
You must mix and wait a minimum of 30 minutes when using phosphate based mixes to permit the leavening to balance out. You should use cold water only.
Maybe you used too much evil, as in mistaking teaspoons of evil for tablespoons of evil? :^D
Seriously, the recipe itself could have errors like that, either from being handwritten in one of its iterations en route to you, or even a simple typo. Common ones that could produce what you describe are teaspoon vs. tablespoon, baking powder vs. baking soda, etc.
Did you taste the powdered mix dry? I'm not sure what it would taste like in that form, but I'm guessing a bland, flourish kind of non-flavor as opposed to the metallic taste your husband picked up.
Is it possible the bowl in which you mixed the dumpling batter had something in it? Like unrinsed soap that made it into all or just a few of the dumplings, or someone sprayed another cleaner, one not intended for food utensils, in the area of the bowl?
There might have been unrinsed soup -- I did mix the cornstarch, broth, and milk in the bowl, then rinsed it, then made the dumplings in it.
Your dumplings taste bad because Bisquick tastes bad. No matter which variation you use, the stuff tastes horrible. I have been cooking for 40 years of married life and 10 years more under my Mother's tutelage. I can tell you precisely which item on a table has been made with Bisquick. And really, it is not hard to make dumplings, biscuits or cakes, using your own ingredients.
Everybody has their taste. The popularity of Bisquick shows that people are willing to eat it, and, if the OP chose a recipe which involves it, she probably knew that she is OK with eating it. Whatever the mysterious reason, she'd probably know if she had an aversion to Bisquick similar to yours.
@rumtscho It's possible that the taste is masked (by syrup or meat or whatever) in most dishes that the OP uses it in, or that making these dumplings doesn't allow the baking powder to react in the same way that making biscuits or pancakes does. Buttermilk is acidic - maybe it reacted with the baking soda and allowed some of the phosphates to stand alone.
I use very few mixes or prepackaged food of any sort, as I absolutely love to cook and bake with fresh foods as much as possible. Chicken and Dumplings though is one thing I have been cooking for more than 30 years, and my family's absolutely most favorite of all my dishes. I use regular Bisquick (or Jiffy Mix, either one), and regular whole milk. Alternatively, during the winter when I don't get to the grocery store for a couple of months, I'll put about 2 teaspoons of dry milk powder into the center of the mix and then use water to make the dough. The soup or stew needs to have enough liquid to allow the dumplings to be resting in the liquid, or even mostly submerged (though not necessary). I let the meal simmer on low heat with the dumplings added, for about 3 minutes. Then I put the lid on the pot and continue to simmer at lowest heat for another 5 to 7 minutes (or until I see the dumplings are fully raised and cooked - or if you wish, test with a toothpick like you would a pie to make sure the center is done). When I serve the dish, I take some of the broth/gravy, and spoon it over the dumplings. In my opinion, so-called "low-fat" or "more healthy" is anything but "healthy". Remember, what they take out to make it "healthier", they add more chemicals in to make up for the loss.
EDIT:
I believe the odd taste was the combination of ingredients, the Heart Smart Bisquick w/ buttermilk. IMO, so-called low-fat or more healthy items are anything but "healthy". What is taken out to make items "healthier", chemicals are added in an attempt to make up for what was lost. I believe if whole milk and regular Bisquick or Jiffy Mix is used, the dumplings will come out wonderful. I posted my tips/recipe merely to perhaps help Yamikuronue to try and make them again
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is all well and good and we appreciate the contribution; however, providing recipes/prep tips as an answer isn't really addressing the actual question here - the OP did not ask for chicken and dumpling recipes and recipe exchange is not part of our mandate. He asked what might have gone wrong with the specific recipe he used. In the future, please answer only if you have a direct answer to the question, and not with general tips about the subject matter.
My sincere apology for not putting the bottom line up front, for a clear answer - I believe the odd taste was the combination of ingredients, the Heart Smart Bisquick w/ buttermilk. IMO, so-called low-fat or more healthy items are anything but "healthy". What is taken out to make items "healthier", chemicals are added in an attempt to make up for what was lost. I believe if whole milk and regular Bisquick or Jiffy Mix is used, the dumplings will come out wonderful. I posted my tips/recipe merely to perhaps help Yamikuronue to try and make them again. Many thanks to Aaronut for the welcome! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.402561
| 2012-11-17T00:32:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28464",
"authors": [
"A. Alex",
"Aaronut",
"Ashwin Prabhu",
"Cary Redding",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Debbie's Back Porch",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gabriel Pietromonaco",
"Kate Gregory",
"Random832",
"Ronnie",
"SF.",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85556",
"rumtscho",
"smcg",
"unpr0gr4mm3d",
"user65688",
"userSeventeen"
],
"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
}
|
24174
|
electric smoking 2 pork loins, increase time and or temp?
We're using our electric smoker to do 2 pork loins close to equal size. We did only one loin before and it was great!
Do we need to adjust the time and or temp to do it right again? We want to do them together.
We are using the "Masterbuilt" brand smoker.
When smoking pork loins (or anything else) it is best to focus on the internal temperature of the meat as the measure of 'doneness' with time and temp as a loose guideline.
Another good point to remember is that if you are smoking at more than 250F your meat will 'coast' (continue to cook after being removed from the heat) for a good deal longer than if you cook it at less than 250°F (120°C). At greater than 250°F you will see an increase in internal temp of 12-18°F (~10°C) after the meat is removed, at under 250°F it is only likely rise 2-4°F (~2°C).
Because you're working with a greater volume of meat, when you put it in, it will take longer for the smoker to get back up to working temperature, and it may be quite a while before the overall temperature in your smoker is where it needs to be. If your smoker doesn't auto-adjust its cooking temperature (turn itself up temporarily), then you can assume it will take longer to cook both loins properly.
Increasing the temperature of the cooking overall can help with this, but you do run the risk of making the outsides of the loins more cooked than you want.
One of the advantages of low and slow cooking is that the meat, even a large cut, can be more uniform in temperature throughout, rather than especially done on the outside and rare in the middle. If you turn up your temperature to make up for the extra meat, you will be casting some of the low and slow advantage aside.
My choice would be to use the same temperature you did before, but cook it longer. You'll eventually make up for the extra thermal mass of the meat, and you'll still have the advantages of slower cooking.
As Cos Callis said, you'll do well to use the internal temperature of the meat as your guide to how much longer you should cook.
Rule number 1 of smoking/barbecue: Don't try to make the meat come out at a specific time. It needs as long as it needs, and there's very little you can or should do about it. If you're on a deadline, start early enough that you're certain to be early with the meat, then hold it at temperature. Much better results than rushing it.
Get a probe thermometer for each pork butt or at least one which you should put in the thickest butt and go by that. Set smoker to about 225-240, and just let it take as long as it needs. Take the butts out at an internal temp of 195. I've got the Masterbuilt digital smoker and have done 4 at once, so two won't be any trouble, just go by internal temp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.403190
| 2012-06-03T01:51:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24174",
"authors": [
"Edward R Martin",
"Eljee",
"Heather Carmody",
"PamsPlace45",
"Samuel",
"Sree Somadas",
"Vadim Bulb",
"hedgedandlevered",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55064",
"jb djb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123951
|
Peanut butter and Jelly sandwich - adapted to ingredients from the UK
Making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the UK. What is required, what is traditional, and what is optional?
Firstly: what type of bread? Must it be white, brown, wholemeal or granary? Are there any significant differences between bread in the US and UK?
Secondly: Butter, margarine, nothing. Should I butter my bread before adding other spreads? (Idiomatic combinations of peanut butter, jelly, and bread suggests nothing) I guess it is peanut butter on one slice and jelly on the other.
Thirdly: Crunchy or smooth peanut butter. These are the two types that are generally available in the UK - is it the same in the US? Is one type preferred, or is it a matter of taste?
Fourthly: Jelly. I'm aware that this is the jam-like spread (and not the gelatine-based substance) but what flavour? In my local supermarket I can find "seedless raspberry jam" and (in a section for sauces to serve with meat) "redcurrant jelly". Are either of these acceptable approximations of the concord grape jelly that I understand is traditional? How much jelly should I use: a thin scrape or layered on thickly?
Finally: Am I overthinking this?
We have all learned about the importance of exact instructions for that P&J Sandwich, nevertheless I think you may be overthinking this.
I'm not sure if this is a serious question, if it is you are definitely overthinking it. Just use whatever jam you like the taste of, there's no rules. But butter? Yuck!
You see I genuinely didn't expect that! - I would have thought it would be "you must use this type of jam and this type of bread" but whether or not to use butter would be "well whatever". So, yes, genuine question. I've often heard of PB&J sandwiches. But I'm never really been sure of what they really are. It is something so very very American that you probably think it is obvious. But it really isn't obvious if you haven't been brought up in in the US. Try not to assume your region cuisine is obvious to someone not from your region!
I would suggest "are the differences in bread between the US and UK" is too many questions in one. I (american) am also not familiar with what "wholemeal" or "granary" bread is but any is fine, but it's usually cheap bread, but I've occasionally made "elevated" PB&Js with fnacy bread.
People are thinking it's obvious what it is because the name literally describes it. There's no additional mystery. Are sandwiches in the UK usually so specific in their ingredients when their name is something like that? Don't y'all have BLTs and grilled cheese sandwiches and stuff like that?
Also note that beyond the chunky/smooth axis there is also the homogenized/"natural" and salted/unsalted variables. Natural peanut butter on multigrain vs. Jif on white bread makes two very different sandwiches.
I have had commercial grape jelly in the UK, but it was practically tasteless compared to what I've had in the US. When I made some from tasty but slightly sharp home grown grapes it was much better
I have no idea why, but for some reason, when I read this question, I assumed that you were an American visiting the UK, and you wanted a familiar food from back home, and for some reason you were very worried about getting it right. Maybe it would be a good idea to mention that you're British and you'd like to try this American sandwich.
@TannerSwett, its just one of those things that is so American. I would never have thought of combining nut butter and jam as a child, But because it is so obvious, nobody ever actually explains it. Actually I wondered this from reading http://limbero.org/jl8/218 in which an "artisinal PB&J restaurant" is a gag, and I thought I'm not really "getting" the context, since I don't really know what it is. So I tried making it (with butter of course) and its kind of what I expected- very sweet and heavy: but I wasn't sure if I had it right, I'd heard that the jelly was different in the US.
@TjadenHess I think you have just explained why the popular bathroom and kitchen cleaning products named "Jif" in th UK changed their name to "Cif".
Even within the tiny sphere of my middle-school friends in late 1970s suburban Chicago, the peanut butter & jelly sandwich I ate was very different from the ones my friends ate. You might as well ask how to adapt "pizza" to UK ingredients. Also: Butter or margarine? Ick.
The most important part is that you must cut it into triangles (from one corner of the sandwich to the other so you get two triangles) not any other shape.
@user3067860 A a representative of the Rectangular Cut Society, I must inform you that you are wading into murky waters, here, and that religious violence may follow. :P
@JamesK "The" peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a Depression Era food. The point is not to be fine dining, but to provide a lot of calories for not very much money. Don't overthink it---you really can't go wrong.
I believe there is also the minor detail of construction. The common procedure of "Spread PB on one slice of bread, spread J another slice of bread, combine the two slices into a sandwich." works perfectly adequately for a sandwich to-be-eaten immediately, but many prefer the "Lightly spread PB on each of two slices of bread, carefully spread/layer J over the PB on one of those slices, combine..." method for a picnic/sack-lunch/etc. so that the PB layers prevent the J from making the bread too soggy over the hours between sandwich construction and sandwich consumption.
The general gist of comments seems to be 'don't over think it, its a sandwich how difficult can it be, you can't go wrong .... what do you mean you put butter on it you absolute heathen!'
Actually, I wonder if the butter layer thing is a british thing. One of the former Top Gear/Current Grand tour presenters, James May has a cooking show that includes making sandwiches and there's always a layer of Ludpak spreadable butter on it
Yes, I'd always use butter. It goes without saying. As Rosie F says "by default, it's assumed (in default of anything to the contrary) that a sandwich's named ingredients will be between slices of bread spread with something. That something is traditionally butter, but might instead be margarine, sunflower spread or olive spread"
Firstly: what type of bread? Must it be white, brown, wholemeal or granary? Are there any significant differences between bread in the US and UK?
It must be robust enough to hold up against wetness of the jelly without soaking through, but not tough enough that it's a jaw workout, which would cause the ingredients to splurt out the sides.
It must be moist enough to hold up against the stickiness of the peanut butter in your mouth, but not so wet that it folds over in your hands as you try to hold it like a soggy thin-crust New York pizza.
It should be mild enough that nothing in the bread itself overpowers the taste of the peanut butter and jelly.
This rules out some breads—a good baguette, for instance, is too tough; Hostess white bread is too feeble and soaks through; caraway-heavy ryes are too intense; and oily garlic-herbed focaccia is right out—but there's plenty of room for variation.
An English muffin—this is what Americans call your “muffins”—works fine.
A brioche roll will make PB&J into a dessert; a sandwich rye bread without caraway will make PB&J into a savory meal.
A typical multigrain sandwich bread is a good choice: not bland like a white or whole wheat bread, but not too intense on its own to overpower the main course.
Secondly: Butter, margarine, nothing. Should I butter my bread before adding other spreads?
It's PEANUT BUTTER and JELLY, not PEANUT, BUTTER, and JELLY, silly.
The only reason there's no law against this is that nobody in the history of PB&J sandwiches has ever even contemplated violating such a law.
(If you're tempted to add butter, your bread is probably too dry or tough.
Sandwiches around here are lubricated with mayonnaise by default, not with butter—and definitely not margarine.
But nobody would ever dream of doing this with PB&J.)
Thirdly: Crunchy or smooth peanut butter. These are the two types that are generally available in the UK - is it the same in the US? Is one type preferred, or is it a matter of taste?
Matter of taste.
Note: Peanut butter is a mixture of ground peanuts and, optionally, salt.
Period (full stop).
Any other ingredients—like sugar, palm oil, hydrogenated dog snot, or who knows what other balderdash the private equity barons have stooped to adding—make it an abomination upon humankind.
If it doesn't separate naturally, it's been desecrated by evil.
(Store it upside-down to make stirring easier when you open it.)
You can use unsalted peanut butter, but salted peanut butter will make the whole thing taste stronger.
You can always add salt when you stir it if you got unsalted peanut butter.
Fourthly: Jelly. I'm aware that this is the jam-like spread (and not the gelatine-based substance) but what flavour? In my local supermarket I can find "seedless raspberry jam" and (in a section for sauces to serve with meat) "redcurrant jelly". Are either of these acceptable approximations of the concord grape jelly that I understand is traditional?
Any flavo(u)r you like, although redcurrant or cranberry are probably too tart for the job.
Personally I like elderberry best, but strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, and grape are all reasonable choices.
Your seedless raspberry jam will do just fine!
How much jelly should I use: a thin scrape or layered on thickly?
Taste differ, but to me the important thing is for the jelly to lubricate the peanut butter and not to be a sugary fruit soup that you dropped your bread in.
Too much and it will squirt out the sides.
Try a gradient of a thin scrape at one end to a thicker layer at the other end to see what you like.
Finally: Am I overthinking this?
Absolutely not!
Source: an American who spent formative years subsisting on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch (and sometimes dinner).
As to butter, the OP seems to have parsed the phrase correctly. It's just that, by default, it's assumed (in default of anything to the contrary) that a sandwich's named ingredients will be between slices of bread spread with something. That something is traditionally butter, but might instead be margarine, sunflower spread or olive spread, for example. And you typically don't list it when you specify a sort of sandwich. So mentioning peanut butter in the name might give the impression that it's as well as, rather than instead of.
Yes, living in the south UK ALL sandwiches have some kind of butter spread by default, which just goes without saying. You butter then bread, then add the filling (peanut butter, jam, tuna, honey, ham, whatever).
There's a reason "PB with palm kernel oil" is so popular: natural PB is a stiff, separated hassle. Long live Peter Pan!!!
I have never heard of putting butter on a PB&J, as someone who has lived in the US. I don't think that it is an offense against the culinary arts to do so (especially if you toast the bread--not "normal" but something that happens sometimes), but it certainly is not normal in the US. There is plenty of oil already in the PB.
Actually "muffin" can mean either a large cupcake, or a disc-shaped soft bread roll - though this form is most familiar from McDonalds and other similar American outlets.
Great answer on everything except the J! In the UK, J must stand for jam in this setting. Raspberry or strawberry would be good choices (with or without the seeds), but that redcurrant jelly was in the section for sauces to serve with meat for a reason. Leave it there.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to eat peanut butter is on a piece of buttered toast. Chunky PB is preferable, and the toast should still be warm when eaten. Jelly is optional. I'm surprised so many people have never heard of this.
"a good baguette, for instance, is too tough" I wish I had enough rep to downvote your answer for this heresy. The strictness about PB ingredients almost compensates, though.
You can't really get muffins in the UK except at McDonald's. The 'English Muffin' is a complete misnomer. If you asked for a muffin over here, you'd get a 'bun' (cupcake)[& even the muffin in that is imported from the US; I guess we had a choice of two items the same word could belong to, we chose the other one.] For those not in the know, the difference between a bun & a muffin is they put more batter in a muffin so it flows over the top a bit ;)
@Tetsujin If that was true, I wouldn't currently have a pack of muffins sitting in my freezer. All the shops around here sell them in the bread section. It is, however, regionally dependant; up in Yorkshire and Lancashire, for example, you are more likely to find teacakes than muffins — or even a stotty if you go further north towards the Scottish border…
(Although, referring to them as "English Muffins" might, from that perspective, be a matter of over-generalisation — akin to referring to the Colonel's fare as "American Fried Chicken")
Echoing @RonJohn: while some people may believe that "peanut butter with more than peanuts and salt is an abomination", it's definitely a minority opinion in the U.S., if we are measuring by sales figures.
@MJ713 American here. I tried that kind of peanut butter once. Never again. imo it needs at least a bit of sugar, and is even better with palm oil.
