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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
39784
|
How can I make frosting without powdered sugar
Milk Frosting.
1 and a 1/2 Cup Sugar, 1/2 Cup milk, 1 tsp Butter.
Put in a saucepan stirring constantly until it begins to boil.
Let boil with out stirring, until a few drops tested in cold water form a soft ball. Remove from heat.
Stir in 1 tsp of vanilla extract, then beat until it becomes a spreadable consistancy.
If frosting becomes too stiff to spread, put in a double boiler over boiling water (a bowl on a pot of boiling water will work) it will melt, then beat again.
Is this a question and answer? If not, what are you trying to ask about this recipe?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24934/what-kinds-of-frostings-have-a-lighter-texture
As far as I can understand the question, it is that you want to make the recipe but have no powdered sugar available. Therefore closing as a duplicate. If you meant to ask something else, please edit the question text and flag for reopening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.418400
| 2013-11-27T01:28:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39784",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52305
|
What exactly does carbonated water do?
I just saw a deal on Sodastream system on bfads, and as someone who was never especially enamored with the idea of carbonated drinks, it dawned on me - I have no idea what the actual point of carbonating drinks is, from culinary viewpoint.
Is it just so the bubbles tickle the mouth? Or does it change the taste or the culinary experience in more ways?
Hi DVK. We have a longstanding problem with people wanting nutrition/health information from us, which is off topic. The most useful criterion I know of is to say "if the question is about the physiological effects on your body, it's off topic". I agree that it's a bit murky, because we also talk about taste, but that's what we've got. Anyway, I think there is no harm in keeping your question, but to avoid making a precedent where the discussion of any physiological effects is invited, and also to be less inviting to health answers, I edited your "effects" wording to focus more on taste.
@rumtscho - Hm. I would expect that it would invite more subjective and anecdotal non-SE-like answers, but it's your house, i'm just visiting :) Anyway, the edit is perfectly fine, thanks for making the question stay ontopic!
the question has nothing but anecdotal answers from a culinary point of view. The point is that carbonated water tastes like carbonated water. If you want more details on why people like it, you're going to get subjective taste experiences.
@rumtscho - if there's a bunch of people uniformly liking something, there must be SOME scientific explanation for it (some other answers on [tag:carbonation] mentioned studies relating to the effects). Basically the kind of answer I was hoping for would be something that would be similar to content on Alton Brown's show.
as somebody studying the causes of "liking", I can assure you that the scientific explanation behind somebody liking a thing is "there are a bunch of factors, but the one overshadowing all of the rest is having been exposed to it very frequently"
@rumtscho - ah. That'd explain my kids not liking coca cola when I let them try (to my great happiness and satisfaction)
You can read all about it in this question
Carbonation produces the textural effects associated with effervescence, first of all, and a lot of people find that texture enjoyable. Texture is a huge part of the culinary experience and affects how flavorful compounds contact your tongue, thus affecting its perceived flavor.
Carbonation also raises the acidity of a beverage slightly, due to the presence of dissolved carbonic acid in the solution. As @Joe mentions in comments, this can promote the release of gasses with additional dissolved flavorful compounds. All of this can have a suppressing or enhancing effect on other flavors (a topic which is absurdly complicated and still being explored by food scientists much smarter than I).
Basically, the point of carbonating is similar to the point of pureeing something, or the point of dehydrating it. It's a fun and easy way to change how you experience the food--or beverage in this case.
The main point of pureeing something is to satisfy my laziness and allowing me not to chew :)
I find sparkling water more refreshing than still water. I also find it to be a better palate cleanser. There are no side effects. Carbonation simply changes the experience, for me, making it more pleasant. There is also research that suggests carbonation changes the way the mouth perceives sweetness. Further, an article was published last year, in the journal Food and Function, with the title "Sensory attributes of soft drinks and their influence on consumers' preferences". So the point of carbonation is typically because consumers enjoy carbonated beverages. Are you a beer drinker? Do you prefer flat beer or carbonated? Wine drinker? Wouldn't you say sparkling wines and still wines are experienced differently?
There's a difference between water and the drinks you mentioned -- they're flavored. The bubbles in beer and wine help to bring chemicals out of the liquid so they can reach your nose (which we then consider to be taste, but is actually smell). I don't think you have the same degree of that with carbonated water.
@joe, i would beg to differ. There are lots of components to water. Try comparing a drink of distilled water to any number of bottled waters...or even tap water. Then carbonate them. Carbonation not only has a physical effect (textural, as someone wrote below), but also impacts the perception of flavor.
See the top answer here. I think it covers this pretty well: "CO2 tastes good! Carbonated water is actually a weak carbonic acid solution, this is what you taste"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.418512
| 2015-01-05T19:50:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52305",
"authors": [
"DVK",
"Fran Felder",
"Jerainne Heywood",
"Joe",
"Ramona Roberts",
"Suzanne Sloan",
"Venetia Norris",
"homechef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"tsturzl",
"wil ledgerwood"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37755
|
What can I use, beside applesauce, to replace fat in baking?
Due to dietary restrictions, I can not have apples, or any byproduct. There are lots of recipes that use applesauce to replace fat, but what can I substitute for applesauce in these recipes?
You could replace the applesauce with the fat that it was originally replacing.
Personally, I would choose recipes that don't include apples. There is something just silly about substituting for an ingredient that is a substitution to begin with (I was one of the upvotes for replacing applesauce with the fat it was it was originally replacing). However, if you have a particular recipe that you love with applesauce and you want to keep it as similar as possible, you might try pear butter. Google "pear butter recipe" for ideas. Keep your seasonings similar to the applesauce you've liked in the past. Since pectin is the key to applesauce "working" as a fat replacement, and pears have even more pectin than apples, it should be a pretty good substitute.
In this context, its not about seasonings or flavor, its about the ability to create the proper texture in quick breads in lieu of the fats. Mild or absent flavor is the goal.
Exactly. Pear butter recipes tend to be highly seasoned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.418902
| 2013-10-19T23:32:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37755",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54725
|
Transporting confections
Lately I've been making a lot of chocolate truffles. The problem is, if you put them in a plastic box and drive them somewhere, they rattle around in the car, and end up dented and scratched. How can I prevent this?
Obviously the way the professionals do this (i.e., if you buy a box of chocolates) is to put them into a custom-shaped plastic tray which exactly matches the shape and dimensions of the individual confections.
Now I could buy a box of chocolates and keep the box, but I rather doubt that my home-made sweets would just happen to fit in the same tray. (Their size and shape tends to be rather random.)
Any better suggestions?
I see no reason to think this is off-topic.