@Showsni "You butter then bread, then add the filling (peanut butter, [...other fillings...])" Butter and peanut butter? What's the benefit?
@AerinmundFagelson strawberry jam is quite popular in the US in PBJ sandwiches.
@Esther when just snacking that odd spoonful of peanut butter... sure, sugar makes it even more of a guilty pleasure! But when combined with jelly, any sugar in the PB doesn't really make much difference. IMO it's better to avoid the sugar there. As for palm oil, that obviously does help with spreadability and perhaps you also prefer the mouth-feel – but these should also be fine with the pure-peanuts variant if it has been thoroughly re-stirred from its separated state. Palm oil does have some issues to think about.
@Chronocidal - I found them in Asda & Sainsbury's online - never see them in the shops themselves. They seem to be only available in the 'economy' range. Have you considered they're actually just copies of the US ones, inspired by McDonald's, rather than being 'British'?
@lessthanideal ' Butter and peanut butter? What's the benefit?' Tastiness.
@Tetsujin My understanding is that they were invented in America by an Englishman, but that there is a third type of muffin, now known as the oven-bottom muffin, to distinguish it from the griddled muffin. What Americans call English Muffins are a relatively recent introduction to the UK scene, as are the high-fat batter sweet muffins, but the Muffin-man of Drury Lane was selling something and that rhyme was first recorded in 1820.
@Spagirl - that makes sense to me - they're as 'English' as chicken tikka masala is 'Indian' or doner kebabs are 'Turkish' ;))
@Tetsujin döner kebab is Turkish. What's not Turkish is the sandwich form in which it's most commonly eaten across Europe.
@leftaroundabout - I'm sure this over-extended comment thread could get more pedantic if we all tried really hard. Until very recently, none of the Turkish places [& I live in an area very heavily influenced by many Turkish immigrants] near me ever used pitta, but there seems to be a recent revival, actually known as 'authentic German doner' though some of them have a very odd idea as to what constitutes one - https://www.germandonerkebab.com/menu [Never eaten there, never likely to.] Where I grew up [70s, Northern England], all doners were meat ,salad & pitta, no 'actual' Turkish food at all
@Tetsujin Uh, excuse me? What is chicken tikka masala if not Indian?
@just-a-hriday - actually invented in Glasgow.
@Tetsujin Nope. I'm Indian, I know my culture. Yes, an Indian living in Britain created it, but the dish's flavours, methods, and also name (no brit could have named something "tikka masala") are firmly rooted in Indian cuisine.
@just-a-hriday - I'm still not sure what you are trying to tell me. We were discussing foods that aren't actually from where most people think they are. We could add ramen to that list. We could add the travesty Coronation Chicken too, invented by a culinary student in London.
Although yes, much of it is a matter of personal preference, I will try to give some constructive advice:
You want a ‘sandwich bread’. Something that’s cut relatively thin (1cm or less) with a relatively tight crumb (no large holes from bubbles) and not so soft that it’s going to shred if you try to smear it with your peanut butter, but not something so tough that you have to tear it off with your teeth. You also don’t want anything with too assertive of a flavor (rye with caraway, sourdough, brioche, etc). Whole wheat is fine, but a white bread is more typical. I personally like something like a cracked wheat or multigrain bread.
I have no idea how US bread compare to UK, but I do know that
there’s a style of bread in the US that’s mass produced by injecting
air into the dough rather than letting it ferment naturally, and I
suspect that much of our factory made bread is of this type.
The amount and type of peanut butter is a personal preference. But beware of putting on too much, as it will glue your mouth together.
Jam / jelly is also a personal preference. The two most common in the US are grape and strawberry, but grape can be a controversial flavor (as it’s Concord grapes, not a wine or table grape). But you can use whatever variety you like. I personally like cherry jam, but will go with grape or strawberry if that’s what’s available. (In the US, jam might include skins, jelly is strained jam or just made from juice, sugar, and pectin)
The jelly needs to be proportional to the amount of peanut butter used, but you have to beware of too much, or it will squirt out of the back as you’re eating it.
Depending on the type of bread and how far ahead you’re making it, some jam will soak into the bread. This isn’t always a good thing, as softer breads will slowly dissolve and if you’ve got something hard in with it, the sandwich will bruise and you end up with the dreaded ‘purple sided sandwich’ where the jelly soaks through to the outside.
It might seem like a good idea to put peanut butter on both slices of bread to avoid the bruised sandwich, but this makes it so the jelly has nothing to grip to and more likely that it’s going to squirt out the back when you eat it.
You can replace the jelly with other sweet things. Honey, banana slices, chocolate sprinkles, marshmallow fluff, etc. Although that would make them no longer ‘peanut butter and jelly’. Some marmelades can work, but some are so chunky that it just makes it weird and chewy.
Likewise, you can also replace the peanut butter with other nut butters (almond, cashew, etc) so long as it’s soft enough to spread without damaging the bread.
Sourdough works great for a PB&J. Maybe not the kind with the tough crust, but the kind that comes sliced for sandwiches is fine.
You write about air injected into dough. Do you mean using baking powder / soda instead of yeast? If this is something else, could you clarify, please?
Two other solid options to replace the jam/jelly: Bacon or pickles. Peanut butter and bacon on toasted bread is soooooo good.
Smooth strawberry is probably the best you'll easily find in the UK, or maybe plum.
@CGCampbell See number 7
@Simppa no, as I understand it ‘a a pressure chamber where they do the mixing, so extra air in trapped into the dough without having to wait for fermentation to happen. There used to be a British company named the ‘Aerated Bread Company’ so it’s possible that it still exists over the pond, too.
"grape can be a controversial flavor (as it’s Concord grapes, not a wine or table grape)". Eh?
@RonJohn If you've only had normal grapes...like you bought grapes at the store and at them...then US grape jelly will not taste right since it's a different type of grape that tastes different. Some people don't realize it's a different type of grape and think that the difference in flavor is because of the process or something that makes it taste "weird". This is the same as banana candy flavor--people wonder why someone would think it tastes like banana without realizing that the point of comparison was actually a different type of banana that tasted more like that flavor.
"mass produced by injecting air". I'm really dubious at that assertion. (It would cause large, irregular bubbles in the bread, and that's been verboten for 50 years.)
@RonJohn they dissolve it into the water before mixing. See https://blogs.bl.uk/science/2018/05/world-baking-day-two-british-advances-in-baking-technology.html ; but after some research seems that the US now mostly uses something they call “no time bread’ while the UK uses something called the “Chorleywood process”
Dissolving CO2 in water is utterly and completely different from "injecting air into the dough".
Two major differences between the USA and the UK are in terms of the bread and in terms of the peanut butter. Both of these described as a foreigner (though from a British colony) in both countries and one who hasn't visited the UK for a long time (>10 years). I have no affiliation with any of the companies/brands mentioned and none of them should be taken as an endorsement of the products.
In the USA, almost all supermarket bread brands (e.g Sara Lee, Nature's Own, Pepperidge Farms, Arnold) is particularly soft and very odd flavour. As far as I can tell this is from having added lactic acid and quite a lot of sugar. I would describe the texture as similar to a pancake; if you squash it, it will not rebound and has little gluten development in it. I don't have any comparison for the taste. From my experience, in the UK, this bread would rank very low in the scale of breads available, being of worse quality (texture and flavour) than the cheapest brands.
Conversely, in the UK, supermarket bread (e.g. Hovis, Sainsbury's), is firmer, with a more defined crumb and a more yeasty taste. The texture is similar to a top-end supermarket bread in the USA, but the flavour is different; lacking the lactic-acid taste and a lot of sweetness compared to the USA.
For the PB. While you can get it without, almost all USA peanut butters contain some measure of sugar (e.g. Skippy). This is often the second ingredient on the list, and is somewhere above the 2% mark that seems to be the cut-off for special listing. As I am used to peanut butters being made from peanuts, oil and salt; this is quite sweet on its own. It seems that some UK brands have sugar included (e.g. Sainsbury's), but this is normally 3rd or 4th on the list, after oil(s). Most PB brands in the UK seemed to have only peanuts, oil(s) and salt as the ingredients.
If I were to make a PB&J in the UK, aiming to get it as similar to the ones I had in the USA as possible, I would get a sweetened PB, use strawberry jam, and use a very soft, thick-cut (toast) bread.
I just squeezed a slice of US mass market bread, and it rebounded quite nicely.
@RonJohn I did say "squash" rather than squeeze, as in press firmly. Mass market bread in much of the world (including my country) will not rebound from a squash, but will from a squeeze. Decent breads (e.g from a specialist bread shop or similar) will resist squashing and rebound from even a strong press.
Who in the world squashes bread? That's... foolish.
No, wait: pretentious people squash bread, and then say how great it is.
@RonJohn squashing can be accidental - say in a bag with other items from a supermarket. Not all the world bags 2 items per (plastic) bag as the USA seems to. Or perhaps if you were wanting to compare breads across types or looking for a texture that you prefer, it might be a metric by which you could measure this.
Even back in the days of large paper grocery bags (I'm that old), we knew how to not squish bread. Europeans must not be very smart.
And you discover a texture you like by eating a loaf., and either buying or not buying it again.
@RonJohn indeed eating is the primary indicator, taste and texture are a big part of the enjoyment of food - but just what do you think your teeth do when they press into the bread? Molars compress... Europeans are just as smart as anyone - after all, the majority of Americans are European in origin...
Are we talking about two different kinds of bread me: (pre-sliced loaf bread, and you: unsliced crusty bread)?
You're definitely overthinking it. There are many variations based on personal preference, but there are some traditions.
Generally when people think about PB&J sandwiches made for young children, you use very soft and cheap white bread, sometimes even with the crusts cut off. You would usually use smooth peanut butter, and jelly that's pretty close to what you call jelly in the UK, a bit thicker but no seeds or lumps of fruit, and sort of artificial flavors. When people get nostalgic for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, it's often this early childhood version.
As kids get older and don't care so much about lumpy food, you see more variety of bread with more grains, sometimes crunchy peanut butter, and more jam or preserves than jelly. Many adults don't eat PB&J anymore, but if they do, it's usually this version with more texture.
Not only are PB&Js made for young kids, they are often made by young kids. While I am sure that there is someone out there who is selling "elevated" sandwiches for thirty bucks a each, an "authentic" PB&J is quite simple and easy to make. :D
Just a note: "Jelly" in the UK generally refers to what most Americans would call "Jello"; a sweetened gelatin dessert. "Jam" is what is spread on sandwiches, much like American jam. The standard American jelly is not commonly available in the UK.
you seem to assume that PB&J is a kids' food?
@njzk2 While there are versions of the PB&J which appeal to more adult palettes, I would conjecture that the vast majority of these sandwiches are made for children. Yes. The PB&J is kids' food.
Any combination of the choices you listed (even the use of butter or margarine, apparently) would be fine and authentic and a matter of personal preference.
Nah, we always put butter on the jam side - it keeps the bread from getting soggy by lunch.
@AzorAhai-him- I think the bread is supposed to get soggy
@AzorAhai-him- if you are (understandably) concerned about soggy bread, then smear a thin layer of PB on the bread before adding the jelly.
the main purpose of the butter under jam or honey is to try and fill the holes in the bread (something american would have no idea about, though. American bread doesn't have holes, I won't speculate as to why)
@njzk2 I'm looking at a piece of American bread right now. It's full of gas holes. (Their just too small to "pierce" the slices. We figured out the fix for that 50 years ago.)
@ToddWilcox Everyone is entitled to their opinion I suppose
@RonJohn Nah, I like the flavor of the butter (when I ate butter).
@RonJohn were you part of the team of adventurous bakers who pierced the secret of small holes in the bread? Or is the general chauvinist "we"?
@njzk2 it's the same "we" as in "we won the war", even though my father was still a suckling babe when the war ended. But you knew that...
@RonJohn what I didn't know was that bread needed fixing. Thank you for figuring that out!
@njzk2 thank the people who figured out how to bake sandwich bread that doesn't have big holes in it. It was a great and important achievent.
@RonJohn indeed. But are you sure it's that recent? Surely Lord Sandwich didn't have mayonnaise running down his fingers when he was playing cards
@njzk2 it was the late 1960s. (I remember that Bunny Bread had a promotion in 1970/1971 saying that any child who found a hole through a slice of bread would get a party for his/her whole classroom. A classmate found a hole, and we got a party.)
@RonJohn haha, quite a nice story actually!
I think that you are very much overthinking this.
Traditional Peanut Butter and Jelly
In the United States, the peanut butter and jelly sandwich (PB&J) is a quick, easy meal, usually made for a small child (and often made by a small child). Thus a "traditional" PB&J is likely to be relatively bland (many small children don't like more complicated textures or flavors), rather sweet, and very easy to make (most American children can probably slap together a PB&J by the time they are six or seven years old).
Moreover, the PB&J is something of a "poverty food"—it is a food often associated with low-income dining. Indeed, PB&J sandwiches rose to popularity during the Great Depression as a very affordable, calorie dense food. As such, the ingredients tend to be quite inexpensive, which tends to imply more artificial flavors, neat food science tricks (like partially-hydrogenated oils to improve textures), and the liberal use of subsidized ingredients (like high fructose corn syrup).
Thus you can expect the following from a traditional PB&J:
Sandwich Bread: A traditional PB&J is made with something like Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread is an exemplar of a certain style of mass-produced American bread: it has little structure, a fair amount of sugar (in the form of high fructose corn syrup), and is leavened mostly chemically (e.g. with baking soda and lactic acid) and mechanically (through the action of steam as it cooks).
Peanut Butter: The most widely available peanut butters in the US are things like Jif and Skippy. Historically, peanut butter was made from roasted peanuts and salt---the problem with this recipe is that the solids tend to separate from the fats, which is kind of a pain. The innovation of the brands listed above is that they include partially- or fully-hydrogenated oils, which prevent the mixture from separating, and gives these brands a very smooth texture. These brands also add a fairly significant amount of sugar. While they come in "chunky" varieties, a traditional PB&J probably uses the "creamy" kind, which has been processed to the point that it has no real texture—again, small children tend not to like texture all that much.
Jelly (Jam): The jelly in a PB&J is likely to be something like Smucker's or Welch's grape jelly (note that what we Americans call "jelly" is probably understood in the UK as "jam").
The expectation is that the jelly will be smooth (i.e. without seeds), thick (there is likely going to be a fair amount of pectin involved), a fair amount of sugar (again, probably high fructose corn syrup), and artificial flavors.
In terms of ingredients, that's it. Keep it simple.
Preparation: The preparation is very simple: grab two slices of bread, spread peanut butter on one slice (or both—when I was a child, I figured out that if I spread peanut butter on both slices of bread, the peanut butter would protect the bread from getting soggy, so I could pack a sandwich in the morning, and it would still be appealing by lunchtime at school), spread jelly on that, and put the sandwich together. Again, this is something that a small child is expected to be able to do—the amounts of peanut butter and jelly can vary wildly, from almost none to way too much.
Theme and Variation
I've said this multiple times already, but it bears repetition: the PB&J is an American comfort food, meant to be cheap and appealing to children. You really shouldn't think too hard about it.
However, this also means that there is no need to stick too strictly to the guidelines listed above. Parents buy the ingredients they can get at the grocery store (which can vary a lot depending on local conditions and income level) and that they can expect their children to eat. When those children grow up, they make their own nostalgic version of the PB&J they remember from childhood.
Don't like grape jelly? Cool—use raspberry or blueberry or red current or blackberry or whatever you like. Prefer chunky peanut butter? Great—go for it! Or don't use peanut butter at all—try some other nut butter, like cashew or almond. Want bread with more texture? Sure! Use whatever bread you like—it is entirely up to your tastes.
Personally, my favorite version of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich is made with unsweetened chunky peanut butter (which usually means getting "organic" or "natural" peanut butter at the grocery) and apricot jam on Jewish rye.
NB: The references to specific brands are very intentional here. Part of the nostalgia of a PB&J for most Americans is an association with very specific, inexpensive national brands. These ingredients are highly processed, and have very specific flavors and textures.
Firstly: what type of bread? Must it be white, brown, wholemeal or granary? Are there any significant differences between bread in the US and UK?
In general, the type of bread you would use for a sandwich where the contents of the sandwich are supposed to be the dominant flavor.
The ‘ideal’ bread is soft (baguettes are too crispy for example), moderately dry, moderately dense (you want the air bubbles to mostly be small and relatively uniform, so not something like ciabatta), and mildly flavored.
The ‘classic’ PB&J would have been made with cheap white bread.
Pre-sliced multigrain wheat will will often work well too. Rye or pumpernickel may work, but ire a bit stronger flavored than most Americans would expect. Good pita bread (sometimes called ‘Greek bread’ in the UK I believe), while not traditional, also works well in my experience.
Secondly: Butter, margarine, nothing. Should I butter my bread before adding other spreads? (Idiomatic combinations of peanut butter, jelly, and bread suggests nothing) I guess it is peanut butter on one slice and jelly on the other.
No butter, margarine, or any other such toppings. We simply don’t really butter bread for sandwiches here in the US (mayonnaise is the norm if we need to soften the bread a bit), but even if we did, a PB&J already has enough oil and water in the ingredients that the bread should not need to be buttered. You also generally should not toast the bread either (if it’s too dry it won’t do well with the moisture from the jelly).
Thirdly: Crunchy or smooth peanut butter. These are the two types that are generally available in the UK - is it the same in the US? Is one type preferred, or is it a matter of taste?
Primarily a matter of taste. You can, in theory, even substitute other nut butters for peanut butter, though based on my own experimentation the only alternative to peanut butter that works well in terms of taste is cashew butter (all the other nut butters I’ve tried were either too bland, or ended up too sweet).
Fourthly: Jelly. I'm aware that this is the jam-like spread (and not the gelatine-based substance) but what flavour? In my local supermarket I can find "seedless raspberry jam" and (in a section for sauces to serve with meat) "redcurrant jelly". Are either of these acceptable approximations of the concord grape jelly that I understand is traditional? How much jelly should I use: a thin scrape or layered on thickly?
‘Jelly’ is jam, but with the fruit pulp filtered out (so it’s less ‘chunky’). That ‘seedless’ raspberry jam is probably actually jelly, not jam.
As far as the actual choice of flavor for the jelly, it should be:
Primarily sweet, and slightly tart, but not savory (the peanut butter is supposed to contribute the savory aspect).
Relatively ‘bold’ in terms of flavor. Delicate flavors just don’t work as well here.
Something you actually like.
You’re correct that grape jelly is the traditional option (though the fact that it’s concord grape jelly has less to do with taste and more to do with historical availability of grape cultivars in the US), but all kinds of other flavors work. Blueberry jelly is relatively popular around where I live. When I was a kid I often had raspberry or blackberry jelly instead, and always liked the blackberry better than the raspberry because it had a stronger flavor. These days I prefer lingonberry jam or Key lime marmalade (the first because I just love lingonberry jam, and the second because I love citrus but orange marmalade is not quite strong enough for my tastes in terms of flavor). One of my friends swears by cranberry jelly, and a couple of my friends love using sour cherry jam. I even know people who use apple butter or fig butter instead of jelly.
The only types of jelly I’ve tried on a PB&J that I would consider truly not suited for it are mint jelly and hagebuttermark (a Swabian jelly made from rose hips), and both were cases where the flavors just didn’t blend all that well with the peanut butter flavor. I would also expect tomato and pepper jellies to not work very well either for the same reasons.
Finally: Am I overthinking this?
Probably, but overthinking things on occasion is not always a bad thing.
From someone raise (mostly) in the United States, the answer is pretty much going to be -- do whatever is most-similar to what you are familiar with.
My mother prepared PB&J sandwiches with JIF extra-crunchy peanut butter, raspberry preserves, and "Jewish" rye bread. I would go to my friends' houses and be served store-brand smooth peanut butter (or, occasionally, honey-nut spread) with strawberry or concord grape jelly on Wonder bread and my reaction would be -- "ew, gross, this isn't PB&J." My experience of PB&J is what it is; my elementary school friends would beg to differ.
Crossing an ocean, the facts remain true. Ingredient substitution is going to depend on what a "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" means to you.
Finally: Am I overthinking this?
No, you're not over-thinking. But this is one of those situations where the dish and what it means to you -- especially any emotional connections to a specific preparation -- means that there's no one real answer.
We can tell you the differences between jelly, jam, preserves, and how these terms translate across the pond; or discuss different brands of peanut butters, preparations, and spreads. But at the end of the day, finding a cognate that means "home" to you is going to be a very intensely personal and unique experience, and what works for me won't necessarily work for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.403626
| 2023-04-16T19:04:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123951",
"authors": [
"Aerinmund Fagelson",
"Andrew Morton",
"Azor Ahai -him-",
"Chris H",
"Chronocidal",
"DoctorDestructo",
"DotCounter",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"GentlePurpleRain",
"James K",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kat",
"MJ713",
"RonJohn",
"Rosie F",
"Seth Robertson",
"Showsni",
"Simppa",
"Sophie Swett",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"Theodore",
"Tjaden Hess",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Xander Henderson",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99822",
"just-a-hriday",
"leftaroundabout",
"lessthanideal",
"njzk2",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55082
|
Fajitas: Marinade Vegetables With Chicken
My local grocery store prepares a chicken fajita blend that has the chicken, marinade, onions, and peppers all mixed together. It's simply for convenience. Buy x amount of the mixture, go home, throw it into a skillet, and voila: dinner. My question is whether or not this is safe? and if so, does marinating the vegetables detract from the blend of flavors they normally provide? I like biting into a fajita and tasting the individual flavors.
Thank you in advance for any advice
Your grocery store has it down to a science.
To get all parts "done" at the same time, they have to be cut to the right size. Your grocery store does that very well. The marinade flavors all parts, but the marinade doesn't carry flavors much (see here, different but similar: How deeply will the flavors in a brine penetrate chicken?) So it works.
Is it safe? Certainly, as long as you cook it within a couple of days and don't let it linger in the "danger zone" (40F to 140F) for too long. (Too long per government standards is 2 hours cumulative. Since you can't know how long the grocery had it there, don't mess with it, just put it in the fridge as soon as you get it home, and cook it straight from the fridge.)
And you need to make sure to cook all of the vegetables sufficient ... if you like them al-dente, you're SOL ... you likely need to cook them until the chicken is done; don't pull them any earlier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.406822
| 2015-02-24T03:25:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55082",
"authors": [
"Charlie Wood",
"Cynthia Gaucher",
"Gigi Lawson",
"Jacob Sons",
"Jennie Topley",
"Joe",
"Sally Carey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130879",
"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
}
|
56789
|
Problems cooking Wagyu brisket
While I save up for a proper outdoor smoker, I've been experimenting with using the basic brisket BBQ techniques, but with a fan forced in our kitchen. So far, the regular briskets have turned out fine, but the Wagyu ones have all turned out tough and dry.
This weekend I tried again with two identical 7.5lb Wagyu briskets - one on Saturday and one on Sunday.
The one on Saturday was tough and dry, so I reduced the temperature and the cooking time on Sunday - same result.
Would appreciate any advice. My cooking methods over this weekend are below:
SATURDAY
Use paper towels to remove excess moisture.
Apply a rub of salt, pepper and smoked paprika.
Wrap in foil and leave overnight in the fridge.
Preheat the oven to about 248 deg F (120 celsius)
Put a container of water at the bottom of the oven for moisture
Remove the brisket from the foil and place on the middle rack
Leave in the oven untouched and unopened for 3.5 hours
At this point the color was good but the outside was hard,
and when pushed with a finger the meat felt well done.
Spritzed with cider vinegar, then wrapped in foil
Placed back in the oven and reduced the temperature to about 220-230 deg F
Cooked for a further 2.5 hours in the foil
Removed from oven and rested for an hour
RESULT - Dry, well done and chewy with the meat in the middle looking gray.
SUNDAY
I reduced the initial temperature to about 220 deg F
and reduced the unwrapped cook time to about 2 hours.
Everything else was the same.
When I took it out, it wasn't as dark but still felt well done
and when cut, it was still dry and 'overcooked' right through.
The foil-wrapped cooking time didn't help tenderize it at all.
QUESTIONS
Why is it overcooking and drying out at such low temperatures, when normal briskets don't?
My Mom says that a fan-forced oven is hotter than a regular one, but I reduced the temperature
to compensate for this. Could a fan-forced oven still be the problem?
I would have thought Wagyu would be even more tender than regular brisket. What's up?
Thanks in advance.
what was the internal temp? It sounds (As Sean suggests) way undercooked, not overcooked.
Your brisket was undercooked, not overcooked. At the temperatures you stated, rule of thumb for brisket cooking time is about 1.25-1.5 hours per pound. Convection may drop that down a tad. A 7.5 pound brisket should be cooked for at least 8 hours, and could be closer to 10 or so.
The cuts of meat that are designated as "barbecue" meats are generally full of connective tissue. You put it through a long, low-temperature cooking process to render down that tissue, which will both tenderize and moisturize the meat. Undercooked barbecue will often be mischaracterized as "dry," because the amount of chewing required on the meat robs the mouth of saliva. Properly-cooked brisket will slice easily, and a slice should easily pull apart when gently tugged with two hands. This is not a steak, so the sensibilities you would apply to cooking a steak go out the window. A brisket has only just BEGUN to break down its connective tissues when it reaches what would be regarded as "Well Done." It is not likely done from a quality perspective until the internal temperature of the meat has reached at least 190f.
Next time, budget a cooking time 1.5 hours per pound. If it is finished sooner, wrap it in foil and towels, and leave it to rest in a cooler. It will safely keep that way for up to four hours, and a long rest will result in a better product anyway. Start checking the internal temperature of the meat about halfway through your budgeted time. At around 165f, wrap the brisket in foil, pouring some beef broth into the wrap, and return it to your oven. Start checking for doneness at about 75% of the cooking timeline you have laid out. You should be able to slide a probe in and out of your brisket easily, with just a small amount of resistance. That is when you know it is done. Not by time, not by internal temperature, but in the tactile clues provided by the meat. You can optionally take the brisket back out of the foil when you think your are close to being done, in order to give yourself a better bark. When you are confident the meat is done, rest in a cooler (using the aforementioned foil/towel treatment) for at least an hour.
When you are ready to slice your brisket, be sure to SLICE ACROSS THE GRAIN. This will serve as another tenderness aid. You should also reserve the jus that is generated, and pour it over your brisket slices. This should enhance your success with making a brisket.
Smoke is predominantly water. Smoke actually keeps meat moist far better than a pan of water in an oven, or even high end oven misting units. Smoke also puts a layer of hardwood oils on the meat making the bark a more efficient container of moisture. The answer above is exactly right. The brisket will tell you when it is done. Waygu brisket should almost come apart under its own weight. I have a 16lb Waygu on the rack right now, and I expect about 18-22hrs and finishing between 195-200F, but we will see. . . .
Wagyu it not anything special comparing to other grass feed cattle, it's just more fat marbled. So if you like that, then it's great
The increased marbling is mostly in the top cuts, and not so much in the bottom cuts like brisket, so Wagyu cross breed cattle isn't going to make that much difference for this
Your technique seems overly complex! Just cook it, covered, until done by measuring the internal temperature
Thanks for the reply. Yes it does sound complex - that's because I'm trying to follow the techniques used for BBQ brisket, but in the oven. I think you're right though. I should just keep it covered and simple.
I'm still a bit puzzled about why the oven would be bad for cooking an exposed brisket. You could say that the fan-forced air is drying it out, but in a smoker there's a constant movement of air from the smoke box and out the chimney.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.407018
| 2015-04-19T07:47:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56789",
"authors": [
"51Game Famous",
"Abe Boese",
"Danny t",
"El Rey",
"Jayme Palka",
"Linda Oliva",
"Petra Drury",
"Rashmi Nama",
"TexasBBQ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79770",
"wax eagle"
],
"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
}
|
41354
|
Why didn't my mustard sauce emulsify?
I was making mustard croutons. I whisked together 2 parts warm melted butter, 2 parts olive oil, 1 part Dijon mustard, 1 part brown mustard (with whole seeds), 1 part sherry vinegar and table salt.
Since I had so much mustard I didn't think it would be necessary to do anything gradually (mustard being a great emulsifier), so I just dumped it all together and started whisking. Is that likely to have been the problem? Could it have been the warmth of the butter (not quite hot)?
Is there such a thing as too much emulsifier? The sauce never did emulsify by whisking, it just stubbornly stayed completely separated, albeit with ever smaller droplets of mustard/vinegar.
It probably wouldn't have mattered much since I was just planning to toss bread chunks in it anyway, to bake for croutons, but it bugged me so I whipped out the food processor. After processing the sauce looked emulsified, but it separated within perhaps 2 minutes. The croutons turned out great anyway, but for future reference I'd still like to know why I never did achieve an emulsion. I've made mayonnaise pretty much the same way, and it always turns out. What gives?
Mustard is not a "great emulsifier". It does work as an emulsifier, but not as well as other ones. And besides, dumping everything together is always a big risk with emulsions.
You might try whisking it over a pan of simmering water.
Also keep in mind that Dijon mustard contains a good amount of liquid (wine/verjus, sometimes water or vinegar), and the amounts will vary from mustard to mustard. The more liquid in the mustard, the more you need to emulsify with the fat.
You really need to add the oil slowly at first, especially if whisking. You are trying to disperse the fat into tiny droplets suspended in the water phase (the water from the butter and the vinegar). You can't whisk fast or hard enough, especially by hand, to break up 3.7 parts fat in 1.3 parts water when all the fat is trying to combine into a single mass floating on the water, no matter how much mustard you have.
I would have whisked the mustard into the vinegar, then slowly added the butter, then the oil.
I suspect the culprit is the sherry vinegar. Water friendly liquids like alcohol can never form an emulsion with water because of their ability to freely mix.
Sherry vinegar doesn't contain alcohol. And while it is true that alcohol doesn't form an emulsion with water, she is trying to make an emulsion of fat in water, and the vinegar just becomes part of the watery phase of the emulsion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.407529
| 2014-01-22T07:26:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41354",
"authors": [
"CARA",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Needsleep",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98329",
"karmakameleon888",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18831
|
How does "Brownulated" light brown sugar compare with regular light brown sugar?
I'm assuming that the granulated sugar in the bag is easier to work with and won't turn into a hard block. It's also more expensive than the boxed kind. Are there any other differences, e.g. in the taste or texture after baking?
Just add a Brown Sugar Saver and soak it for 5 minutes whenever the sugar starts getting hard. I bought one from the Christmas craft sale for a couple dollars and, bonus, it is shaped like a worm.
Related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3935/how-to-store-brown-sugar-without-it-becoming-hard (you don't have to buy a brown sugar saver)
Your question seems to be conflating the question of bag vs boxed brown sugar with the question of "Brownulated" light brown sugar vs. regular light brown sugar.
Brownulated pours like white sugar, but turns into a paste when it gets damp or wet. I think it tastes funny.
Boxed vs Bag sugar is just a matter of storage and convenience. It's the same sugar.
I have a very sensitive sense of taste and smell. I think the Brownulated sugar has a slight chemical smell and taste to it but no one else in my family can smell or taste the difference. I suspect what I am picking up is some sort of chemical change that occurs during the processing. I won't be buying it again.
Brownulated sugar? Ah! "Brownulated sugar" is a registered trademark and sold in the US only.
From their (Dominos) web page:
This easy-to-measure brown sugar is a cup for cup replacement for
regular light brown sugar. Convenient, great tasting, and easy to use.
So it must taste like ordinary light brown sugar after baking.
http://www.dominosugar.com/sugar/brownulated-sugar
Sorry, I should have included the link. I understand that they market it as a replacement, but I was hoping to hear from someone who's used it to see whether there are any unexpected differences.
I have used it, and there are no differences. It's just more expensive.
There is a very small amount of moisture in brown sugar, and a very small amount of acid in the molasses. I don't know what the chemistry of "brownulated" is exactly.
However, in practical recipes it makes very little difference.
If you measure by weight and not volume, it all becomes nearly moot.
Personally, I weigh all my sugar, using 7-8 oz per cup for volume based recipes. I just poke the brown sugar from its bag into the weighing bowl without trying to well pack it into a cup or anything, until the weight is approximately close to right, then bring the total sugar level up to the recipe level with white sugar.
Most home use recipes are incredibly tolerant of the tiny variation in the amount of moisture. Your personal preference can then dictate light versus dark versus white sugar, or the ratios among them. In most recipes (where the minor acid factor from the molasses on brown sugar isn't playing a factor), the only real issue is the total amount of sugar.
(For purists, yes I know 7-8 oz is a 15% variation--this is well within the tolerance for most recipes. If I think the recipe is written quite carefully, I use 7 oz which is a a better conversion; if I think the recipe is tolerant, or just for the brown sugar part, I might use 8 oz because the bags are usually a multiple of 8 oz.)
When measured in this way, regular brown sugar is just as convenient as "brownulated" would be, and I don't see any point in paying extra.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.407775
| 2011-11-08T16:33:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18831",
"authors": [
"Anil Gogate",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Dan Mellott",
"Kyra",
"Marquez",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Tsai",
"PeterT",
"Pupper",
"firdaus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66497"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18968
|
How to compare the strength of commercial natural vanilla extracts?
Vanilla extracts usually don't give details on the content of vanilla. Only the main ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration.
On the Kirkland brand I saw a figure of 2000ppm naturally occurring vanillin.
So:
How to compare the strength of commercial vanilla extracts?
How can the consumer properly compare prices for different varieties without details on the concentration of vanilla extracts?
Are there differences in intensity of different vanilla bean varieties?
By US law, any "pure" vanilla extract must contain at least 35% alcohol and 13.35 oz vanilla bean per gallon; I'm willing to bet companies do their very best to keep the vanilla concentration to exactly that amount and no more. I have no idea why the Kirkland brand talked about ppm. A "pure" vanilla extract lawfully may contain other things besides vanilla, alcohol, and water (e.g., corn syrup), but the best ones don't -- check the ingredient list.
If, by the way, you search the internet, you can find double- and even triple-strength extracts, but these are not sold in the typical megamart and few recipes call for them, so there is little point for the home cook to worry about them.
Unfortunately, your only choice is a taste test (unless you have access to a highly sophisticated food-chemistry lab).
Yes. Vanilla is grown in a variety of tropical and sub-tropical climates, including Florida and Hawaii, but there are three commercially significant places where vanilla is grown: Tahiti, Mexico, and Madagascar.
Tahitian vanilla is its own variety of plant (vanilla tahitensis); it produces beans with a delicate floral aroma. Many say Tahitian vanilla is the cream of the crop, but it is also the least potent.
Mexican vanilla (vanilla planifolia) makes bean with a potent, sometimes even funky aroma (funky in a good way), which will provide the greatest vanilla bang for the buck. The main problem is finding a reliable supply. Note that some extracts claiming to be of pure vanilla that were made in Mexico have proven to be vanilla-flavored extracts that do not, in fact, contain any vanilla.
Madagascar (also planifolia) produces about 70% of all vanilla imported into the US. It is sometimes called "Bourbon" because the French imported the plant back when they were the colonial masters of Madagascar, then called the Island of Bourbon.
It seems that vanilla tahitensis is actually the same species as vanilla planifolia. I don't remember the source, but I was confused over this a while ago, given that Wikipedia lists vanilla tahitensis as a synonym to vanilla planifolia. I then searched for the source and found some place that stated that the claim that vanilla tahitensis is it's own species has been refuted.
Nice answer. Thanks. Bruce, if you happen to know anything about the "typical" Mexican vanilla, you might expand your answer? When traveling in Mexico, I see that they sell big bottles of "XIAME" brand for pretty cheap (on a per volume basis compared to the tiny grocery store bottles). It tastes authentic to me, but wondered if it's apples-to-apples with the tiny grocery store bottles when used in baking.
Thanks, @Dale. I haven't shopped for vanilla beans in Mexico, just for Mexican vanilla beans imported into the US. It isn't easy to find in local stores, so my usual source is Penzeys Spices (http://www.penzeys.com), which sells the whole beans in 3-packs and 15-packs. The problems come in vanilla extract, which has had many problems. Here is an alert from the US FDA: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm048613.htm.