How soft would you say your truffles are? I use rice inside cling film like pillows/duvets to pad between layers, but if your truffles are soft it may cause them to flatten.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/39632/67
One option is paper candy cups (or foil if you're feeling fancier). This is how chocolates are "nestled" in place in many candy boxes when there's no pre-molded tray, there's flexibility in the size of candy that can fit in them, and they are pretty widely available.
Image below is from an Amazon listing. I've also seen them in craft stores and some cooking stores, and there are doubtless lots of internet sources.
Those in conjunction with the egg cartons could be the best answer yet!
This actually works: Egg Cartons. If you call around, you will likely find people willing to give you hundreds of them.
That was going to be my answer :) I additionally suggest nestling them in a bit of tissue paper in each of the egg pits (holes? nests?), for additional cushioning as well as slight decorative effect.
Not the most awesome presentation, but definitely protective
@sq33G actually "prettying" them up could be a fun craft project.
I've just recently started making my own chocolate confections and have been pondering this very problem. The only thing I've come up with so far is to get some soft tissue paper and scrunch it up and place it in the container. The chocolates can then be pushed into the various crevices and the paper holds each one in place and keeps it separate from its neighbours. Then scrunch up a second piece of paper, place it on top and put the lid on the box, making sure that the lid compresses the top layer slightly to hold it firmly in place.
This should keep the chocolates in good condition as you transport them.
I guess you could package multiple layers this way too, although I've not tried that (yet).
+1, this is what's worked for me, for anything that I don't want to rattle around (crumbly cookies, pills in a jar, etc., etc.). If you use some nice-looking multi-layer soft tissues (rather than, say, toilet paper, although even that works in a pinch) and pull the individual layers apart before gently scrunching them, you can even make it look pretty nice.
Are you transporting them to a place where they are going to be plated so the actual packaging doesn't matter? How about mini-muffin tins? You could get a 24-count tin and anchor it in a pizza box.
If your truffles are food art as in modernist cuisine, silicone hemispheric molds would keep them from any movement at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.419032
| 2015-02-14T10:53:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54725",
"authors": [
"Amy Howard",
"Barry Tatum",
"Doris Highsmith",
"Doug",
"Erica",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josephine Moore",
"Kahil Shareem",
"Laurie Davidson",
"Margaret Nee",
"Rosemarie Curtis",
"Teresa Anderson",
"brian gruber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9199",
"sq33G"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27513
|
Cooking two pieces of meat in pressure cooker
I know that I need to cook beef for 15 minutes per pound (500 g) in the pressure cooker for well done.
So one 4 pound (2 Kg) roast would cook for one hour. But what if I cook two 2 pound (1 Kg) pieces in the pressure cooker at the same time?
Would it still be one hour because it's a total of 4 pounds or would it be 30 minutes because each piece is only 2 pounds each?
There is a complicated formula for calculating cooking time based on energy input, surface area, thermal conductivity of food etc. Smaller pieces with a larger surface area will cook slightly quicker than large single pieces
In general for roasts (large slabs) just add the weight of the pieces and cook for the minimum time recommend by your pressure cooker for that (or from your experience). Then test using an accurate thermometer and cook some more as required. In my experience most people overcook meat anyway, so try it a little more undercooked for a change. Remember to let it stand at least 5 minutes per 500 g too
There are too many variables to give a blanket answer (stove energy, pressure in pressure cooker, meat type, fat content etc.)
According to the Wearever pressure cooker support website, smaller, more uniform pieces of food cook faster and more evenly. They also recommend stopping the process amd checking on the food if necessary because you can always cook something more but can't undo cooking something too long.
Here's the site with very good advice for using a pressure cooker: http://www.wearever.com/hints-and-tips/CookingwithPressureCookers/Pages/CookingwithPressureCookers-Tips.aspx
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.419332
| 2012-10-01T21:41:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27513",
"authors": [
"Claudiu Creanga",
"Ghada",
"Hafsat Love",
"PNL",
"Sangita Hazra",
"Seini Caucau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62046",
"taiwo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45495
|
Why are there no PETE reusable cups?
I'd like a reusable lightweight cup for the microwave, so I compare the melting temperature of plastics (#1 through #6 in our recycling codes) and would think Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) is the best
So, why is Polypropylene (PP) predominantly used instead? I would even guess PET is cheaper to manufacture since most one-time bottles are PET. Is it really just a public perception preference for PP?
It most often called PET (one obsolete term is PET-E, but not PETE)
Cheap PP and PET cups are made by partially punching circles in a continuous sheet of raw plastic, and then these circles are heat punched into cup shapes. The vertical stress lines on PET (a harder material) will open up with hot liquids. PET will also start to deform above 90°C. Otherwise, yes PET is a better material :-)
I closed this as not answerable on a Stack Exchange site. We can answer "why" questions as far as they concern the mechanism of work of some natural process, e.g. "why does wheat bread rise better than rye bread". But asking why a person (or an organisation) has chosen to do something has no real answer, unless that person discloses their reasons. Asking why the person does not do something is even less answerable. It can start a discussion, but it cannot lead to an objective answer. As you see, the best attempt only includes guesses - it might be a little worse suited for cups.
I'd guess there are many factors. For instance, in manufacturing, small differences in raw material cost and process requirements can have a big impact.
However, in this case, I'd say it comes down to temperature resistance: polyester (PET or PETE) does not do well at high temperatures, PP does. A reusable cup for microwave use is going to have hot (probably boiling) liquid in it.
From Plastic bottle - Wikipedia:
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE or polyester) is commonly used for carbonated beverage, water bottles and many food products. ... This material does not provide resistance to very high temperature applications—max. temp. 200 °F (93 °C).
Polypropylene (PP) is used primarily for jars and closures and provides a rigid package with excellent moisture barrier. One major advantage of polypropylene is its stability at high temperatures, up to 220 °F (104 °C). Polypropylene is autoclavable and offers the potential for steam sterilization. The compatibility of PP with high filling temperatures is responsible for its use with hot fill products. PP has excellent chemical resistance, but provides poor impact resistance in cold temperatures.
Here's an additional source: The 7 Most Common Plastics and How They are Typically Used. In summary: PETE is easily recyclable but breaks down under both heat and light exposure. So it gets used for one-time-use applications but isn't suitable for reusable containers.
Thanks. In summary, though the melting temperature for PETE is higher, it decomposes at a lower temperature. In reading the Wikipedia pages more carefully, I think this is related to PETE being more hygroscopic, so water gets in and breaks it down more easily. (Though this wouldn't help anyone, PETE might be the better choice if we just heated the bottle in an environment without water...)
Depending where you live there are plenty of cheap PET recyclable cups?