@Max, it's certainly possible. The naming of species is fraught with fights among experts: When, exactly, are the differences between two plants or animals enough to make them different species? For my purposes, if the literature applies separate latin names, I'm going to treat them as different species and let the geneticists worry about whether I'm right or wrong.
They should do? Commercial vanilla extract is measured by the "fold"
One "fold" is ~13 oz of actual vanilla bean (with less than 25% moisture) crushed and dissolved into a gallon of solution with 35% alcohol
Each multiplier of the quantity of crushed bean means it goes up a "fold". e.g. 52 oz of bean per gallon is "4 fold"
The manufacturer will state the "fold" level on catering packs, on retail packs it will usually be "one fold" unless otherwise stated
There are other vanilla products to try, powder, pastes, whole, and the probably more common "natural flavour", with little or no alcohol. They are hard to compare as they have a different flavour profiles
Compare your typical extract to this Heilala Vanilla
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.408059
| 2011-11-15T15:52:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18968",
"authors": [
"Averageguy",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Chriscc22",
"Dale",
"Dana Elza",
"Human",
"Max",
"Tony G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8431",
"user41908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7738
|
Halva smells like play-dough? a common ingredient?
I tried a Halva (gound sesame and sugar kind of sesame marzipan) of a kind I didn't try before, and I find it smells like Play-dough. My wife says that when she makes Play-dough from flour it also has the 'Play-dough' smell. Could there be a common ingredient to the two? Maybe cream of tartar? Thanks!
Are you sure it was a sesame based Halva? Halva generally falls in to two wide varieties, one flour based and the other nut based. I would assume that the smell of play-dough comes from the flour. So it's possible you had a flour based one.
BTW, it's wikipedia that's defining Tahini as being nut based, I'm not so sure about that classification myself.
Nut-butter-based - which is a valid term IMO. Peanut butter is classified as a "nut butter" even though peanuts are technically not nuts.
yes it was Tahini based (Sesame Seeds), no flour in the ingredient list
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.408538
| 2010-10-01T16:53:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7738",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7542
|
Can I put frozen meat in a slow cooker?
I was wondering if I can put meat directly from the freezer into a slow-cooker. I want to be able to put chicken in the slow-cooker without having to let it defrost for a whole day in the fridge.
It is possible?
If you're going to risk it at all, I'd risk it on beef or lamb. Chicken, fish or shellfish is just asking for trouble.
Per the USDA guidelines, frozen chicken should not be cooked in a slow-cooker or a microwave. It can only safely be cooked in the oven or on the stovetop.
A similar warning is given for beef as well.
Huh... We just put frozen chicken in our crock pot today at lunch on low and cooked all afternoon for supper. We also put roasts (beef and pork) in the morning and let it cook all day for great tasting roasts.
@MikeWills the USDA guidelines are to prevent foodborne illness, not to ensure the tastiness of the food. The issue is that if one starts with frozen ingredients, slow-cookers are unable to quickly heat the contents past the "danger zone" of temperature at which bacteria multiply most rapidly. Even if the food is heated well past the danger zone afterward, thus killing bacteria, tasteless toxins produced by the bacteria will still remain.
This comment is correct, except that you can safely cook chicken, beef, and pork at lower temperatures and achieve pasteurization, the only problem with that is two factors, one even temperature , two time, instant pasteurization temperature for chicken is 165° Fahrenheit, once meat reaches instant pasteurization temperatures it is immediately safe to eat, serious eats has an article on sous vide chicken and how long to cook it at lower temperatures to pasteurize the meat.
According to the makers of Crock-Pot, "Frozen meats: Can be cooked in a slow cooker, however, it is best to use the following guidelines: Add at least 1 cup of warm liquid to the stoneware before placing meat in the stoneware. Do not preheat the slow cooker. Cook recipes containing frozen meats for an additional 4 to 6 hours on Low, or an additional 2 hours on High."
I've done it successfully with smaller amounts of meat, but I once cooked a roast that was probably at least 4 pounds without defrosting it and that did not go very well (nothing terrible, but my husband and I both got a bit sick after eating it).
Between your experience and the USDA guidelines, it seems like the Crock-Pot folks are being pretty irresponsible here, recommending unsafe cooking methods.
http://amath.colorado.edu/~baldwind/sous-vide.html
is your best source for the ways in which meat can be cooked safely at low temperatures. Look at the tables in section 2 to see how long it takes for tender meat to come directly to temperature at various heats, then later tables for time to pasteurization for meat held at various temperatures (for chicken, table 4.7).
I would tend to recommend against whole chickens in the slow cooker because of the large thickness, but just breast or something should be ok as long as you're on a relatively high setting and you leave it in for at least eleven hours.
The sous vide tables are for a relatively small portion of meat in a large amount of water, and that water having enough heating to keep it at temperature. A slow cooker temperature drops substantially from just taking off the lid—much more from putting in frozen meat. They have much smaller heating elements, and no large thermal mass (water) to absorb the shock.
Slow cookers now cook at higher temperatures than the original ones. When I was first married, if I cooked frozen meats in my crockpot, the safety of the meat always seemed questionable and I got sick a time or two. With the slow cookers I have purchased in the last ten years, I have been able to cook frozen meat on high without a problem and even low heat cooks hot. In fact, I have burned food trying to cook foods on keep warm (not recommended by manufacturer).
I am not sure this actually answers the question....
I have cooked frozen chicken breast in the crock pot for years. No one has ever been sick from eating it. I make pulled buffalo chicken for 5 hours on low and then 2 hours on high. I think the important rule to remember is to cook the meat to the recommended USDA temperature for whatever meat you cook.
The ending temperature isn't the only concern. The speed of reaching a safe temperature is another concern.
Crock pot cookbooks says yes. Should be boiling water so can equalize heat. I've cooked both frozen chicken and frozen beef, 9 hours on low. Done for years for large parties and family.
Can you cite what cookbook you are referring to? Especially in light of the accepted answer which states USDA regs...
@lemontwist: Rebekah's answer cites a link to the Crock-Pot manual that says the same thing.
I've edited your answer to remove the stuff about specific recipes; however good they may be, this is a Q&A site, not a recipe-swapping site.
I think the safest way to be sure is to microwave a little first
Is there a reason you believe this? What does the microwave oven offer that the slow cooker doesn't?
The microwave will thaw the meat more quickly, and then you can put the thawed meat in the slow cooker.
USDA guidlines indicate that you should not put frozen meat directly into the crockpot. That being said I have no problems putting frozen london broil into my slowcooker on low for 10+ hours. Makes for an easy no fuss, no thought meal and I have had no ill effects.
Personally I would not be comfortable doing a whole frozen chicken because of how dense they are and how long they take to defrost.
Who do you trust, the US govt, or a person who really cooks?
As long as the pot is covered, and the meat is not previously contaminated, this should be totally safe. Safer than, say, thawing meat in water, then grilling it. Or at least equally safe. There are other factors involved.
To minimize risk, I just thawed the meat in a microwave a little, but not enough for it to begin to brown on the outside. That seems to be a fair compromise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.408666
| 2010-09-23T03:26:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7542",
"authors": [
"Barbara smith",
"BostonJohn",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Meh-B",
"Mien",
"Mike Wills",
"NadjaCS",
"New U Therapy Center",
"Paraparity",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"WarmDemon",
"Wild Secrets New Zealand",
"acassatt9",
"chrisfs",
"derobert",
"elias altenberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99420",
"lemontwist",
"med_oo",
"starsplusplus"
],
"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
}
|
25689
|
What would give Swiss Chard a gritty texture?
I made Swiss chard rolls last night and when we would bite into them there would be this gritty bite once in a while, almost like biting into a small gravel. Swiss chard itself has a gritty texture but this was definitely "stone-like".
When I was washing the Swiss chard leaves, I did notice its texture to be grainy but not to the point of "dirty". Has anyone else encountered this? Do you think I just didn't wash the leaves thoroughly enough? I can't imagine it coming from any of the other ingredients from the recipe. Sure I had some stalk from the Swiss chard, chopped mint, and chopped arugula but it sounded like a stone.
Besides what Laura mentioned, it's pretty common for darker greens (including chard) to be grown in sandy soil ... if it was sand-like, it might've been an issue with cleaning the chard.
The recipe you linked to has lentils in it. Most recipes with lentils tell you to rinse and drain them, and also to pick over them for stones. Lentils are seeds from a plant, and during their harvest, it's not uncommon for small stones to be picked up as well. (Same goes for rice and any type of legume.)
If you didn't check for any small stones before cooking your lentils, your encounter with "stone-like" objects is probably, in fact, due to stones.
Ah thanks. Yes, I should have checked over the lentils.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.409194
| 2012-08-16T15:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25689",
"authors": [
"Aviva",
"Joe",
"Judy",
"Patricia Jennings Braynon",
"Rhea",
"ckpoon.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kGdmioT",
"user17230"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20632
|
What cut of beef is "fillet of beef"?
I usually cook vegetarian dishes because it's easier for me although I'm a huge carnivore. I'm taking a stab at this steak sandwich recipe which calls for "fillet of beef". What does that mean? Which cut (chuck roast, london broil, etc...) can I get? Surely Ina Garten does not mean fillet mignon?
I believe it's another name for the tenderloin. http://www.recipes4us.co.uk/Beef%20Cuts.htm
Also, if you check out this other fillet of beef recipe from the same show:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ina-garten/fillet-of-beef-recipe/index.html
You can see a much better picture of the meat. That one is clearly a tenderloin.
So The Fillet Mignon is part of that technically...
Filet mignon is the smaller end of the of the fillet/tenderloin.
A fillet is steak cut from the tenderloin. If you cut the tenderloin into "medallions" it becomes a fillet (better when wrapped with bacon...but isn't everything) and is ready to be grilled or broiled. If you leave the tenderloin in tact, then it is a 'tenderloin roast' suitable for use in a beef wellington.
For a good lesson on using tenderloin, see Alton Brown's "Tender is the Loin"
A filet is any boneless cut of meat (it's a generic term); usually one of higher quality. You could have a filet, for instance, off the strip loin (a manhattan filet). Typically, however, when someone says "filet", they're referring to the "filet mignon" (literally "small boneless cut of meat"), which is a cut from the front end of a beef tenderloin, a sub-primal cut that crosses the sirloin and short loin.
I believe the Filet of beef is just what it says..not from the tenderloin. It substantially cheaper, it comes from a different part of the cow, just a cut of beef that is wrapped I'm bacon.. the tenderloin is much more tender than the beef filet. I have experienced the wrapped filet of beef and it is much tougher....
Welcome to the site. Please visit the [help] and take a [tour]. On the help pages you will find information about what constitutes a good answer, which is the reason for your downvotes.
"Fillet" is any cut of boneless meat.
It may be spelled "filet" (single "l"), but this spelling varient may imply French cuisine or a specific cut of meat.
"Filet of beef" aka "filet mignon" is cut from the tenderloin.
Are you trying to say that the two different spellings have different meanings?
I don't think that's what he's getting at. I made a proposed edit that adds some punctuation for clarity.
Well, okay. But at this point you might as well have posted your own answer. There's really no way to tell what the original meant besides already knowing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.409356
| 2012-01-20T14:56:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20632",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Frank",
"Kyle",
"M Gossage",
"Preston",
"bob1",
"cpx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79683",
"turoni",
"user45348"
],
"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
}
|
13553
|
Couldn't make pesto in a blender
I was making pesto one day and couldn't find the lid to my food processor. So first I tried mixing it all in a blender. Didn't work, the leaves wouldn't go down to meet the blade. I had this pastey pesto at the bottom and full leaves on top. Transferred it to the magic bullet thinking the blender (it's a really old blender) was just busted. Same thing.
This frustration prompted me to find the food processor lid once and for all. I did and put everything in processor and worked like a charm.
Why can't you make pesto in a blender? What's the difference in the design of a food processor and blender?
You shouldn't make pesto in a blender either. Blending olive oil (which is typically non-optional) tends to get surprising off flavors in due to oxidation.
When I'm forced to make stuff like this in a blender, I will pick the blender up and physically shake the thing around to get the leaves down to the blades. -Probably against several OSHA rules, but this is at home. Once leaves get chopped down, i set the blender down and merely tilt to say 45° in different directions to make sure everything is getting chopped nicely. Food Proc is much easier. You can do that first bit with a Ninja/Magic bullet too. Those are safer than blenders, where the container has a cruddy lid, and the whole top is poorly attached to the base.
You need enough liquid in the blender for it to work; if the leaves get stuck in blender canister, they won't reach the blades to get ground up. It's mostly an issue of width of the container relative to the size of the basil leaves.
I typically make my pesto in a blender rather than a food processor, but I do the following:
Pack a few inches of basil (or other herb) down in the bottom of the blender
Add some oil on top to 'wet' it.
Blend for a second or two 'til it liquifies.
Pack some more basil in there, shoving it down into the liquid, with a few pinches of salt.
Blend again.
Repeat 4&5 until you have all of the basil in there.
Add the nuts & oil until you get the consistency you want.
I pull it at this point, as I get better results freezing it without cheese, and just stir in the grated cheese separately.
I think it depends on the blender. I have a 10 speed blender from the late 60s/early 70s and it works like a charm. I have had great results making pesto in it. My process is similar to the other answer, however, I make several additions of basil leaves and olive oil, a little at a time, alternating with the pine nuts and minced garlic, and add the cheese last. It takes a while for the leaves to chop, so you have to be patient. I also use a spatula to push the leaves down each time I add more (with the blender off, of course!). I start with the blender on the chop setting until all the ingredients have been added, then I use the mix setting to stir it, and then finally the blend setting to finish it off and add extra smoothness. This was the first time I had ever made pesto (I have never used a food processor) and it turned out great. However, I don't know if my results can be replicated with other blenders.
Good point. Mine are likely of a similar vintage (the one I use for pesto is a hand-me-down Oster from my mom, with a plastic jar; I also have a hand-me-down from my grandmother that I need to repair (broke the plastic that covers the buttons))
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.409597
| 2011-03-29T13:13:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13553",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43275
|
How can you tell when a roast is done?
How can you tell when a roast is done? How long should they roast for?
Trying to predict when a roast is done based on time is a very poor method. Many factors can change how long a particular roast takes to cook to your preference, including:
Size and shape of the roast--generally the thickest dimension primarily affects how long it takes
Initial temperature of the roast
What temperature you cook it at
The doneness you are aiming for (most important for beef or lamb)
Furthermore, there are two types of cooking commonly called roasts: pot roasts, which are a more properly a braised dish, and regular roasts. Finally, while not always called roasting, some oven cooked meats which are cooked for a very long time at low temperatures are in fact more similar in their chemistry to braising than to higher temperature roasting.
Short Answer
For braised dishes and low-and-slow barbecue type roasting, you can tell when the cooking is done because the meat is fall-off-the-bone tender.
For all other roasts, the best way to know it is done is to take the internal temperature with a probe or instant read thermometer.
The time guideline in recipes is to help you plan your cooking day logistics, and so that you know approximately how long to wait before checking for doneness. As in all but a few forms of cooking, the recipe times are not the final arbiter.
Pot Roasts and Braising
Pot roasts are cooked with liquid in the roasting pan, typically coming up about 1/3 to 1/2 the height of the meat. This is actually a type of braising, despite sometimes being called a roast dish, and is suitable for tougher cuts of meat like beef chuck, turkey thighs, or leg of lamb.
This is a moist cooking method intended to bring the temperature up high enough, long enough to convert the tough connective tissue to succulent gelatin.
These dishes are always well done. You know they are finished when the meat comes off the bone easily, and (when appropriate) shreds with little effort.
These dishes often braise for 45-60 minutes for dark meat poultry, or for 2-3 hours (or even more) for pork, beef, lamb, goat, and so on.
Low and Slow Roasting
Low and slow roasting, done with oven temperatures of approximately 250-300 F (120-150 C) on tougher meats--typically pork shoulder, beef chuck, brisket, and so on--has the same purpose as braising: it slowly converts the collagen to gelatin to create an unctuous dish. The difference is this roasting is done dry, not in liquid.
The test for doneness is also the same: when the meat comes off the bone easily, and shreds with little effort. The internal temperature will be at least about 180 F (82 C) and as high as 205 F (96 C) but this is not the primary indicator in low-and-slow.
The time to roast is very sensitive to the thickness of the cut, and the temperature at which the roasting is done. The roasting times can be very long, as the heat transfer is not as effective as with braising, up to 12 hours and even more depending on the item.
Regular Roasting
The remainder of this answer will concentrate on regular, high temperature roasting (as opposed to low-and-slow). In general the temperature will be at least 300 F (150 C), but usually 350 F (180 C) or higher.
In regular roasting, there may be a searing period of very high heat at the beginning or end of the roasting period to help brown and crisp the exterior of the cut.
The main indicator for when meat is done roasting is temperature. This is because the highest temperature achieved in the meat indicates how well it is cooked.
How to Measure
To measure the temperature of the roast, use an instant read or probe type thermometer in the thickest part of the meat. Try to aim the probe for the center, without touching bone.
For larger roasts, you want to aim for a measured temperature about 5 degrees F (about 2-3 degrees C) below your final target temperature. This is because the outside of the meat will be much hotter than the inside, and as the roast sits, the temperature will even out, raising the temperature at the center--this is called "carry over cooking."
Some tips:
Take the temperature in several places, and use the lowest one as your result
Leave the thermometer in until the result stops changing--depending on the quality and type of thermometer you have, this could take from 2-10 seconds or so.
What Temperature should I look for?
The temperature you are looking for depends on the type of meat you are cooking.
Red Meat
Red meat, including beef and lamb, can be roasted to different donenesses depending on how you prefer it.
125 F 49 C Rare
130 F 55 C Medium-rare
140 F 60 C Medium
155 F 68 C Medium-well
165 F 74 C Very well done
Poultry
Most people expect most poultry to be thoroughly cooked (with the exception of duck breasts).