Cheap PP and PET cups are made by partially punching circles in a continuous sheet of raw plastic, and then these circles are heat punched into cup shapes. The vertical stress lines on PET (a harder material) will open up with hot liquids
PET will also start to deform above 90°C. Otherwise, yes PET is a better material and easier to recycle
Both PP and PET can be fully recycled, or burnt as hydrocarbon fuel
By recyclable you mean reusable?
Either or. They are washable too, just a little fragile. I have seen a specialist washer machine for PET cups. There seems to be a fair local business in tidy stacker's for used PP cups in offices, they are taken away for recycling
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.419503
| 2014-07-11T18:48:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45495",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"TFD",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52320
|
Pressure canning stock
I used egg whites to clarify chicken stock. I filtered the stock through cheese cloth and fine mesh colander two times.
After I pressure canned them I noticed that there was egg white on the bottom of the jars. Is this still safe to keep or should I open, restrain and then pressure can again?
In any food safety situation you really must ultimately ask yourself 3 questions to determine relative safety:
How High of a temperature am I sure I achieved?
How long did I hold this temperature?
How well sealed is the container?
If you are pressure canning, there are reasonably good chances you kept VERY high pressure and temperature. As for time, I cannot say.
For years my grandparents, my parents and myself have canned vegetables, soups, stocks, etc. and only rarely did we have errors because of some content of food. Most of our spoilage came from broken seals.
If you're confident in your canning technique, I see no reason why some egg white would hurt your stock. It's an animal protein just like any other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.419796
| 2015-01-06T02:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52320",
"authors": [
"Kady Fink",
"Mae Sue",
"Pam Bains",
"Parul Penkar",
"Patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32424
|
Can I substitute marmalade for peach preserves?
I've got a recipe here for fish done with a glaze made of peach preserves that looks pretty tasty. However, some members of my household dislike peach. Citrus is a classic pairing for fish; can I swap out the preserves for a marmalade? I'm not 100% sure on the differences between the two. Or is there another substitution that would work better?
Recipe: Ginger-peach glazed tilapia
From reading the recipe, it appears that honey would be a good--but differently flavored--substitute for the preserves.
In addition to the sweetness, marmalade has a pronounced bitter flavor that could overpower the fish. It seems that others feel the same way — there are few online recipes for fish with marmalade, and of those few, most are for salmon which has a more robust taste of its own to balance out the marmalade. Perhaps something like an apricot preserve would be more in the spirit of the original recipe?
Marmalade is (generally) made with the whole peel/pith of the orange, which is where that bitterness comes from. (I love it myself, but I can see how it wouldn't play well with fish.) Some sort of fruit preserve that's made only with orange juice (and maybe a little of the zest) could give the brightness of citrus without the pithy bitterness.
The bitter flavour of marmalade will overpower the fish.
This is exactly what Joe's answer already says.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.419918
| 2013-03-04T23:31:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32424",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"MT_Head",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29305
|
Mushroom replacement in Beef Wellington
I saw a great recipe for Beef Wellington on Serious Eats that I'm eager to try. However, my roommate does not eat mushrooms (both because he dislikes the flavor and because he had a bad experience as a child, so "hidden mushrooms" are out too). I worry that omitting them would defeat most of the purpose of the dish. Is there anything that could be used in their place to give a similar flavor?
I am a mushroom hater too--I read Kenji's article--but this is a dish I just wouldn't make. Mushrooms are kind of key to its identity.
I'm also a mushroom hater; I've scrapped off this part of the wellington for years. To me it's about how the beef cooks wrapped in this way not about the flavor of the layer.
Awww, don't hate mushrooms. I know one, and he's quite the fun guy!
Butter fried Sinsimella flower paste? Without mushrooms, it's not going to be Beef Wellington. You could put some garlic in there to cover the inevitable chlorophyll taste. -Check the legality in your sate/country before proceeding.
Two years later, the chestnut idea worked swimmingly :D
I followed the recipe I linked in the question, with the following changes:
Obviously, I replaced one pound of mushrooms with one pound of chestnuts. In hindsight, that was probably a bit too much, as a pound of mushrooms would have cooked down significantly more, but we didn't mind.
In step 3, I omitted the horseradish, as I don't like it. I'm only reporting that for accuracy :)
I replaced step 4 entirely with the following: Chop all chestnuts in half, being careful as they have a tendency to fly apart. Boil the halves in a saucepan of water for 7 minutes. Drain and let cool, then peel -- this should now be a much easier task. Chop chestnut meats finely.
I should note that I accidentally boiled them too long, and they got a bit crumbly while I was peeling them. That didn't matter, because I was going to chop them. However, in the future I might try using a food processor to chop them, because I ended up with an uneven chop and the larger pieces stood out from the eventual mixture, making it harder to eat.
In step 5, I had to add more butter, as the chestnuts basically absorbed the entire amount of butter called for without actually sauteeing in it. Not that I minded :) I sauteed the chestnuts until soft, then added the shallots and thyme and proceeded as usual.
I omitted the foie gras, again, added only for accuracy. Kenji mentioned in the comments that it's not needed if you don't like it or can't find it, so I omitted to make the whole thing simpler.
The dish turned out utterly delicious :D I don't usually buy beef tenderloin, finding it usually lacking in flavor; since the goal of the dish was to add more interesting flavor and texture back, I definitely feel this was a success. I realized during the rolling step that I hadn't bought the exact right cut, so it kind of fell apart a bit during serving, but despite all the hard work and mistakes I'd definitely make this again.
I don't think you can make a Beef Wellington without the obligatory mushrooms, it essentially becomes something else.
The whole concept behind beef wellington is to keep the meat juices in by being surrounded by pastry but there's no reason why you shouldn't omit the mushrooms for something else. I really can't think of any other food substance that would replicate the flavour of mushrooms without being mushrooms other than truffle.
I would try something like a pork/onion sausage meat stuffing and being the time of year it is, perhaps with chestnuts as a possible alternative, either surrounding the beef or inside it.
Ooh, chestnuts might work! The recipe I linked sends the mushrooms through a food processor anyway.
I hate mushrooms too. The only time I ever made wellington, I simply put a mixture of onions and bacon and cheese in place of the mushroom layer. I first sprinkled parmesan cheese. Then I put a layer of finely chopped sauteed onions and then crumpled cooked bacon. It was fantastic and everyone there said it was the 'best thing they ever ate'. I realize this isn't really 'wellington' anymore. But let's face it. The only real reason anyone wants to eat it is because it's beef and puffed pastry! That's what's most important I think :)
I don't like mushrooms much either, I've made wellingtons with pate mostly, although I've experimented with chopped up brussel sprouts with some success as well. One thing I would like to try is yellow lentils but haven't had the opportunity.