White meat should be cooked to about 155 F (68 C). Dark meat should be cooked, depending on your preference to at least 160 F (71 C) to as high as 180 F (82 C). It is far more resistant to overcooking than is white meat.
Note that duck breast is very unique among common types of poultry, in that it is a very heavily worked slow-twitch muscle: it is in fact, dark meat. Many people prefer it cooked medium rare or so. You can use the beef temperature chart above for duck breast.
Pork
Historically, especially in the US, pork has been cooked extremely well done because it was very fatty (which helps it seem moist), and to ensure it was cooked enough to prevent any food-born illness.
With leaner pork on the market, and far, far less risk of food born illness, it is becoming common to roast pork to lower temperatures.
It is safe after about 150 F (65 C), but many people find it more to their preference roasted to 155 or 160 F (68-72 C).
For more information, see:
What makes a moist steak (or roast)?
Can you go into a little more detail?
This is a truly excellent answer, though I'd add one detail in these days when sous vide is becoming increasingly common. Namely: pot roasts/braising and "low and slow" roasting is more frequently done at lower temperatures for longer times. A 180F or greater internal temperature may have been typical for a braise or "low and slow" process in the past for food safety reasons. But with sous vide it is possible to cook large pieces of meat for longer times at a very precise temperature that will maintain safety. The goal, as you mention, is not temp, but tenderness and unctuousness.
If you want your roast or brisket to be fall apart tender, you must break the collagen down completely. Cook slow until internal temperature of meat is at least 195, then take off of the fire or oven. You should then be able to pull it apart with a fork and it taste so much better. Most people think that if you over cook a roast it will be tough, but you have to get the meat past that 165 of so threshold (it seems to stall a bit there). I cooked my last chuck roast for 7 hours on the stove top on a med-low setting and it was perfect.
I have read a lot of answers, but not one answered if your roast was in a roasting bag. For any beef with 2lbs of carrots and 2lbs of cut potatoes, the recipe is 18 to 22 minutes per pound of roast with everything in the bag at 375 degrees. If you have a 2lb roast with 1lb of carrots,1 lb of potatoes, then give it 1 hr and 30 minutes. 3lb of roast 1hr to 2 hrs depending on your oven. That's all if the internal temp is over 180 your good to live another day, and the kids are ok!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.409877
| 2014-04-04T15:28:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43275",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brenda Szuszczewicz",
"Christine Davies",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Spammer",
"Tessaract",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"user3879426",
"zooid"
],
"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
}
|
96421
|
Converting yeast amounts from old recipes
This recipe for poppy seed rolls calls for 1 large yeast. How much yeast am I supposed to use? I usually see recipes measure it in teaspoons, but I can’t guess how much “large” is. I am also assuming this is active dry yeast, maybe it’s not and that’s the reason why the size is weird.
This is short for “1 large cake of yeast.” According to this investigation, cakes of yeast traditionally came in two sizes:
Small, around 3/5 of an ounce
Large, around 2 ounces
This similar recipe gives the substitution “1 large yeast or 3 envelopes dry yeast.”’
I got around to making this over the weekend and the amount of yeast listed here for substitution worked out great!
A typical conversion I know of is to use 1/3 as much dry yeast as fresh yeast. If we take James McLeod's answer, then a "large" yeast should be replaced with roughly 18 g of dry yeast (close enough to 3 envelopes á 7 g) and a "small" yeast cake should be replaced by 0.2 ounces dry yeast, or 5.6 g yeast (most recipes will tolerate a full 7 g envelope).
I grew up in the 80s and 90s with 42 g cubes of fresh yeast, if you have a recipe for one of these, use 14 g dry to replace. Sadly, I don't know of any way to make sure whether a recipe refers to the sizes James McLeod's answer uses, or the 42 g size - you will have to take your best guess based on the time and place the recipe was written down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.410696
| 2019-02-19T02:45:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96421",
"authors": [
"BinaryTox1n",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18052"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35038
|
Sauce in a sealed jar smells off, has it gone bad?
I just finished eating a lasagne that I cooked for my family with a glass jar of tomato with ricotta, I have to say my family was not impressed. I went back to check the jar and it did not smell good, at first I thought this was just a natural ricotta smell but now I think it was off!
The jar was sealed and with another year to go before expiry so I am wondering if I have cooked with off ricotta or not?
If it smelled bad, it likely was bad. Nothing you can do about it now except hope no one comes down with food poisoning.
Apart from some indigestion I think we are okay. Next time I will trust my nose more. Can you make your comment an answer and I will accept it.
It is far more likely that the ricotta has gone bad. If your nose picks up off smells, you should generally trust it. The best time to take a sniff is right when you pop the jar open. We change ricotta's water everyday and try to finish it within a couple of days. I've also seen many freshly openned ricotta (well inside the expiry date) that had gone bad, and didn't look bad.
Another thing you can do when you cook for others is to taste your food in small samples along the way. That way you get feedback and don't surprise yourself (or others). Use two spoons (one to pull food sample and dollop on the second spoon that you taste). That way you don't contaminate the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.410829
| 2013-07-01T08:38:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35038",
"authors": [
"Conway",
"ElendilTheTall",
"George",
"Kanika",
"Mackija",
"Onedawoman7",
"daddys girl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81933",
"james82345",
"logesh0504"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42802
|
coffee from seeds of dates
I once heard that it is possible to make coffee from seeds of dates.
I heard that you have to bake them in a low temperature.
So, I took seeds of dates, baked them in the oven in 100 degrees celsius for about an hour, and then tried to grind them.
The blades of the grinding machine broke.
Before I try again, I would like your seasoned advice: how can I make coffee from seeds of dates?
How can I know in advance that the seeds are soft enough for grinding?
100 on what scale? In either case, it isn't really hot enough toast or roast them if that is what you were trying to do.
100 celsius. How hot should it be?
I can't find any info on roasting date seeds, but coffee is usually roasted from about 200-250C.
Heres a video on making date seed coffee. Didn't come out very well though.
http://youtu.be/N5yCuLfZez4
Thanks for the detailed explanation! My roasted date seeds also tasted like charcoal...
Aehm, link-only answers are nor exactly a good idea: what happens if the link goes bad? Could you please at least add the crucial points in your answer?
Handbook of Indices of Food Quality and Authenticity p474:
The most important coffe substitute is undoubtedly chicory
...
Chicory itself is reportedly adulterated by roasted beetroot
...
Barley, malt, rye have been used...
Seeds which have been used include chickpeas, peanuts, soybeans, other beans
...
Date seeds contain less extractives than coffee...
All are roasted somehow.
Coffee: Related Beverages gives some roasting directions, but I don't immediately see a protocol for date seeds.
Roasted Kentucky Coffee Tree seeds are even still used occasionally.
If I wanted to grind date seeds, I'd smash them with a hammer first. Many seeds are unbelievably tough until broken.
Date Seed Coffee is in deed a great coffee substitute - if you know how to make it :-)
It's nutritious and tasty.
However, if you 'roast' the date seed too fast you are likely to get exactly what you got namely charcoal - which is I guess good for Date Seed Barbecue Sauce :-)
You need to keep it on low fire for a very very very long time (until it turns earth brown) - towards the end give it a nice firing up. Use blades for dry food (shorter) and not liquid.
Alternatively, you could purchase Date Seed Coffee direct from on-line vendors such as http://dateseedcoffee.com
It is interesting to note that some do add a tiny amount of actual coffee to the Date Seed Coffee in order to give a note of the ground coffee we are all accustomed to.
Could you give a bit more detail? "low fire for a very very very long time... towards the end give it a nice firing up" isn't nearly enough to allow anyone to reproduce the technique.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.411094
| 2014-03-16T19:18:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42802",
"authors": [
"Buster",
"David Richerby",
"Erel Segal Halevi",
"Loretta Birnie",
"Prem Gandhi",
"Rusti Becker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"dragon_agnety",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"renyuneyun"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45894
|
Re-processing pickles
I'm all set to make pickles (intending to hot-water can them for shelf-stable pickles) and I realize I don't have any more jars, so I'm making the brine and putting the whole batch in the fridge. I plan to buy more jars and do the processing next weekend. When I do this, should I make fresh brine so I can boil it before adding the pickles? Or can I heat the whole thing as-is before processing?
Process according to the recipe:
Salt cucumbers to dehydrate
Heat vinegar, add sugar to dissolve, add seasonings
Boil mixture
Add cucumbers, heat until heated through
Jar and process
What I did:
Salt cucumbers to dehydrate
Heat vinegar, add sugar to dissolve, add seasonings
Combine cucumbers and brine. Refridgerate
What I plan to do once I have jars:
Heat brine (with or without cucumbers?)
Jar and process
Rather than heat the pickles, I think your better alternative would be to strain the pickles into a pot, boil that, then pour it back over the pickles. (so you don't end up over-cooking the items being pickled)
@Joe I added the steps the recipe wanted me to take, it had me heat the cucumbers but I have not thus far
Are these whole pickles or pieces (chips/spears)? If whole, what type... kirby's (thin skin, not waxed)?
I make refrigerator pickles once every month or so. I usually add the hot brine, screw on the lid, and let set until almost room temp - then put in the fridge.
They may just turn out ok after sitting two or three days longer than you'd normally let them before eating.
Slices of... Pickling cucumbers? They're from my CSA box.
Reheating/simmering after adding the slices to the brine will make the pickling cucumbers (kirby's I'm guessing) a bit softer. I do this with bread and butter pickles. I don't simmer for dill, which (in my experience) results in a crisper product. That said, the dills need to sit longer in the brine.
I still think that your pickles will turn out ok, albeit a bit crisper (they also need to sit for a couple days longer).
Absent the jarring and processing (step 4 and 5), the shelf life may be shorter.
I have stored and used pickling liquids in the frige for up to 10 days, and it has been fine.
The guys here
http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/food/food_safety/preservation/hgic3101.html
(Second question down)
State that it is fine as long as you have not used the brine, but to throw if any mould growth occurs (which I think we all probably might do!)
I hope this helps
I've got the cucumber in the brine already, does that change anything?
My honest answer is I don't know, but as cucumbers are heavy on water I expect they should be ok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.411343
| 2014-07-26T19:29:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45894",
"authors": [
"Duca",
"Joe",
"Julius Hamilton",
"Kelly Gonzales",
"Lottie Adams",
"Martin Jevon",
"Michael E.",
"Vaccaro Investigations",
"Yamikuronue",
"Yvonne Faaatuatu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"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
}
|
45474
|
Does cutting meat into pieces make it go bad faster?
Assuming I buy some chicken thighs, and it would be fine in the fridge for a few days until I'm ready to cook it, if I cut the thighs into pieces and mix with some veggies put into a separate container from the cut-up veggies (thanks @Joe), would the raw stir-fry mix (in a tupperware in the fridge) keep the same amount of time? Or would the increased surface area make it go bad faster? Does the answer change if it's beef or pork?
It's one thing to cut up the meat early -- I'll do it in the morning and give it a marinade in soy sauce (in that case, the salt is a preservative), but don't mix it with the vegetables, as you don't need to cook them the same amount of time. (you'd now have to cook the vegetables fully through, as they're contaminated by meat juices)
@Joe Oh, thanks, good point. I'll amend my question to keep them separate then
Yes, as you said, the increased surface area makes it go bad faster.
Not only that, but bacteria on top of the meat can now go to the middle with little resistance.
Consider the expiration date of ground beef and whole beef slabs.
Pork tends to go bad faster than beef, and freshly butchered pig smells of feces (especially right beneath the skin), but they still go bad faster.
@ElendilTheTall, the expletive you removed was meant as a literal statement. Not as a swear word.
As Yamikuronue shows, there are alternatives to the word that can't be construed as a swear word at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.411585
| 2014-07-11T11:50:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45474",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Haakon Løtveit",
"Joe",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"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
}
|
5577
|
What is the correct way to cook thin rice noodles for Vietnamese dishes?
I like to make Vietnamese bun (rice noodle bowl) at home, but my noodles never seem to have quite the same texture as at my favorite restaurants. I boil water, turn it off, and then add the noodles and soak them for about ten minutes, then rinse in cold water. Is there a trick to getting that perfect consistency where they are quite soft but still retain an individual bite?
I never boil rice noodles. Just soak them in cold water for about an hour.
Ten minutes is way too long. You can either prepare them cold as Bob explains, or hot, but no more than 2-3 mins in near boiling water.
The trick is, soak them in very hot (not boiling) water for five minutes then refresh them under cold water to stop the softening process, then run a little hot water over them and leave them to drain on a coarse bamboo mat or strainer for at least half an hour until they are dry to the touch. You could even put them under a fan to help excess water evaporate.
Pre-soak the rice noodles in cold water for as long as you can, but at least 10 minutes. Then add them directly to hot broth and serve or into boiling water for about 2 minutes then drain to use.
The trick is that they're never in the hot water for very long because they'll get mushy remarkably quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.411741
| 2010-08-19T20:27:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5577",
"authors": [
"Aram Boyajyan",
"ForeverDebugging",
"Justin Nathanael Waters",
"Rambomst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11204",
"payal",
"rrhartjr"
],
"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
}
|
29613
|
What is a 'dough spatula'?
I got a new baking book for Christmas; in it, I found the following sentence:
[To bake this bread] you will need the following kitchen tools: a digital scale for metric measures, a small scoop for flour, a thermometer, a wide bowl for mixing, a rubber spatula, a dough spatula, and a bench knife
(emphasis mine)
What is a dough spatula and how does it differ from a rubber spatula? What do I look for when I go to the store? Google shows me many products, all of which look entirely different from one another.
ETA: The first mention I see of it indicates I use it to... clean my hands? "Use a dough spatula to clean the clumps [of flour and water] off your hands and tidy the inside of the bowl"
There's not much remarkable about any of the "dough spatulas" I saw online that would enable you to do something you couldn't do with either a bench knife (also called a bench scraper since it typically is useful for cleaning up your work area) and a spatula or wooden spoon. I wouldn't worry about it.
Many cookbooks (admittedly, not all), will have some instroductory parts at the beginning, where they talk about things like ingredients or equipment that might not be as well known ... and important things that apply to the recipes but don't specifically state in each one, such as how they measure their flour.
My first thoughts are this which is actually a scraper but I wouldn't use a metal scraper in a bowl. Being flexible plastic, it flexes and molds itself to the inside of a bowl and allows easy removal of dough.
+1 This is what I thought it referred to as well. I use mine constantly.
This is correct and it is much better, quicker and more efficient at getting dough (Any dough) out of the mixing bowl. It allows much better control and leverage than a rubber spatula. They are an essential tool in most if not all professional bakery's.
Hmmm. Given that the cookbook calls for both a "dough spatula" and a "bench knife," I suspect that the book is referring to what I would call a "spatula" and a "dough scraper." I suspect they're using the term "dough spatula" to differentiate between the spatula one would use to flip a pancake from the spatula that one would use to stir cake batter. King Arthur flour offers a good example of the latter:
I wouldn't call it essential, but I do often use this kind of spatula when I'm making bread dough. It's really most useful for scraping down the side of my stand mixer bowl and extracting the finished dough from the mixer's bowl. In both cases, a plastic pastry scraper would work just as well but the spatula has the advantage of keeping your hands safely out of the mixer while the dough hook is still attached.
Of course, if you're kneading by hand, then this kind of spatula is minimally useful.
That picture matches what I would call "a rubber spatula" which the recipe also wants you to have handy.
You are quoting from the Tartine Bread book (I have it also) and the dough spatula is much different than a bench scraper. It is the flat white device pictured in the first answer. It is shown on p. 51 of the Tartine book.
I have another handled spatula that I use to stir the initial mixture of flour and leaven and water, and only get in with my clean bare hands when it's time to mix in the salt and prepare for the first bulk rise.
The dough spatula makes scraping the sides of the mixing bowl much easier.
I've been baking bread for about 15 years. In all that time, I can say without a doubt that I've never heard of anything called a "dough spatula".
If you include the directions that discuss its usage, I might be able to figure it out. I suspect it's just a bowl scraper.
Dough scraper:
Dough whisk:
But dough spatula? What on earth?
The first mention I see of it indicates I use it to... clean my hands? "Use a dough spatula to clean the clumps [of flour and water] off your hands and tidy the inside of the bowl"
Then that means a "bowl spatula" is what most people call a "bowl scraper" (http://www.ternent.com/recipes/bowl-scraper). They sell bowl scrapers that have handles too (like so: http://www.coppergifts.com/cookie-cutters/pc/catalog/p/bowl-scraper-spatula-cg2-p5465.jpg), so I can see why someone would call them "spatulas", but most of them do not have handles. You use them to scrap dough off the sides of the bowl (like so: http://www.chefdepot.net/graphics24/bowl_scraper.jpg). I suppose you can use one to scrap dough off of your hands as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.411906
| 2012-12-31T18:32:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29613",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Alexander Maryukhin",
"Avihay Eyal",
"Christian Johansen",
"Deborah Smith",
"Framunda Mabalz",
"Frank AK",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kim Barbour",
"Marilena Fornengo",
"Sobachatina",
"Thomas",
"Yamikuronue",
"cheri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76048",
"user68963"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96216
|
What makes cake a Sponge Cake? And what doesn't?
I've been watching the Great British baking show and they refer to basically every cake as a sponge. I live in the USA and grew up in Australia. We just called cake, cake.
I know how to make a victoria sponge, and a genoise and neither of these methods required you to cream butter and sugar as the step 1.
So would you say that a cake that requires you to cream butter and sugar for the first step is NOT a sponge?
I also have heard the terms foam method and creaming method...Does using one of these methods define what cake you have made ie. sponge or not?
Sorry for the long winded question!!! I just want some clarification as what is a sponge and what isn't.
Your family may be like mine, where the amount of time spent creaming butter and sugar slowly reduced over the years, in some cases down to zero... (Although when I take the time to do all the fiddly steps, it's usually worth it.)
One thing to note - often when the judges are examining a cake, they use the word "sponge" to refer specifically to the texture of the item being judged. Paul might say "good sponge" as a shortening of "it has a good sponge texture", rather than a shortening of "this is a good sponge". This is a difference in idiomatic shortening of phrases between British and American English.
having feet and eyes probably doesn't make something a sponge cake ;)
You are asking for a firm definition where none exists.
Baking is not mathematics, and it does not have a heap of literature where everybody has formally agreed to use the same terminology. Thus classification of baking goods is done into intuitive categories. This means it doesn't work by strictly defining where the border of a category lies (everything that has feature X is a member of the category "sponge cake", and everything that doesn't have feature X is not a member). Rather, it works by defining a center of the category, or a prototype for what a sponge cake should be like. The more a cake reminds one of the prototypical sponge cake, the more likely it is that this person will consider it to belong into the category of sponge cakes. And through social interaction, people will partly synchronize their ideas of what is considered "prototypical", and how close is "close enough" to still be considered part of the category.
WIth that in mind, the best answer that can be given is to describe what a prototypical sponge cake is like. It has a specific texture, not that much different from other things called a "sponge", such as contemporary plastic sponges for dishwashing. It is basically a firmed-up foam, with many small, regular holes inside. It has a characteristic elasticity - not as brittle as a meringue, but not as soft as a marshmallow, it is rather in the middle of these two cooking extremes. It also has a characteristic type of being "moist" - it is not as dry as a baguette, but also not super moist like a brownie. It is chemically leavened, somewhat sweet, and vanilla flavored. (While there are variants like "chocolate sponge", they are not the category prototype). It is not noticeably oily in the mouth the way a chiffon cake can be.
There is a chef named Ruhlmann who has tried to standardize some recipe types by giving a basic formula for creating a prototypical dish of each type. The book is called "Ratio", because the formulas are represented as the ratio of the ingredients used. For sponge cake, he gives a ratio of 1:1:1:1 flour:eggs:butter:sugar, and he requires that the cake uses the creaming method. A cake created with the same ratio, but using the muffin method, is given in the book as "pound cake".
Following this ratio indeed produces a cake whose qualities are very close to what most people would call a prototypical sponge cake (with some cultural differences - I think that traditionally German and Austrian "bisquitboeden" are ligher on fat but else they are used interchangeably with Anglosaxon sponges). Making his pound cake (by mixing the same ingredients without creaming) results in a cake with a different, heavier texture with less regular holes. However, this does not preclude other recipes from creating a cake with a typical "sponge" texture without making use of a creaming method, or even from people finding the difference so insignificant that they would consider Ruhlman's pound cake to be a sponge cake too.
So, it is not about any specific method, or ingredient, or ratio. It is about whether people who eat it will agree that they associate it with the term, based on whatever triggers their feeling of similarity.
That ratio seems like a lot of egg, whether by weight or volume, but I suppose the prototype could be eggier than the ones that are common these days
In Hungary it's common to only do 1:1:1 of flour, eggs and sugar, so effectively completely skipping on the butter or other fats
I was taught similar, that specifically when the eggs are beaten, often separated, but always to the point of being ribbon texture and fluffy and act as both a binding agent and the actual body of the cake it is a sponge. And yet, I have know professional bakers who scoff at this and will even call a box cake mix a sponge, I might be snobbish in my definition, they may be wrong, but the definition seems to be very fluid with some people wanting it more strict and others using it very liberally.
I don't think the term "pound cake" has much usage in the UK, except as a foreign loan word. Looking at the pictures on the Wiki page, as a Brit I would say that it is not so much a "cake" as a recipe for the base ingredients of a style of cake. You can certainly add something to it to get a British-style ginger cake, carrot cake, fruit cake, treacle cake, etc, etc, - but on its own it looks about as interesting as eating a slice of plain bread with nothing else, as compared with a sandwich!
Part of the issue I see is how one pictures the quintessential sponge also varies by region, what I picture when I hear sponge cake is somewhat different to what was described above. It might be worth mentioning that.
@Alephzero pound cake is rarely eaten on its own, it is usually iced to make a torte. English just doesn,t have different words for the baked batter that is part of a torte (like German Tortenboden) and the non-torte cake eaten on its own (like German Kuchen). Pound cake gets eaten on its own, if at least a bit of other flavor is added, for example as marble cake or lemon cake or apple cake.
@Vanity yes, there certainly are differences by region. I want aware that the differences between English staying this are very large I read the other answered.
As an English person who moved to the USA as an adult. I thought I might give my side of what I have seen here to explain the difference in wording. Firstly I would highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on this as it includes a discussion of why "pound cakes" and other similar cakes are considered sponge cake in the UK but "foam cakes" are in fact not, while the situation is largely reversed in the USA.
British Cakes
In my experience in the UK, cakes encompass a similar but significantly different set of foods then they do in the USA. These include far denser baked goods than would normally be considered cakey in the USA. This includes rich fruit cake, eccles cake, welsh cake and various other heavy, rich or chewy baked goods. In general it feels to me that cake is more about the role the cake fills in a meal than it's specific texture. Sponge cakes are light and spongey compared to most of the other things called cakes so the term is still appropriate, and helps distinguish these lighter cakes from other cakes.
American Cakes
Since coming to the US I have noticed that the range of goods people assume to be cake tends to be much more on the lighter fluffy side, including angel food cake, chiffon cake, but also includes things like funnel cake, which does not seem intuitively cakey to my British palette. It feels like cake in the USA depends much more on the texture, with most cakes being much lighter, fluffier affairs, with denser or more chewy cakes being the exception that requires specific calling out.
Sponge Cake
So, down to the actual question. The British definition of sponge cake, I think comes down to the typical style of the lighter end of cakes in the UK, which are mostly pound cake like, cakes which one would often eat with tea or coffee, including Victoria sponge, Batternberg cake, etc. The style of very light fluffy cakes common in the USA seems to be a much more modern trend in the UK so are not what one would jump to when thinking of sponge.
Conversely sponge cake in the USA occupies a different space, though shares the fact it describes cakes on the lighter, fluffier end of the spectrum of typical cakes in the USA. Comparatively pound cake and other batter cakes are actually fairly heavy on the spectrum of common cakes in the USA (excluding celebration, wedding and birthday cakes). I also noted that batter style cakes seem somewhat less common in general in the US, and are often seen as antiquated or old fashioned.
TLDR
In summary, I believe the term "Sponge Cake" has entirely different origins in the UK and USA, with the definition being just similar enough to be confusing. The spectrum of cakes available is generally very different between the two countries as well as what is a cake at all.
Basically, to make things simple, consider "American Sponge Cake" and "British Sponge Cake" to have different meanings, and avoid conflating the two, as trying to combine the two definitions results in a helplessly vague term with little agreement on what it means.
General Note
Very many terms in British and American cooking vary, dumplings, biscuits and many other things with the same name are totally different foods, roasting, baking, grilling and broiling seem to have significantly different meanings. In essence try not to assume a food, cooking method or other cooking related term means the same thing in a UK or USA context. This is very often mistaken and in fact the similarity of language and words is often a false friend, misleading one to assume the same words likely have the same meaning where they do not.
@rumtscho has a great answer for what a sponge cake actually, technically is, but I don't think they've answered your underlying question.
As I understand it, "sponge" is British-English (slang?) for any kind of cake, whether the cake in question is technically a sponge cake or not. I've also watched a lot of Bake Off, and you rarely even hear them use the word "cake"-- everything is "sponge."
So in the context of watching the show, when you ask
what's the difference between cake and sponge, and how can I tell?
the answer is
they're the same thing.
They must not make fruit cake, cheesecake, or many of the richer chocolate cakes then, because no one would call those sponges. (Fruit sponge is something different)
@ChrisH I mean... do you call fruit cake or cheesecake just... "cake"? Because I don't, and I haven't noticed them doing it either.
@senschen Not cheesecake, but "cake" could be a sponge, a fruit cake, a Christmas cake, gateau or more besides.
@dbmag9 Right, but would you call any of that just "a cake"? My point was that anywhere I (as an american) would just say "cake" in British-English I have heard them just use "sponge" instead. I've never heard anyone refer to a fruit cake, cheesecake, etc as just a sponge, they say "cheesecake".
Fruit cake could definitely just be cake cheesecake is pushing it I admit, but brownies, or even Chelsea buns (made from a yeast dough) could be called cake. Example: "What sort of cake would you like?" "I'll have fruit cake" "Victoria Sandwich for me, they make a really good sponge here". In some cases they use "sponge" to refer to the baked part of the cake, excluding embellishments like icing. (British English here)
That's very interesting, I was never aware of this difference in BE/AE usage. The discussion in comments is an interesting continuation of my point - it seems that the BE category of "sponge" is much wider than the AE category of "sponge cake", but from Chirs H's comments, it doesn't cover everything that a Brit would call "a cake":
British English speaker here. There are plenty of things that I would call "cake" (and might, sometimes, call "cake" without any qualifier like "Christmas" or "fruit") and would not call "sponge". Now, perhaps American English uses "cake" much more narrowly, to cover only things that we'd call "sponge" here, but within British English there certainly is a difference between "cake" and "sponge", and it certainly isn't true that "they're the same thing".
A few examples from some notably British books. "British Baking" by Peyton & Byrne: "This scrumptious cake is made in a single tin ..." describing a dense chocolate cake made with ground almonds and no flour. "Paul Hollywood's British Baking": "the black treacle adds lots of flavour and tricks you into thinking the cake contains ginger" describing a gingerbread. "Delia Smith's Complete Cookery Course": "Now leave the cake for 24 hours for the icing to dry" describing a Christmas cake. None of these could possibly be called a "sponge". All called "a cake" or "the cake".
@GarethMcCaughan American usage is broader; most cakes could be called simply "cake" with no qualifier.
Sponge cake is the "raw" cake without any other flavors or icing or any decorations. Baking cake is always made of vanilla and chocolate flavor. Apart from this 'Cake' is everything you can think of.
I suspect there are some regional distinctions in definitions. While I know of Sponge (or Angel Food) Cake and (regular) Cake, I've never heard of any cake referred to as "Baking Cake". I'm from the US East Coast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.412305
| 2019-02-08T17:08:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96216",
"authors": [
"AmagicalFishy",
"Carl",
"Chris H",
"Gareth McCaughan",
"SztupY",
"Vality",
"alephzero",
"dbmag9",
"dennisdeems",
"dlb",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72751",
"rumtscho",
"senschen",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97229
|
What is the right kind of syphon to use for fish batter?
[See below re possible dup]
I've seen recipes for fish and chips call for the use of a CO2 syphon for the batter (looking at you, Heston!). So I'm looking to buy a syphon (I don't have one yet).
I haven't seen explicit comments in any of the recipes as to whether it should be a "soda syphon" or a "cream whipper" but they are explicit about use of CO2.
Most of the product web pages suggest CO2 & N2O aren't interchangeable. I'm not sure if thats due to physical limitations of the devices, or just in the interest of avoiding funny tasting whipped cream or weird looking "soda"!
Soda syphons seem to be a lot cheaper, but I'm doubtful if they would handle fish batter well - presumably they are designed for less viscous liquids like water.
Can one use CO2 cartridges in 'cream whipper' syphons? They latter would seem better suited to the texture of the batter.
I understand (slightly, anyway) the various issues around taste / texture etc between CO2 and N2O; but have no idea if the cartridges are physically compatible, or if there are critical pressure differences.
This was flagged as possible dup of question about interchangeability of CO2 and N2O cartridges. I don't think it is. As one of the comments here says, I have specifc use in mind.
I had looked at that question and, unless I misread it, the answers are mainly about the chemistry, as it were, and not the mechanics of the syphons. They seem to imply that the cartridges are (often) interchangeable; but many of the product web sites say specifically to use one type or the other, but they don't make it clear if that to do with the device or the recipe, as it were.
(Sorry for long explanation here; If I were able to comment on others' questions Id put the comment on the other post).
Possible duplicate of Are N2O and CO2 chargers interchangeable for culinary purposes?
Hi RFlack, and welcome! As you have been on SO, you know that the network is strict about the kind of question it takes. I find your main question fully suited for the site, but have to tell you we don't do brand recommendations or big-lists of other possible uses. So I removed those parts, but I really hope we will get good answers to the syphon type question.
@GdD To me, it doesn't look like a duplicate. That one is about general syphon use. In this question, the OP asks the right type for a specific use case.
No it’s not a duplicate, to me anyway. I now see a box inviting me to state that but I need to edit Qu to clarify the difference but I thought I’d done that already! Last three paras.
(Sticking my neck out here...). Looking at the answers to the linked Qu - do they actually answer the question? They cover the chemistry quite well. But not the mechanics. For example if one type of charger is at much higher pressure than the other, interchanging could be dangerous if the syphon is flimsy. I can’t post commentbthere yet.
Get an ISI whipper (no affiliation), the model that can take both hot and cold. It accepts CO2 or N2O. They have multiple safety controls built in, are versatile (especially given your interest in Heston), come in multiple sizes, and are relatively easy to clean.
I think I know the model you are suggesting. That's towards the upper end of my price range ($190 Can on Amazon). Over time, the difference is immaterial, but I don't yet know if this will be one of those gadgets that gets used for 3 months and then languishes at the back of the drawer. Is there a lower price alternative, in say the $50 - $100 Can range? Unless the advice here says otherwise, I;d be inclined to forgo ability to use hot liquids, if that helps.
@RFlack there are other brands at different price points. ISI is tops. If you are going to use modernist techniques, as exemplified by Heston, you will likely face hot and cold applications. It is a bit expensive, but I've had mine for many years...if that helps...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.413420
| 2019-04-02T05:40:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97229",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"RFlack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59788
|
Other things made from Banana nut bread
I have 2 loaves of banana nut bread that are not quite baked completely(they are very dense with lots of banana). What other things could I make with them as I refuse to waste food??
I'd just try to cut into thin slices, then re-bake or toast in a toaster oven. (I do this with freshly-baked or slightly-stale banana bread also.) Are they so under-baked as to be completely inedible?
You can make pretty much any bread-like substance into french toast (slice the bread, dip or soak in eggs mixed with a little milk, then shallow-fry in your choice of fat) or bread pudding (cube the bread, if necessary spread it out to dry and/or toast it, pile it in a baking pan, cover in a milk + egg + sweetening mixture, bake). Heck, if you're feeling really decadent (or you can't make up your mind), you can make french toast bread pudding: fry the bread, then make it into bread pudding.
Would make awesome bread pudding.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.413765
| 2015-08-10T23:35:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59788",
"authors": [
"Anna Bishop",
"Danny Ambriz",
"Maree Noble",
"Pat Walmsley",
"Sue Wissinger",
"dave neal",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88673
|
What is this slimy coloured stuff growing in my plates?
Recently, I observed that there is some brown slimy stuff on the underside of my plates. I don't know what they are or how they form. I tried removing it with a tooth pick, but was too hard to come off. Does anyone know what this is? How can it be cleaned?
What are the plates used for? Are they aluminum? How do you wash them?
thanks.. these are only the plates that i use everyday for lunch and dinner..I wash them by hand with a dish liquid.But, i don't use these plates on stove top or for cooking. Are these deposits harmful? So worried
My first guess is oil deposits that have hardened through oxidation. Especially the highly unsaturated oils are prone to oxidation, which will after a while lead to insoluble deposits (like in the original oil paints, where the linseed oil polymerises after prolonged contact with air). It's hard to remove as it's not brittle, and deforms rather than breaking, like an oil varnish.
(are those items you show plates, or pan covers/lids?)
It doesn't look like any kind of mold.
thanks.. these are only the plates that i use everyday for lunch and dinner..I wash them by hand with a dish liquid.But, i don't use these plates on stove top or for cooking. Are these deposits harmful? So worried
The good news - that is on the under side of the plate, so even if toxic, it shouldn't touch your food. Bad news - that rolled edge holds moisture and grime and there's no way to clean inside of it.
Since you wash them so often, that rolled edge probably always has some moisture in it which can cause mildew to grow or cause the plate to corrode. Mildew is normally softer and should scrape away. If the deposits are very hard and resist scraping with something harder than a toothpick, it could be corrosion of the metal (rust, oxidation, etc).
Honestly, I would try to get plates that do not have a rolled lip like those. They will always be hard to clean and less than sanitary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.413904
| 2018-03-27T15:01:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88673",
"authors": [
"JPhi1618",
"Sahoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65268"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11238
|
What can I do with shredded wheat shreds?
At the bottom of the box of shredded wheat squares, there's quite a bit of 'loose' shredded wheat; it used to be in cereal form and is now just loose.
What interesting recipes or dish modifications can you suggest?
One idea was a sort of crisp/struedel topping, (mix with butter and bake on top of a fruit dessert)
There's a middle-eastern dish called Kataife that uses loose shredded wheat rehydrated with sugar, walnuts, cinnamon and a few other things. My grandma makes it and it is fantastic.
Interesting proposition. Normally, this dish is made with a kind of dry baked noodles created specifically for this purpose, but I guess this variation can work too.
I have to say I haven't done this since i was about 10 but when I was a child I used to make chocolate nests out of them.
Most cereals can be done up in this way, the most common being the ubiquitous rice krispie cakes, and corn flake cakes. But the shredded wheat version looks the most nest like by far.
At school we had rice crispy cakes made from a soft toffee/caramel that would be good to experiment with too, the only recipes I've found since have marshmallow which isn't quite the same
You could also use them in place of bread crumbs when, for example, coating chicken breasts.
You could also use them in muffins.
There's a whole list of shredded wheat recipes here and here.
One option would be to use as an ingredient in bread. Nova Scotia Brown Bread utilizes molasses, shortening, and in some recipes that I've seen, shredded wheat. For example, you could use the equivalent of two pieces in this recipe.
I use the unsweetened crumbs in my meatloaf.
With a little planning you can add it to most brownie mixes with great results. You might have to add an extra egg and some milk to the mixture and bake it a little longer, but that's a heck of a lot easier than trying to make something from scratch. I made some brownies with about two or three cups of crumbs, took them to work the next day and everybody loved them. Not only did the shredded wheat crumbs increase the volume of the mix, it also gave it a little more texture, sort of like a coconut mixture.
If you have the cinnamon shredded wheat left over, you could use it on french toast right after you dip the bread in the egg/milk mixture, and before you put it in the pan.