You could still try mushrooms though if it's the texture your roommate doesn't like rather than the flavor. If it is texture then try making a rough paste out of mushroom and shallots rather than chopped up pieces. Or try shitakes instead.
Pate and onion would work well.
I have used haggis, and it worked a treat! The oats soaked up the juices and kept the pastry dry, and it complemented the beef wonderfully. The only thing I would say is ensure that you only make a thin layer as haggis can have quite a strong taste.
My husband also dislikes mushrooms. I substituted them for caramelized onions. Together with the pâté, it turned out quite well, though I agree that substituting the the mushrooms totally changes the character of the dish!
I've used both haggis and black pudding as an alternative to duxelle. Obviously they both change the nature of the dish and is a bit of a faff to prepare (particularly the black pudding) but the combination of flavours is fantastic. As mentioned above, whether haggis or black pudding, it needs to be quite a thin layer so it doesn't completely overpower the beef.
I endorse the "thin layer" advice for the Wellington but only for black pudding with rough bits of cooking apple added otherwise the black pudding will fight it out with the pate part of the dish. I venture to suggest that haggis won't work save for upsetting the Scots!
I find olives tend to keep a similar texture to the mushrooms without bringing their disgusting earthy flavor to the dish :)
Olives tend to be as controversial as mushrooms however; that won't work for me either. But maybe someone else can try that one!
Ew. Instead of the lovely earthy flavor of mushrooms, you want to put in the disgusting petroleum-like flavor of olives. Ick.
I have a mushroom allergy so i can't make beef wellington with it. I was thinking about using caramelized onion or garlic and cheese (probably a sharp cheddar or brie) wrapped in bacon or prosciutto.
I doubt everyone who suggests substitutions has actually tried them in the specific recipe the OP is asking about; everyone extrapolates from experience. Let's not give someone a hard time just because they used the word "thinking".
Try sun dried tomatoe pesto on layers of thin slice prosciutto then roll on puff pastry for an Italian style Wellington
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.420077
| 2012-12-19T13:23:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29305",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Balaz2ta",
"Cascabel",
"Deanna Marie Boyser",
"Jared",
"JoeFish",
"Joshua Prostiate",
"Kellie Shankey",
"Marti",
"Null Dev",
"Peter Point",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shubham",
"The Clothes Spin spam",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98352",
"törzsmókus",
"user67989",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41633
|
Fishhouse Punch: Peach Brandy vs Schnapps
The basic recipe for fish-house punch involves cognac, dark rum, peach brandy, sugar, and lemon. I have peach schnapps, which I rather like. However, this blend is one of the few that I find palatable with this much alcohol in it; much like Long Island Iced Tea, it tastes a lot less boozy than it is. If I substitute peach schnapps for peach brandy, will it throw off the balance of the drink? Or possibly add any unwanted flavors?
ETA: When I went to the store, I discovered Paramount brand "Peach-flavored Brandy". The back of the bottle suggests using it in a Fuzzy Naval, which is one of the drinks I usually make with Peach Schnapps. I kind of wonder if it's just got artificial flavors rather than being distilled from peaches? It's a product of Cleveland, which is near where I live, so I don't know how widely available that brand is.
I think a trial run is warranted....
I'm available for a trial run.
What is peach brandy? True peach brandy is really hard to find (and tends to be really expensive). It's brandy distilled from fermented peaches. (It may be unaged - eau de vie - or it may be aged in barrels like regular grape brandy.) Confusingly I think some producers call their schnapps "brandy" and vice-versa.
Anyway, if you substitute peach schnapps for this, your drink may be too sweet - peach schnapps (in my admittedly rather limited experience) tend to be neutral alcohol with added sugar and peach flavoring. It's up to you, though - try it and see. You may just want to add less sugar if you do this.
(If you can't find real peach brandy, it may be interesting to substitute slivovitz - Eastern European plum brandy, which may be aged or not, or some other palinka. It's usually fairly cheap as well.)
Sorry to hear about your experience, but what you call peach schnapps (pure alcohol with fake aroma) is actually a fake liqueur. What you call peach brandy is actually peach schnapps, made from fermented peaches, unaged. Peach brandy would be made from peach wine and aged, and possibly had a little amount of the same wine added back before aging. I haven't had it (nor peach wine, I don't know who might sell it), but with grapes, the schnapps (slivovitz) tastes different from the brandy.
I found Paramount Peach-flavored Brandy, which suggests using it in a Fuzzy Naval on the back, which is one of the drinks I usually make with Peach schnapps
@rumtscho you are correct about European schnapps, but what are usually sold as "schnapps" here in the US are almost always just alcohol, artificial flavor and sugar. For example, peppermint schnapps, green apple schnapps, cinnamon schnapps, etc.
@Yamikuronue that might work - I haven't heard of that brand. If it's regular brandy with added peach flavoring, it could certainly be fine.
I just had this conundrum, I substituted a 50/50 mix of peach schnapps and VS brandy. Not sure what it's supposed to taste like but it tasted good to me!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.420756
| 2014-01-31T17:25:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41633",
"authors": [
"Andrew Paul",
"CONTAINER DEPOT EXPRESS",
"Jolenealaska",
"PT. Nusantara Samudra Spam",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"San Tan Valley Window spam",
"Virginia McGowan",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97167",
"josl47",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57984
|
Can I infuse my own raisins?
I quite like lime-infused raisins (like these), but they're kind of pricey compared to regular raisins. Are they made by some process I can emulate at home? Is it just a matter of soaking and then drying? Or adding small amounts of liquid? Or is this an industrial process I can't easily replicate?
I just noticed your "like these" on your question so I clicked and looked at the package. On the back it says citric acid and if I am correct there is something about aroma in the ingredients. So the answer below says lime oil and citric acid and what you could do is soak or just half way cover or spray the raisins with lime juice? Then rub it all 3 together and set it out for a day or two. I'm not familiar with citric acid but I'm sure you can get help with that.
I am not sure what you mean by lime-infused raisins but let me explain what I do to my raisins for scones. I usually soak them in Gran Marnier Liquour, anywhere from 4 hours to 24 hours. I put the raisins in a glass bowl or big cup, covering the raisins with the Liquour. It depends on how much flavor I want the raisins to have. Then I strain the raisins and set aside the liquour for either another receipe or someone usually wants to drink it. I put the raisins in the scones. My nieces and nephews just love them, their moms tell me because it's just like eating booze, and of course, when I make it for them, I do use more raisins and soak them more than 24 hours for the flavor. I use the white raisins. Now for your question.