Another way to recycle it is to make a snack dessert with walnuts, loose cinnamon shredded wheat, cocoa, and peanut butter. Mix it all up and add powder sugar at the end (Shake it in a bag is easiest. Just like you would make puppy chow- a common sweet snack.)
I like to use it as crust on some desserts like pudding or cheesecake.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please don't add "thanks" as answers. Invest some time in the site and you will gain sufficient privileges to upvote answers you like, which is the Seasoned Advice way of saying thank you.
Indeed, no need to say thanks in answers - but the rest of this is still an answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.414105
| 2011-01-19T15:37:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11238",
"authors": [
"Adam Lee",
"Adri Van Coller",
"Angel",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Donna",
"Eingalf",
"House Clearance Hampstead Ltd",
"Maureen",
"Orbling",
"Radha Venkat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84336",
"karen246",
"rumtscho",
"user23050",
"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
}
|
12490
|
How Can I Tell If Meat Has Been Brined?
My wife and I were eating some rotisserie chicken the other night and she commented something to the effect of "I think they brined this because I can taste the seasoning pretty deep in the meat."
I she probably right? Is there a surefire way to tell if what you're eating has been brined? Perhaps by telltale marks or coloring?
Shouldn't it taste a lot saltier?
Actually, this question is also useful before cooking -- if you had a pre-salted (eg, kosher) bird, it'd be pointless to brine it ... I don't know if you could over-brine it. (I don't think so, unless the solution was too salty, but I coul be wrong)
Interesting (brief) article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/may/28/foodanddrink.shopping3 . I don't know enough about brining but perhaps they hadn't washed the bird as well as they could.
Maybe the bird had been injected with marinade? I don't know the correct term for it, but I know you can get syringes that you fill with marinade and use to inject marinade deep into the meat. For industrial purposes I am sure they have machines for it.
@Henrik - a plausible guess, but I didn't see any puncture marks. Are you talking about smalling needles?
@Chad - I have no idea how the industrial machines work, but this method is often used to inject brine into the meat with the specific purpose of selling more water and less meat. For this reason it seems likely that they would try and hide it from the consumer by making the needles as small as possible.
@Henrik - Ah, true. Thanks for the info. Well, we bought it from a "Chicken Man" cart here in Germany. At the stand, you pay the same amount for every chicken. So, if anyone is directly paying extra for water weight rather than meat weight, it would be the stand owner.
Empirically, you could use a salinity meter-- one that is made for checking salt water fish tanks. The only other thing I can think of that would drive seasoning into the meat would be cooking in a pressure cooker. I believe some grocery stores employ such a method on chicken before finishing in a rotisserie. Certain fried chicken chains also deep-fry in a pressure vessel which could yield similar results.
pressure cookers in fried chicken are to create a certain skin profile and fat structure, it doesn't drive the seasoning into the meat. Brining is based around a cells osmosis which is why it actually moves the salt deep into the meat.
Injection, which is very similar to brining, would also move flavor in deep.
Good point with osmotic pressure @sarge_smith. My thought is that given that the steam in a pressure cooker is applying 15 psi of pressure against the walls of the vessel, one can infer from Pascal's Law that it's also applying 15 psi against the food inside. That pressure can act on parts of the food that are less dense than water (like fat).
@kelly You aren't wrong, but sadly, steam doesn't carry flavor very well with it. What we taste in most spices is basically oils in various configurations, very few of whom are water soluble. In relation to this question, which is dealing with salt, which we know is not steam soluble or the ocean wouldn't be salty and rain would be, that psi isn't going to driving anything anywhere. However, the reason to cook in a pressure cooker is exactly as you said, to let that steam alter the parts that are less dense than water and quickly render and restructure them.
@Kelly - So I would need a raw, untouched chicken and then a cooked chicken and then I could use the salinity meter... or could I somehow do it with just one cooked chicken. E.g. check the outside of the bird against the inside of the bird, expecting that a brined bird will have an inner salinity very close the the outer salinity?
@Chad - I suppose either way would work. Another way would be to remove some undesirable part of the chicken (like the neck) before brining, brine the remaining tasty parts, and then cook everything together. Comparing measurements of both should give you some empirical data.
It would be hard to tell with rotisserie chicken, because of the way it's cooked. Flavors penetrate it very easily due to the whole "impaled on a spit" aspect of the cooking process, and rotisserie style meat is basted often. The best way to find out is to simply ask the cooks.
You mean that impaling the chicken provides more surface area for juices and seasonings to get to or are you saying that somehow the spit actually gives it a flavor... or something else?
@chad: Basically it's like flavor injection. Make a bunch of holes in the meat, then baste it, and the flavors will penetrate deeply. You will lose juices though, so it's more suitable to this sort of slow cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.414422
| 2011-02-22T19:45:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12490",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Chad",
"Harry Glinos",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Joe",
"Kelly Adams",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"meditek",
"rfg",
"sarge_smith",
"tonylo",
"user25714",
"zrosen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11978
|
What fruit pair well with spinach?
What fruit pair well with spinach? This is for a cold spinach-based salad rather than cooked spinach, but I'd be interested in warm spinach too.
@Chris S - this seems awfully broad. Can you give some criteria to help us provide better answers?
I agree that this question needs refining so that it can actually be answered with something other than a list of recipes or subjective opinions on veg/fruit pairings.
I agree with the previous comments. Most questions about pairing tend to ask how to pair with a specific food, and those are already open-ended; this one's open-ended and extremely broad, so I think it will have to be closed as per the FAQ, "every answer is equally valid". If you can narrow it down in some fashion, it might be reopened.
@justk and @aaronut I didn't think there would be that many combinations - at best 5-6 perhaps. Just a list of these would've been fine
@Chris S - in this case, there are actually tons of cool contributions (I grew up on combined fruit/veggie salads), plus you can get into all sorts of neat grilled options, etc. It's extremely broad. If you can tell us how to get the 5-6 you were thinking of, we could perhaps answer that.
@justkt I've restricted it to 5, hopefully that's more of a question than a discussion
@Chris S - your current restriction lets either 1) five people answer (no system enforcement) or 2) an unlimited number of people suggest 5 things. We need something that 1 to a few number of people would have a definitive answer to (I like the following fruits: and the following veggies:, I appreciate pairing such as: I found these pairings on flavorpairing.be, etc)
@justk ok I give up. I'm not looking for the answer to a quadratic equation, just some salad ideas with fruit
@Chris - Aaronut or the community may have a different idea, take it to meta if you'd like. I'm not authority :). You may find what you are looking for here, though.
Hah, I'm sure the meta chatter in the comments is frustrating and I'm sorry for that. @justkt is correct, however; an artificial limit only changes the question from "list 'em all" to "what's your favourite", which is still largely a matter of opinion. Flavour pairing is a fairly complex topic on its own, so my suggestion would be to take a different tack than rote combinations and ask a few separate questions: (1) what fruits pair well with rocket/spinach/lettuce in a salad, then (2) pick one of those and ask how to pair or balance that with a vegetable. It's OK to ask two questions. :)
@Aaronut ok, updated. Are fruit/vegetable pairings really subjective? I would've thought it'd be a definitive list
Seems that he has reworded it. Vote to reopen?
@jonw and Chris - yes, I'm leaning toward reopening this, I'm just not sure what to do with the answers (expected this to be a new question - that's not meant as a criticism though). I guess I'll leave them for now, even though they're kind of confusing in context.
You might consider citrus or other tart fruit with citrus -- mandarin oranges segments are fairly common to pair with spinich; even if you didn't use whole fruit, consider making a vinagrette using orange juice.
I've also seen recipes for spinich salads with strawberries or cranberries; I've also had a pineappe and avocado salad before that might work well with spinish instead of romaine.
+1 for cranberries.. craisins and oranges work well
Note: It best to add the acid right before serving, if you want to avoid discoloration.
For salads I advise chicory and apple. I'm not sure if I use the right word when I say 'chicory' so here's a picture of what I mean.
I think it's not a very loved veggie because of its bitterness, but I like the combination of the bitterness of the chicory and the sweetness of the apple.
Oh and one tip: cut out the 'root' of the chicory, it's the most bitter part.
Edit: I see the question has changed a bit.
I can recommend spinach with sun-dried tomatoes and a few grilled pine nuts (and if you like onion, oregano, garlic). This is something that goes very well with pasta.
In the US, this is most commonly called endive or Belgian endive. Chicory is another name for what most folks call radicchio: http://whatscookingamerica.net/Vegetables/Radicchio2.jpg, or the red version of what you posted: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/photos/redchicory.jpg.
A good overview can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory
Ah thanks, I'm from Belgium and we call it 'witloof'. Every source translated it into 'chicory'. But we have also 'chicorei' which is a part of the same plant, but we used it for coffee etc. Hence, the confusion.
The qualities I like in complementing raw spinach are tart, crunchy and creamy.
You’ve probably seen before toasted nuts for the crunch, and cheese or dressing for the creamy, but you asked about fruit. Here are some ideas: sour apple, Asian pear, dried banana chips, jicama (not technically a fruit), melon, star fruit, seedless grapes, dried cranberries, raisins, avocado.
1) Dino Kale and Avacado.
Separate Kale from stems; rip and distress the kale into a bowl, cut up avacado, add sea salt.
I'll be honest the first time eating it is a bit of an adjustment but I love it now. I feel great every time I eat this salad.
2) Mandarin Oranges and Bell Peppers. Think Thai Peanut Salad with a peanut dressing.
pear and candied walnuts with some citrus dressing...maybe some goat cheese too!
I think that figs go brilliantly well with spinach salads.
You could use pears, white flesh peaches or green apples for when you can't get figs.
On a different note, Roquefort cheese also works beautifully.
That's actually the recipe for one of my favourite salads.
Pomegranate seeds and walnuts fit well with baby spinach salad.
I once had a spinash salad with raisins and cuts of Parmesan cheese. Very tasty.
That's nice, but where's the fruit? I don't think raisins count as fruit.
OK - for me it is fruity - it is a dried fruit. Whatever.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.414866
| 2011-02-09T13:44:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11978",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"CakeLab",
"Chris S",
"Darrell",
"J. Win.",
"Jickster",
"Jostikas",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Mehdi Nellen",
"Mien",
"Tenshi",
"Vidar S. Ramdal",
"arensb",
"b05",
"gerome preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6390",
"justkt",
"nix87",
"pjz",
"soegaard",
"user24802",
"user319565",
"usr",
"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
}
|
11398
|
Cooking up onions, without oil
For a while now I have been trying to reduce my intake of fried food, or food otherwise cooked with oil. However I still make a lot of things with onions, and I end up sautéeing them with vegetable oil. If I use a non-stick pan, can I sautée onions without oil? What are some techniques to cook onions without oil?
Sautée tends to imply frying. You can steam or boil onions just fine, though their flavour will be slightly different and the texture will be a lot different.
In the end you'll have to decide how you want the onions to look when you're done. If you want them browned, go with the grilling/broiling idea. If it is more of a sweat you are trying to achieve (soft, but not brown) then a simmer in a small amount of liquid will achieve that.
@Orbling: I’ve heard sautéeing used rather differently in the US from in the UK. In the US (possibly coming out of the bigger dieting industry there?) plenty of cookbooks use sautéeing to describe cooking with a very small amount of water (or some other non-oil liquid), without oil. (Please don’t shoot the messenger: I’m not endorsing this usage of the word, just reporting it :-P )
If you want to be healthier, why not use olive oil instead of vegetable oil?
@PLL: I wonder why the definitions are so different. Cooking and food are one of the most intense areas of variation between the two languages, so no great surprise, but awkward nevertheless.
Just a heads up, sautee means to cooking in a very hot pan with a very little bit of oil with small pieces. Not speaking to how that definition may have been perverted by different dialects, but that's the original French definition as I understand it.
I would not recommend attempting to cook onions on the stove top without oil.
Another answer suggests that it's a bit like grilling; in theory, it is, but a traditional outdoor grill has a minimal contact surface. That minimizes sticking and makes it fairly difficult to burn food by contact alone. Using a dry fry pan for onions is more akin to searing, except that you generally only sear meat or fish. If you try with an onion, you are likely going to burn it before you ever get to the sweated/caramelized consistency you want.
You really have two options here. The first, and the one I highly recommend, is dry roasting in the oven. Cooking an onion involves the Maillard reaction and the dry, radiant heat of an oven is great for promoting it. Simply toss the onion on a baking sheet and roast it inside the skin for about 20 minutes at 450° F / 230° C. It will peel easily and you'll have a nice, soft, roasted onion. Don't overdo it or it will burn - the skin will help prevent this but keep an eye on it!
Your other option is to simmer or steam it, which will soften them substantially and cook some of the volatiles out (make it less pungent) but won't brown them because the Maillard reaction requires high temperatures and the boiling point of water is too low. Simmering should be obvious, just toss it in some water or stock. For steaming, either use a steamer basket or just put a small amount of liquid in a pan, heat it up to a simmer, place the onion in and cover it until cooked to your desired consistency.
Those are pretty much your only fat-free options. If you want to use a frying pan and expect to get them browned, then you'd better use at least a little bit of oil. If you're concerned about trans, saturated or polyunsaturated fats, use olive oil. If you're on an ultra-low-fat diet, use a blast of cooking spray. If you're avoiding "fried" foods out of an assumption that even a tiny amount of oil is unhealthy, I suggest consulting a dietician (if you haven't already) to validate that assumption first.
+1 for the delicious suggestion of roasting! An alternative to roasting them in their skins (if for instance you don’t trust the skins to be clean) is to peel them beforehand, and then wrap them lightly in foil, which has the roughly same effect, keeping the moisture in while they roast. Mmmmmm — sweet juicy roasted onions…
Aaronut's answer to a related question outlined the differences between non-oil methods of cooking onions (such as steaming or sweating). The taste will be different because different chemical reactions are occurring.
If you want to sauté onions without a lot of oil, try oil sprayers (Pam, or hand-pump sprayers loaded with your favourite oil). This will minimise the amount of oil you use. Using less oil means you have to move them around more often to prevent burning. (If you fry onions by themselves, they will probably just dehydrate and burn.)
Actually, sweating generally uses oil, it just involves shorter cooking times and sometimes a lower heat than frying or sautéing. Agree with the part about using some oil, though; if you don't have oil then you would need to use water or stock to simmer/steam them or at least soften them up for dry roasting.
The spray oils are just oil in a can. Instead of spending money on them, just put a dot of your regular oil in the pan and wipe it around with a paper towel.
@Keith: That's not quite true. Many of the oil sprays have anti-beading agents and can coat a non-stick pan without beading up. Actually, I find non-stick pans largely useless for frying or sautéing for exactly that reason (I don't use cooking spray).
There are plenty of ways to cook onions without oil. It sounds like you're trying to mimic the effects of a sauté without actually using any oil though. Cooking onions in a non stick pan without oil would probably be more akin to grilling.
Picking up on the grilling idea, if you broiled them in the oven, you could achieve some of the browning caramelization that you get from sauteing without the oil. Watch them carefully, though, they'll go from brown to burnt very quickly.
Use a very small amount of stock to soften the onions (although as per Aaronut's linked answer above, you'll get a different taste).
Alternatively, if the rest of your recipe includes any meat, fry the onions when you brown the meat to take advantage of the oils which are already going to be present in your dish.
A good quality nonstick saucier pan is a good choice to brown onions without oil. Start with a very fresh onion that has lots of it's own juice. Older dryer onions are not a good choice for this method.
Preheat the pan on medium. Let the onions sit untouched for a couple minutes on medium heat so that they may sear. Stir and let them sit again for a couple minutes. Repeat until onions are relatively dry and onion fond starts to build up on the pan. Deglaze with just a teaspoon of water to lift the fond off the pan just before it burns. At this point you cannot let the onions sit for long and you will have to stir often. Continue browning and deglazing until the onion reaches the desired consistency. If you want the onions dryer, you can reduce the heat to low and cover with a paper towel in between the pan and the cover to absorb the steam.
The pan should be small enough so that you cannot see the bottom of the pan. Otherwise the onions may burn rather than brown. I use a 2-1/2 qt Analon anodized copper saucier pan for one medium onion.
http://shop.anolon.com/Cookware/Anolon-Nouvelle-Copper-2.5-Quart-Covered-Saucier-GWP-Gray-82686.html?utm_source=SSIDE&utm_medium=NaturalSS&utm_campaign=SSIDE
But I must say that just a spray of olive oil will make the onions darker with richer flavor and it will enable you to use stainless steel for better control.
As an alternative to onions, try roasting some garlic cloves (or a whole bulb!) in it's skin and 20mins or so and use the resulting pulp in place of onion. It will lose a lot of harsh garlic flavour but still give plenty of onion quality (same/similar plant family?).
It might be worth drizzling a bit of oil when baking garlic to protect the skin, but I doubt too much would be absorbed.
For browned onions, I'd suggest cooking in a pan or a griddle with just the bare minimum of oil -- enough to stop it sticking.
To cook onions without browning, blitzing them in the microwave works well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.415397
| 2011-01-24T00:13:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11398",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Keith Twombley",
"Lynda",
"Mike Fitzgibbons",
"Nick Punt",
"Orbling",
"PLL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91407",
"ixjf",
"jiggy",
"sarge_smith",
"user23420",
"user23446",
"vonmoltke"
],
"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
}
|
9316
|
Baking bread ... without crust?
My fiancee doesn't like to eat the crust of bread. I like to bake bread. But she ends up cutting off like half of each piece in the process of de-crust-ifying it. What are some suggestions to make bread have no crust? Is it possible?
Bake bread with crust she likes? :P
Is the problem that you have a golden caramelized crust? Would a blond crust improve the situation? Or is the problem that you have a blond crust but she wants none at all?
You can't bake bread to end up without crust, as it will always require high temperatures that will toast the outside (to varying degrees) without just dessicating the entire lump of dough.
For pure crustless bread, I would try to make something like a giant steamed dumpling. There are a few examples (courtesy Jefromi and Jay's comments, respectively) of this in Chinese cooking: baozi, a filled dumpling using yeast dough; or the larger mantou, similar but without filling.