YES I do believe that if you squeeze enough fresh lime juice to cover the raisins, you will achieve your goal. My only tiny problem is that the lime juice might break down the raisins because of the acidity in the lime juice. So, what I would do is try one cup of raisins, cover with fresh lime juice and check in 2 hours, if ok continue, if you want more flavor wait 2 more hours and check again and make sure not only for flavor but for the break down of the raisins due to the acidity. What raisins did you eat? White, red, concord, there are so many types, that I am not sure which would hold up to the acidity.
Now for the drying. Put them in a very low temp oven, 200 degrees about one hour, checking every 20 minutes, checking to make sure that they do not burn or put in a food dehydrator. Then let them cool. Look this up on Google also. I am giving you my own experience. My Auntie used to soak her raisins for some of her cookies in Brandy, Whiskey, Vodka and whatever liquour she thought would be interesting. She was an excellent cook and baker and owned a restaurant. Her booze soaked rice raisin pudding was awesome.
The old way and even today is to put outside on mesh, covered on both side with cheesecloth so insects and birds or other undesirables will not get to. This might take a little while, a few days to a week or two depending on hot it is outside. I would check this every day or so also.
You could also let them stay plump, leave in the fridge, and take out and eat what you want as you want it. A little juicy but still tasty. Sounds delicious and in a fruit salad. I bet this would be awesome. I have a lemon tree and white raisins and will try this out myself this week. I bet this will be a big hit! Good Balance with sweet fruit. Hope this info helps you.
Another thought I had was to cover your raisins, whatever type you bought, in fresh lime juice, bring to a boil, simmer for 5 minutes, turn off heat, then let sit till cools. Strain liquid into bowl and put raisins on a sheet pan. Put in oven on 200 degrees for about 20 minutes, take out and let cool. Let stay out for a day. Should be ok. If the raisins look too wet after the first 20 minutes, try 20 minutes more then take out, cool and leave on pan for a day, or after the first 20 minutes turn off the oven, if wet, just leave in oven and they should dry out and be ok by next day. Good Luck
Does the flavor remain through the drying? A lot of flavor compounds are pretty volatile, and I can imagine them evaporating some along with the water/alcohol.
Of course some of it will evaporate, but not so much as to make a difference. When I make the scones, I bake them for about 20 minutes. granted the raisins are engulfed in dough but there is quite a punch in them. So, they should be ok, especially if you let them sit on the sheet pan to dry out after the oven. I will try this myself with lemon instead of lime probably next week sometime for a fruit salad. I will let you know how it works out.
Within scones is very different: the raisins don't completely dry out, and a lot of the flavor that's released will end up in the scones, not lost. I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying I don't know exactly how well it'll work.
In the scones they don't dry out because they are very plumped up, encased in a dough, cooked in a 350 degrees F oven. That's why the kids love it so much. It's after midnight, oh well. I'll do a cup of white jumbo raisins, boil, simmer in fresh lemon juice, lemons from my tree, strain, then put them in the oven at 200 degrees F for 20 minutes, check them out and decide if they need another 20 minutes or just turn off the oven and take out half and leave the rest in the oven. Let's see what happens. I will try to report back in the next day or two. Remember, lemons not limes, similar not same.
Good news, bad news, got to stay on top of it. First batch I covered 1 cup raisins with lemon juice on high heat, answered phone and they burned in minutes, badly, ugh. 2nd try, kept eye on them, the juice boils faster than water. 3rd try, made a simple syrup 2 sugar 1 water, boiled to half gone, added fresh lemon juice, almost like tart lemonade, THEN added raisins, SIMMERED for about 10 minutes, then put on cookie sheet lined with parchment, of course little gooey, put in 200 degree F oven 10 minutes, left in for about 1 hour, took out, it's not what I expected. To syrupy. It can be done!
In addition to soaking in juice as the other answer mentioned, you might also try tossing them with lime oil and citric acid. You'd only need a drop or two, and you'd want to be sure to toss them a lot (or maybe put them in a bag and massage it?) to work the oil around evenly. The citric acid would just be to give them a bit of tartness, and appears to be in the ingredients of the brand you linked to anyway. It would definitely give a strong kick of lime flavor without the risk of making them soggy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.420990
| 2015-06-03T23:34:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57984",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joseph Miguez",
"Lawrence Smith",
"Linda Abizzylady",
"Lindsey Taylor",
"Michele Russell",
"dany paulsen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5395
|
What is Zwieback toast and where can I find it?
I am baking a black forest cake and it calls for zwieback toast. I cannot find this anywhere. Does anyone know what this is or where I can find it?
Zwieback in a black forest cake? That's a strange recipe...
It wasn't requested, but since folks are indicating they are having trouble finding the commercial products, here is a link to King Arthur's recipe for homemade zweiback.
Basically, it is a twice backed yeast-raised bread, somewhat similar to the Italian biscotti.
A long, log shaped loaf is prepared much like any yeast leavend bread, then the next day it is sliced and baked again to dry it out.
Zwieback toast is a twice-baked sweetened toast fed to teething children. It is also known as teething toast, and can be found in the baby aisle of most grocery stores.
I also used Zwieback in Germany when I was baking cheesecakes, in place of graham crackers. While not identical, it was close enough for many applications; the reverse should also hold.
Here is what it looks like, if you are out shopping.
Take a look at this: http://www.amazon.de/Brandt-Marken-Zwieback-10er-Pack-Packung/dp/B003R7KX5K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358415860&sr=8-1 This is the original!
This is the best receipe for zwieback I have found. The Arthur one is all hodgepodge throw it all together
http://www.food.com/recipe/zwieback-toast-teething-cookies-156724?scaleto=48.0&st=null&mode=metric
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.421490
| 2010-08-17T22:17:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5395",
"authors": [
"DMaster",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe Miller",
"Kalai Vivek",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sven Dukat",
"chops",
"gdcii",
"groovingandi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70372",
"kiev",
"nab",
"yonitdm"
],
"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
}
|
12112
|
How do I remove my KitchenAid attachment?
My KitchenAid attachment appears to be stuck. I attempt to push up to remove the dough hook and it does not budge one bit. I am thinking I'm either doing something completely wrong or there's some way to get it unstuck!
Any advice?
I am trying out what they suggest in this video now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE88Frx2Ysc
Will update with results.
It is usually stuck because of fresh or old food particles getting into the socket or release mechanism
The simplest way is to drizzle boiling water onto the release mechanism. A few large pours over some minutes may be required to soften and remove the food particles
A quick spray of silicone oil may be required after this as the boiling water removes all factory lubrication too
Unplug the machine first! and take great care not to get water into the motor or electronic parts. Position the device over a sink or bucket so that water will flow away from the motor and electronic parts
My dough hook was almost impossible to remove. I tried many things but pouring very hot water
over the the spring and shaft worked in a short time. Make sure it is unplugged and water does not get into the motor. It might take several attempts to free it. Clean the shaft and the area of the hook where the shaft inserts. Apply some cooking oil to those areas after cleaning. You will have to lay the appliance on it's side to perform this procedure.
had a stuck mixer attachment, 2mins under the hot tap worked, then I added vaseline to the top to make it easier to attach, I believe washing in dishwasher removed all grease from it.
thanks
KitchenAid recommends that you compress a warm, wet towel around the top of the attachment for 10 minutes. Reheat the towel and repeat for another couple of minutes. The warmth will cause the aluminum to expand, and with some wiggling, should allow you to release the attachment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.421665
| 2011-02-13T23:01:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12112",
"authors": [
"Dhanyaja Chamunni",
"Eric",
"Kristina Wright",
"Mathieu M-Gosselin",
"Nick Stinemates",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70538",
"qazwsx",
"styrofoam fly",
"tuesday"
],
"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
}
|
12613
|
Chicken comes out salty... occasionally
A particular honey-and-mustard chicken I make frequently has, on a couple of occasions, come out tasting extremely salty, the saltiness overpowering the flavor of the chicken and the sauce. I'm trying to figure out what happened here, so I can avoid it in the future.
The sauce is simple honey, mustard, curry powder, and a bit of pepper. Nothing salty in it. I cover the chicken and bake it 1.5-2 hours; usually uncovering it for the last bit.
This has happened to me twice; I've made the recipe many times. This past time, one chicken I made came out salty, another didn't (or significantly less so) - same sauce, but different pan and cooking time.
One friend suggested that this might be because I'm using kosher chickens, which are kashered with salt. But I've been eating kosher chicken all my life, and I don't remember getting an oversalted chicken ever before.
Does anybody have any idea what might have caused this? Could this be a consequence of over-baking, or is kashrut a likely culprit? Something else?
Thanks muchly :)
I suspect it's because of a combination of a kosher chicken in addition to an assumption implicit in the recipe that you're not brining the chicken (or using a kosher one). Although I can't say that conclusively. I've also added the [kosher] tag because, even if that isn't the reason, it's still a relevant question for kosher cooking.
Shot in the dark here but do you wash the chicken during the preparation? It's possible that it wasn't washed properly at the facility after kashering it. That's not supposed to happen, but in my experience with kosher chickens, sometimes it does.
Definitely haven't been washing the chicken. This is news to me - I'll look into it. Perhaps I should add - I'm talking about kosher chicken in Israel, where it's the norm. I don't think everybody here washes their chicken... I'll have to check.
@Ziv: Always advisable to wash your chickens, or any poultry.
@Orbling: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food/cooking/wash-chicken-0907 is the first link I found that didn't have to do with prize chicken shows :P You disagree?
Whole chicken? Frozen chicken fillets?
@subt: Whole chicken. The first time this happened was with a defrosted chicken (which I thought might have something to do with it); the second time, it was fresh. I usually use fresh whole chicken.
@Ziv: Maybe it is a more old-fashioned thing to do, but I was ever taught to wash a bird thoroughly. Perhaps if you are buying factory prepared birds then you might not need to as much, as they would have been washed throughly prior to packing. But they often need a good rinse in my experience, especially if they are from other routes.
As a student I worked in some very high class chicken factories - I would ALWAYS wash poultry.
While this isn't a definitive answer, I've given it some further thought and believe that my original suspicion is probably correct. That is, the saltiness is probably due to the chicken itself, and the kashrut is a likely root cause.
For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the koshering process for poultry, in a nutshell it involves removing the feathers and various other parts, then thoroughly coating it in koshering salt, which are flat, coarse-grained crystals that are ideal for sticking to the meat (unlike table salt crystals which would dissolve, or sea salt crystals which would just fall off).
The koshering process desiccates (dries out) the meat - the salt crystals absorb moisture, and then they are washed off, taking the moisture with them. It's mainly done to remove the blood, but at the same time removes a lot of other moisture. The entire process only takes about an hour and does not add a significant quantity of salt to the meat. Kosher salt crystals can absorb quite a bit of water before they dissolve and without being in a solution, they cannot actually penetrate the meat.
This is in contrast to brining, where the chicken is immersed in a saline solution and actually absorbs up to 10% of its weight in brine (which adds up to about 0.05% of its weight in salt for a typical solution of 5% brine). This actually does makes the chicken saltier throughout, although very few people actually perceive this as "salty" - it just enhances the flavour of the chicken.
So if a brined chicken, which has actually absorbed salt, doesn't taste particularly salty, then a kosher chicken should definitely not taste salty, and normally it won't. The caveat is that this assumes that the plant was diligent in its preparation of the chicken before packaging, and depending on where you live, many if not most kosher factories are anything but.
Specifically, there are a few ways a kosher processing plant could, by virtue of carelessness, produce chicken or other meat that's way too salty:
They can apply far too much salt to begin with;
They can salt it for too long;
They can wash it poorly or not at all.
All of these factors will compound each other leading to roughly the same effects:
The meat may become noticeably dry;
Crystals of salt may be deposited on the exterior, undissolved;
Over time some of those crystals may actually absorb enough water to dissolve, creating its own "brine" of sorts and even diffusing the super-saturated salt-water back into the meat. Koshering is a time-sensitive process.
If you're also noticing any dryness in the meat then I would definitely think they were being less-than-thorough at the factory and suggest looking into different brands or even filing a complaint.
Even if that's not the case, or if you don't have that option, one thing you can probably do at home to compensate is to simply rinse the chicken thoroughly before cooking it. Note that this is not for food safety, and rinsing a chicken is known to actually raise your risk (slightly) due to cross-contamination concerns. But you are not doing this for food safety, you are doing this to get rid of non-bacterial contaminants (salt, and maybe other things) that the factory left behind.
Undissolved salt on the surface is definitely going to taste the saltiest since you'll be putting actual whole crystals on your tongue, and I think that's a very likely culprit here. Salt and other solids really have a hard time penetrating the exterior of meat or poultry, so it's less likely for the salt to be inside the chicken, even if the processing plant was truly sloppy.
So try giving those kosher chickens a good rinse - don't forget to sanitize your work area when you're all done preparing them - and see if that helps you at all. If not, then probably all you can do is find another brand or try to mask the saltiness with a lot of spices and sauce (find a recipe that's normally heavy on salt, and cut the quantity of salt used).
P.S. Note that this is quite speculative and I do not actually have first-hand evidence of this happening at a kosher factory. Nevertheless, it is the best explanation I can think of for a kosher chicken coming out too salty when there is no salt at all in the recipe. I've never had it happen with an unkosher chicken.
Wouldn't applying too little salt be a more likely problem than too much -- since too little salt would have a chance of dissolving?