When steaming dough it will retain much more (nearly all) water, so a drier dough would be in order. Generally in most bread-baking, the goal as Julio mentions is to get the inside to 200-210 °F, and by using steam at ~212 °F, you will get virtually no browning.
That said, crust can vary wildly, from very soft to very hard. The softer crust breads I bake are usually done in pans at lower temperatures (325-375 °F) and often contain milk, eggs and or fat. The more "crusty" breads are usually baked quickly at hot temperatures (>450 °F), but if done lower and slower it will change the crust significantly.
Wow- good idea but poached bread sounds revolting! I suppose crustless bread doesn't sound all that good to begin with.
Yeah...the purist in me feels somewhat heretical for suggesting it, but the scientist in me is curious. Sort of a dumpling-type thing...
@Sobachatina Ever had a bagel, that's poached bread right there.
@Orbling: Sure, they're boiled first, but then they're baked... I have to imagine that's important too.
@Jefromi Granted, but you can see in them what happens to the dough. Dumplings of various types are pure steamed bread, well soda bread usually, enjoyed the world over - not quite the same though. ;-)
@Orbling: So perhaps baozi would be a better example - and possibly a helpful answer, too!
@Orbling- good point. I thought of dumplings- but I still would want a dumpling the size of a loaf.
@Sobachatina There's a lovely scottish pudding called a Clootie dumpling which the way I've made it and seen it made is very large, I cook it in a wide stock pot! Mind you, that has whisky in it. :-)
@Jefromi Definitely, one of the ones I had in mind when I said dumplings, I do love baozi.
I know this is old but have you tried Mantou? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantou It is closer to a bread than baozi since it doesn't have a filling inside.
@Sobachatina people around here love Dampfnudeln, that's real poached bread. You never had them in Ramstein?
I don't know about truly crustless, but there's a style of loaf that's baked in a sealed 'pullman' loaf pan that's supposed to give a "nearly crustless" loaf:
http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=159081&CCAID=FROOGLE159081
You can also make bread in a tin can so there's less crust formation:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121110102454/http://thethingsilovemost.blogspot.com/2010/05/crustless-bread-whod-have-thought.html
FWIW I like a nearly crustless bread for sandwiches and I LOVE my Pullman pan. This is my absolutely favorite recipe for sandwich bread and it was specifically developed for a 9" Pullman. http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/honey-oat-pain-de-mie-recipe. I don't even buy baked bread anymore. I can make that recipe in my sleep.
I'm no expert on this, but from what I understand crust thickness is predominantly effected by the early stages of cooking. If there is a lot of steam in the oven initially it gelatinises the exterior and then this dries out giving a thicker crust area. The initial heat makes a large difference, if there is great heat initially, if you use a baking stone for instance, or pre-heated tins, the crust will be thicker as the heat penetrates further. Once the crust has formed you see, it is effectively self-limiting, shielding the rest of the loaf from the intensity of the heat. Do you coat your loaves before cooking? Some coatings enhance the crustiness, like salt-glaze.
Some tests may be in order, varying steam and initial heat to see what works best.
Microwave bread recipes such as this Microwave English Muffin Bread should produce relatively crustless loaves, shudder.
No, I don't think it's possible to do that. At least, baking in a traditional way. Your oven should be higher than 300F to bake and the bread will be done when you reach 205F or so. The crust is formed because it takes more heat, sugars caramelize, etc.
There are a few things to have in mind to get a better crust, in the traditional sense, like moisture in the oven. If you want to avoid that kind of crust, don't add moisture and stop baking as soon as the bread is done.
I think your best bet is to find uses for the crust. There is a variation of gazpacho called salmorejo (at least in some parts of Spain) which uses only tomatoes, olive oil, garlic and leftover bread which is where my bread leftovers end.
Gazpacho with the crusty bits it the best!
@Julio Please, please. Post a pointer to a good salmorejo recipe. (pero una buena de verdad)
@belisarius You can have a detailed recipe for salmorejo or a traditional one, but not both at the same time :) I already mentioned all I got as a recipe, with the exception of some wine vinegar. Also, salmorejo varies wildly from town to town, as you may already know.
Or use the crust in stuffing/dressing! (You can even freeze it until you have enough.) Even crust haters often love that!
Exactly. The point is, if for whatever reason you don't like the crust, instead of fighting against it, use it as stale bread (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5279/uses-for-stale-bread)
@Julio I was affraid of that :)
If your fiance cuts crust off the softest of (commercial) breads, there's no way to make a totally crustless bread. You can store your home baked breads in a plastic shopping bag, which will make the crust very soft. You could also save all the off-cuts of crust in an open container to dry them out, to make breadcrumbs later. Then use the breadcrumbs as an ingredient of a meal and let her (later) know that she just ate all her crusts.
Peeling the bread after you bake it sounds like the best bet. Still wastes the crust, but you can eat the crust and then tell your fiancee you finally baked her crustless bread.
Wouldn't making her think you baked something you didn't be a bit draconian ;-)
It's not a method suitable for home baking, but the bread used to make Panko breadcrumbs is cooked by passing an electric current through it and forms without a crust. You can see the apparatus used and the finished product in this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/uFbQuHE4z7g
Like all cooking, what you put in and how you cook it will change the finished product. Different flours make different crust strength. Try more whole wheat ground flours, more roughly ground flours (stone mill etc). This keeps more starch bound up in the flour, and not floating about to make a hard surface. Using a mix of non-wheat flours will also change the crust, e.g. a 50/50 mix of whole wheat and corn meal will give a very soft crust
Try boiling or steaming your bread first, it may take a few hours of streaming to reduce the baking time by half, and hence a softer crust
Cover the top of the bread with with a piece of aluminum foil, just a rectangle the shape of the pan, not a cover
I had a girlfriend who had TMJ ... it's entirely possible that avoiding crusts is a pain management issue, and not just pickiness.
Yes, crustless bread is possible.
And - it's easy! You'll use two cylindrical pans like this one ( https://www.amazon.com/Nordic-Ware-Cinnamon-Bread-Almond/dp/B00FLZLBS4)
It will take a couple tries to figure out the best amount of bread that will fill the pan without overflowing, but underfilled or overfilled pans are aesthetic issues, not taste issues.
And you'll use 2-3 pieces of wire, wrapped around the sides of the 2 pans to hold them together, making a cylinder to hold the bread.
Then, bake as usual.
Boom.
Crustless bread.
Happy fiance.
You're welcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.416179
| 2010-11-20T21:30:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9316",
"authors": [
"Amanda Joy Hawkeye",
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julio",
"Martha F.",
"Nick T",
"Orbling",
"Rick",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Ostermiller",
"TFD",
"Todd J.",
"clearlight",
"darkside",
"dimitriy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"lcjury",
"natsja",
"rumtscho",
"user19066",
"user19067",
"user65387"
],
"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
}
|
8479
|
What are the advantages of homemade pasta over store-bought?
I am thinking about getting a pasta maker. Of course it takes more time to make your own pasta but it seems like it would be fun and nutritious. What are the real advantages to making your own pasta from scratch with a pasta maker, as opposed to using store-bought pasta?
By fresh and store-bought are you referring to fresh egg pasta and dried eggless pasta? Because now you can pretty much buy all the types of pasta.
The best part of making your own food is the ability to experiment! Sure, you can get spinach or tomato pastas in the store, but is there something else you've always wanted to try? Try some chili peppers for a Mexican flair, or ginger and leek for Asian foods. I've heard that even certain fruits work well, and chocolate could form the base for a unique dessert.
It depends on what store you buy your pasta from, and what sorts of pasta they have to offer (there are at least 2 shops here in Bruges that make better pasta than anybody I know would ever be able to make, but "in the countryside" people don't have that luxury).
Oh, and of course if you like to cook, making it yourself might be more fun of course, especially if you like to experiment. ;)
So - fresh pasta vs. dried, boxed pasta: (1) cooks waaay faster, and (2) also absorbs sauces better. Boxed pasta is great too - but fresh pasta is preferable!
I think the point about cooking faster doesn't really apply if you make it yourself though (since making pasta from scratch takes way longer than boiling store-bought pasta).
Fresh pasta simply tastes better, and as Aparna said, absorbs sauces more than boxed pasta.
Also, fresh pasta is way cheaper than boxed one.
In a while, getting experience at preparing fresh pasta by yourself will let you do it faster and faster...
And you won't experience the "Oh no, my sauce is ready but I'm out of pasta" anymore!
There are uses for both fresh and dried pasta. One does not replace the other. They can both be delicious, but serve different purposes. You will only realize the advantages of making your own if you make it convenient to use your pasta maker. Put it in a closet...or somewhere out of reach...and you will not use it frequently enough to learn the process or develop the skill. There is a learning curve, so expect it to take some before you can produce it properly and quickly. Once you get the process down, you will be able to create far better filled pastas than you can purchase almost anywhere. Leftovers of all sorts can become ravioli and tortellini fillings. You can make large quantities (if you are patient...or have friends to help) and freeze for later. Fresh pasta cooks in less time. Making your own costs less. Having said that, I stock plenty of dried pasta for recipes that require those products.
I make homemade pasta for the same reason I bake bread. It's a way to have fun in the kitchen, experiment, maybe or maybe not get a tremendous result (the suspense is always fun), all without spending much money.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.417120
| 2010-10-24T20:22:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8479",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Ecnalyr",
"Elliott Maynard",
"Megasaur",
"Molly G.",
"Zartan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303"
],
"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
}
|
39682
|
Can you thaw a frozen turkey in a dryer?
In the TV show New Girl, there is an episode (season 1, episode 6) in which they are cooking for Thanksgiving but forgot to thaw the Turkey, so they put it in the dryer, but it has some unexpected results.
Is it actually possible to thaw a turkey in a dryer? If one were to try to accomplish this in real life, how would one go about doing it a safe and reliable manner?
Please note that I am not asking, should one thaw a turkey in a dryer. Rather - is it possible?
Can and stupid often overlap. Doing this would be one of those cases.
At least no one suggested a dish washer. There's plenty of time to thaw turkey, and if you fail to start in time, dine out.
I am imagining the most difficult issue being how to deal with the turkey being tumbled about.
Thump, Thump, Thump, Thump...
Ignoring food safety for a moment referring to an example like How Clothes Dryers Work in most dryers air enters near the top, is heated by an element at the rear of the dryer but the air is actually being drawn in / out by a fan at the bottom of the unit. The internal temperature of the air ends up being about 175C so most of what is "floating around" in the dryer will be steam in normal use.
While the electrical conductivity of pure water is very low the actual conductivity depends on contaminants. Those contaminants will be present inside a dryer but intuitively I'd say at they would be well distributed given the fast air flow. I'm not sure of the conductivity of turkey fat itself but it obviously remains a liquid at 175C and contains many contaminants.
So the real problem I'd see is turkey fat would splatter on the heating element and get within the evacuation fan. Both those events could change their electrical resistance, increase power draw in areas and cause hotspots that could cause a fire. It could also clog up the various vents leading to further overheating.
I guess the answer to that would be completely prevent the possibility of fat / juices escaping during the process. A regular oven bag probably wouldn't be durable enough but maybe a modified pressure cooker vessel of some form would be suitable if you didn't mind a bit of wear and tear on the drum of the dryer.
But getting back to general cooking method I wouldn't see it any different to using an oven to do the same. Results would either go from either dangerous from a food safety point of view to just nasty and overcooked on the outside, especially with something as large as a turkey.
There is a shelf-like thing some dryers have that you can attach to the back for drying shoes. The shelf doesn't move, the items on the shelf don't move, and the otherwise empty dryer revolves around it so there is warm air flowing etc. If you did this, and the turkey was sitting on a tray to collect juices that dripped from it, then I think the dryer would not be ruined.
from a dryer manufacturer's site.
The turkey would be, but I think you knew that.
Yes, it is possible to thaw a turkey in the dryer. Though the process will likely render both unusable.
The motor will likely be strong enough to turn the drum with the frozen turkey in it. As the frozen turkey tumbles, it could dent the drum beyond the clearance of the enclosure and wear out the pulleys (cannonball).
PeterJ's answer addresses the issues regarding organic matter getting into the guts and ducts of the dryer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.417388
| 2013-11-24T08:19:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39682",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40964
|
How do food producers determine expiration dates on products and ingredients?
It is well known that food expiration dates are somewhat arbitrary. For some foods, they are much more important than others -- for example, you can pretty easily tell on your own if milk has gone bad based on smell or taste, or yoghurt that has grown mold. Not so much the case with other kinds of foods, such as dry ingredients, granola bars, dried pasta. However they all have expiration dates.
How does a company which produces food or food ingredients determine the expiration date? Is there a specific scientific process? To what extent are they "fudged" by companies, who either (or both) want to spur customers to make more frequent purchases, or limit liability?
To determine the shelf life of products, there is usually a microbial activity test conducted over a specific time frame. For instance, in baked goods with an expected shelf life of 7 days, you would send 4 or 5 of the product to a lab. They would use one to measure the initial microbial activity, then perhaps 2 days later, they would measure another one, etc. Generally companies have an acceptable threshold of microbial activity, so the shelf life is set by how many days it takes the product to reach that level.
Very interesting! And how do they measure the microbial level? Just putting it under a microscope?
@Jason Let me see if I can find any of our shelf life study paperwork here at work and I'll let you know what it says.
@Jason So it looks like the tests that are run (at least for baked goods) are plate counts for Total Food, Yeasts, and Molds. The methods are CMMEF, APHA CHP 7, FDA BAM Online CHP3/18, and AOAC 990.12. Results are all reported in CFU/g.
Lucky Peach ran an article by Harold McGee on canned goods that mentions:
Standard canned goods aren’t generally deemed age-worthy. Food technologists define shelf life not by how long it takes for food to become inedible, but how long it takes for a trained sensory panel to detect a “just noticeable difference” between newly manufactured and stored cans. There’s no consideration of whether the difference might be pleasant in its own way or even an improvement—it’s a defect by definition.
I have no idea what their standards are for storage; in the case of MREs, the shelf-life is calculated based on the storage temperature. I would assume that this would hold true for many products.
update : I just re-read the whole article I linked to, and it suggests that shelf live is temperature sensitive (and that it's used to approximate age for testing purposes):
The trouble with aging canned goods is that it takes years to get results. However, we can take a hint from manufacturers, who often accelerate shelf-life tests by storing foods at high temperatures. A general rule of thumb is that the rate of chemical reactions approximately doubles with each 20-degree rise in temperature. Store foods at 40 degrees above normal—around 100 degrees—and you can get an idea of a year’s change in just three months.
But it’s possible to go further. At 120 degrees, you get a year’s worth of change in six weeks; at 140 degrees, three weeks; at 180 degrees, five days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.417694
| 2014-01-08T09:14:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40964",
"authors": [
"David Chen",
"DevOpsDave",
"G .m. Shivairo",
"Jason",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"catna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99124",
"jak123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65794
|
UK scones versus US scones
I remember listening to an America's Test Kitchen podcast where they compared UK v. US scone styles. They asserted that they were quite different from one another. And they seemed to favor the UK scone, their comments regarding a UK scone sounded alluring.
My question is, do you think there is a noticeable difference?
Hello Paulb, I'm afraid that requests for recipe recommendations are off topic here. Asking about the difference is OK though, so I removed that part instead of closing.
The BBC is a good source for classic british food; here is a classic buttermilk scone recipe here, and here is another made with milk. (I'd say buttermilk is the better way to make them.
The correct way to eat one is in a cream tea - a pot of tea, a scone with tea, strawberry or raspberry jam, and clotted cream, served around 3 in the afternoon. Nothing much better in life ;) (Also, I had no idea there was a Cream Tea Society until now.
As a Brit, I'm also a bit in the dark about US scones, but am I right in thinking it's a savoury thing -- I think the nearest British dish would be beef cobbler.
American scones are generally still quite sweet... often flavored with cinnamon or blueberries. We would call the topping on your beef cobbler example a "biscuit".
Ah, that makes sense. I've heard the phrase 'biscuits and gravy,' so that heaven that isn't 'cookies in meat juices' :)
BTW, in the UK, there's a massive dispute over the name; usually southerners pronounce it 'SCOWN', and northerners 'SCONN.' What's the US way?
Yes, and the gravy used for biscuits and gravy is a cream-based sauce that often has bits of sausage in it.
In the US "scone" rhymes with "tone"...
"gravy is a cream-based sauce." I've been reading about it. Breakfast? Breakfast food? That's sounds somewhat unholy, I think ;) Sausage? Sure. Scones? Hmm. OK. But cream sauce in the morning?
The British scone can also be savoury, my local bakery has scones in plain, fruit (sultanas), cherry, cheese, wheaten, soda and potato.
I'm going to try the Beeb's recipe. I have a source for clotted cream. The golden caster sugar will be a challenge to find. I think I will put some turbinado sugar in the food processor and make it a bit more fine.
Here are typical US scone recipes, they are all over the board http://search.kingarthurflour.com/search?p=Q&asug=&af=type%3Arecipes&w=scones And I do see the irony in US scone recipes from King Arthur Flour :)
@Paulb Here's a note on substituting golden castor sugar in the US - http://www.nigella.com/kitchen-queries/view/Golden-Caster-Sugar/4380
You need to decide whether you are having the scones Cornish style - jam then cream or Devon style cream then jam. It should be strawberry jam. Blows have been struck over the order in which one builds a scone.
@user23614 is right. Is there a greater divide in British cooking that the Jam Firsters or the Cream Firsters? (Well, yes. It's the question 'do I put the milk in the cup before the tea?' But let's not open that can of worms ;) )
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this answers the question. Was it posted before the question was edited into its current form, or something? (Also, US scones are never savory, just the opposite.)
I think the texture is very similar, but, as you might guess, I think American scones are a little sweeter. There's another kind too...in Utah, people call fry bread (like a savory beignet) "scones". It drives me nuts. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.417980
| 2016-01-24T19:00:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65794",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"David Simons",
"Gail Warren",
"Jerdle",
"Jon J",
"Marti",
"Molly Varkey Thomas",
"Paulb",
"Steve Cooper",
"Vidura Rajapaksha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.