@Brendan: Given the same conditions and quantity of water, the same total mass of salt (roughly) is going to dissolve. Adding more salt will only result in some of it remaining undissolved; the initial quantity will still be dissolved. In theory, more koshering salt will probably cause more to end up being dissolved, because more salt will tend to draw out more moisture from the bird, thus permitting more total salt to be dissolved, even if the percentage is lower. I really don't know if the effect of this is significant at all in practice, but that's the theory.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.421884
| 2011-02-26T21:33:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12613",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"Bruce Wang",
"CaptainCodeman",
"Fruit Sugar",
"JamesF",
"Joe perry",
"O.O",
"Orbling",
"Ziv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4893",
"immutabl",
"metacubed",
"stm027"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14672
|
Whats the difference between white and yellow corn meal. and all cornmeal or half flour half cornmeal
I usually make cornbread with white corn meal and no sugar. I like the no sugar part, but I want to experiment with the batter a bit. What are the following changes supposed to achieve:
Yellow corn meal as opposed to white
Half flour in the mix.
My normal corn meal recipe is this
The problem here is that you're comparing two very different recipes: Northern cornbread (yellow meal, equal parts flour, a tablespoon or so of sugar) and Southern cornbread (white meal, no or little flour, no sugar). There's no real point in trying to mix and match or interpolate between the recipes, any more than than it would make sense to make something halfway between cioppino and bouillabaisse, since they are both just fish stew.
I think you've got Southern and Northern styles crossed-up there. Southern cornbread is not sweet--that's Yankee style.
Doh, you're right. Editing
The color is simply the color of corn used - white or yellow.
I use a self-rising cornmeal mix which contains a percentage (not sure but more cornmeal than flour) of each. 50% flour will make your cornbread more like cake. 100% cornmeal will be the opposite and much drier. It all depends on the taste and texture you are trying to achieve. I am southern and do not do sugar in any of my corn products...:) I think the mix I use is about 25% flour, but I could be way off as I have no clue. Both are cheap so experiment until you find your perfect balance....
Welcome! It’s perfectly ok to post answers to “old” posts. This is not a discussion forum where nobody cares about old threads, but the Stack Exchange network explicitly aims to create a knowledge base where Q/As are useful now and in the future. If you want to learn more, there’s the [tour] and the [help].
I've never found a difference between yellow and white corn meal, when it comes to cooking.
Since it doesn't look like your recipe calls for wheat flour, i'd stay away from the 50/50 mix. Self rising cornmeal isn't the same as cornmeal MIX. Think about the properties of wheat flour verses cornmeal (has gluten -- so may rise better, become chewy, etc). This will give you an idea of what it might do to your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.422603
| 2011-05-11T02:56:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14672",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Cheryl DeCriscio",
"CuriousOne",
"Dave Griffith",
"Stephie",
"bikeboy389",
"chronometric",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"tjh"
],
"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
}
|
53684
|
What is the ideal temperature for water added to chickpea flour for falafel?
Recipes for falafel using bean flour usually recommend warm, but not hot water to mix with the dry ingredients. What is the ideal temperature range for the water?
I don't know the answer to your question, but "warm" for other purposes generally means ~100F or ~38C.
I have always used room temperature water, & have never had any problem. Generally I take the water from the Brtia filter sitting on my countertop.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.422822
| 2015-01-16T04:33:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53684",
"authors": [
"Brooke Forrest",
"Jolenealaska",
"Katie Morsman",
"Max Marohn",
"Robert Orrell",
"carol cristelli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"robin giles"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16602
|
Why would a blended salad dressing change its color?
Yesterday evening we had a barbecue and I made a tomato/mozzarella salad. Since I couldn't find my dressing shaker, I used my hand blender (an ESGE M180S, in case it matters).
I got my dressing as usual, dark brown in colour, it was just a bit more smooth than usual, which I expected. A few minutes after pouring it over the salad, the colour went from dark brown to a very very light brown, looking as if I'd used cream in it. The taste stayed the same as usual, but the colour change I thought was weird.
So, why would a blended dressing change its colour while a shaken dressing wouldn't?
Probably the ingredients are important to answer this, so here's what I used:
Olive & sunflower oil (4 tbsp each)
Balsamic vinegar (2 tbsp) , malt vinegar (1 tbsp), apple vinegar (1 tbsp)
Hibiscus syrup (2 tbsp)
Dried basil (1 tsp)
Mustard (1 tsp)
Salt (1 tsp), sugar (1 tsp), freshly ground pepper
@Knives Thanks for editing, it's probably obvious that I'm not a native speaker.
you're doing fine - I wouldn't have guessed.
It seems I was looking in the wrong direction here. It seems to have been the Mozzarella cheese. After pouring the dressing over the salad, the cheese started to leak some white liquid, which changed the colour of the dressing.
This was something I hadn't on my radar, since I had always used the same brand of cheese, and it had never happened before. I only found out because last week I did a shaken dressing, and this caused that behavior too. So it's nothing to do with the blender ...
Sounds like some air bubbles were incorporated in the mix and started to resurface (or blend together?).
Generally little air bubbles tend to make a mixture lighter in colour, you can see that, for instance, when you mix sugar and egg yolks.
Now, I'm not sure why did it happen once you poured it on the salad...
Thanks. I was aware of this, but like you said, wouldn't have expected this to occur ten minutes after actually preparing the dressing.
@takrl: could it be that the air bubbles were really tiny and started to slowly "merge together" after that? That would change their light diffracting properties. Did the color change only in the dressing poured on the salad or also the one that was left in the container (if any)?
Thanks, for the idea, but I can't really tell. Since it was considered delicious there wasn't any left in the container (I actually -sort of- had to defend it to be used for the salad :) )
My first though was that it has to with the higher efficiency of the blender. Since the blender breaks up the fat into much smaller droplets than what is possible using a shaker or a whisk, that would account for the lighter color. This is also the reason why blended mayonnaise will be opaque and almost white, whereas a hand stirred mayonnaise can be quite translucent and much more yellow in color. Then I read on about the color changing from dark to light. I have absolutely no idea what that is about. Maybe somebody poured cream into it while you weren't looking? Or used magic? :)
Thanks. No, nobody could've poured cream into it. That would've altered the taste, and since we only returned from holiday two days ago, we haven't got any cream in the house yet :-) But good point about the blender efficiency, although I would've expected to see this when preparing it and not later on ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.423162
| 2011-08-03T09:57:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16602",
"authors": [
"Little Kobold",
"Matt",
"Shog9",
"andrea hardie",
"eidolies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"nico",
"nitro2k01",
"takrl",
"the-nick-wilson",
"tmcw",
"user3811091",
"user44212"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95902
|
converting cups of rice to kilos
Planning to cook rice for 200 people--will be using long grain rice and slow cooking in the oven. How many cups of rice do I need? How many kilos of long grain rice do I need.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, rookie! As written, your question is too vague--how much rice to feed to people depends on a variety of factors, such as their age, the type of meal (e.g. breakfast at a hotel vs. lunch on a hiking trip), whether the rice is a side, a dish component, or the only food...
will be served at a shelter --adding peas and carrots to it and will be served under honey garlic meatballs
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60032/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7068/67
@mech : it's not an unreasonable question. It's similar to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/75505/67 . We just need to know if this is a side or part of the main dish, and is this lunch, dinner or something else (which he followed up with)
@Joe : without the follow-up, which I prompted, it was too vague. I did not call it unreasonable.
@mech : we're going to disagree here ... with too much detail, the question is more easily answered, but it makes it so it's less likely to help someone else in the future. A certain level of vagueness can be good
If you cook rice for 200 people you could consider 100 grams per person so a total of 20kg.
I'm making a lot of assumptions here, I know, like I have no idea what your other servings look like.
As a general piece of advice and as semi-professional chef, I'd recommend to use grams at all times. Cups is a volume-based measurements and rice has a lot of air around it, and its volume will depend on the type of rice, temperature of the environment in which you measure and even humidity! If you go pro, you should resort to using accurate weight-measurements rather than volume-units.
Also worth mentioning that you have to qualify 'cups', as a 'cup' for rice cookers is 175mL but an Imperial 'cup' is 284mL (250mL for "metric cup", 237mL for US traditional cup) ... so they're even messier when asking on websites
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.423464
| 2019-01-24T01:46:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95902",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Rookie Cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72388",
"mech"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66544
|
cornmeal crust on chicken is too gritty, is there a way to fix after chx has been baked?
I made oven baked chicken using coarse ground cornmeal (obviously a mistake). Dredged chx in flour, then egg, then cornmeal. I'm worried I'll break a tooth on the gritty corn particles in the breading! I don't want to throw it out. Is there a way to soften the breading even though the chicken is cooked? Next time I'll use crushed cornflakes or something else.
The only way you are going to soften the corn meal in the breading is to let it get a bit soggy. Store it in a plastic container in the fridge overnight and let it's own moisture do the job. If the result you get is good then great, if the skin isn't good after that then just peel it off and eat the chicken.
+1 for "peel and eat the chicken". Making it soggy is a long shot, but saving the chicken is a surprisingly good and easy idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.423651
| 2016-02-16T01:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66544",
"authors": [
"Aldwin Chan",
"Hayley Preston",
"Lisa Singh",
"Norma Farmer",
"Sarah",
"Wendy Wood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114045
|
Simmering, rather than caramelizing, onions (plus garlic and ginger)
I can caramelize onions, garlic, and ginger over 30 minutes, stir frying.
But this requires me to stand in front of the stove for 30 minutes. Instead, I prefer to spend 90 minutes, adding a bit of water and a touch of oil, then letting them simmer, with the onions taking half the time alone before the others are added. I can then do something else during that time.
Does this process have a name? Does it still qualify as caramelization? Would a self-respecting chef do this once a week with larger quantities and freeze small containers with the mixture for use throughout the week?
Update
I say the following only half in jest. Since Tetsujin slapped the entirely derogatory "fairgrounds" term on boiled-down onions, I'm wondering whether I can elevate this method ever so slightly by giving it another term, and a French one at that.
Isn't boiling down onions exactly how you make French onion soup?
Update 2
Correction to self: as pointed out by Preston in the comments, French onion soup is caramelized onions plus (beef, usually) stock. The description above is my past-years attempt at reducing the time I spend preparing F.O.S., and it stuck in my mind as a correct method.
Well, now I know why I complained about onion soup tasting with overwhelming onions. It's because I multiplied the quantity of onions in an attempt to avoid the caramelization step.
Just a note to say that I don’t think boiling onions is the typical preparation for French Onion Soup. For that, you typically caramelize a whole bunch of onions and then later add broth.
I'm not really being derogatory about fairground onions. They're great on hot dogs. They're the thing that draws you towards the hot dog stand. You can't really smell hot dogs, but you sure can smell fairground onions from a mile away ;)) That's precisely how I make onions at home for hot dogs, A quick fry to get a bit of browning - oil, water, lid, simmer until the water dissipates, then a quick flash at the end to get some more colour in. It's not how I'd start a curry, or onion soup, though.
@Tetsujin It is perhaps a compromise. An optimization does need 30 minutes of stirring. You also suggest that it's possible to not spend 30 minutes just on the caramelization by dropping down the temperature a little so that they don't burn quite so quickly when you turn your back to do the second dish (or get some other work done). I'm trying to find out how to push this to the limit, and leave the room entirely. The end dish may be different, but some cooking styles—Chinese stir-fry in particular, keeps the onions wholly intact, and just give them a quick whisk at very high heat.
@Tetsujin Might going in this opposite direction (higher heat, lower overall time) be another alternative. Perhaps the curry won't end up being Haute Cuisine, but would it be palatable?
Flash-frying onions gets you maillard, not caramelisation. You can't really short-cut it & arrive at the same result.
Those onions don't look caramelized, just very cooked. If you want a slow, low-touch caramelization, you can caramelize them in the oven.
@FuzzyChef Oven-based caramelization is a great idea! Please add details, addressing in particular: 1- Is mixing with oil, spreading out, and cooking in a preheated 425F for 60 minutes about right? 2- Can "very cooked" onions be caramelized afterwards by stirring over the stove, but for maybe 10 minutes rather than the typical 30+ minutes? (Both approaches are worth experimenting on my side, but a hint to reduce the number of trials would be nice.)
Sam: that's a different question though. Happy to field it if you want to post it.
Often, cooking onions over low heat so they turn translucent without browning would be sweating as was already mentioned, but the name would technically mean cooking them until they gave up their liquid.
With a little bit of water in the pan, and the lid on, I'd be inclined to call it steaming, but if you then cooked it without the lid some to get rid of the liquid (like a steam-sauté technique, but at lower heat), I'd just consider it a shortcut to sweating, as this is also one of the many shortcuts that some people suggest for caramelizing.
If there were more than just a touch of water (as it looks to be in your image), then I might consider it to be braising. It would need to be completely submerged to be boiling.
But that's just the initial stages of it before they take color, if you're cooking them all the way to brown, it's still caramelizing, just not using the 'classic' technique.
All are ideas well worth experiments, with the final objective of caramelizing with reduced attention to the process.
Without the water, I'd call it 'sweating'.
With the water & lid, they're going to come out a bit like like fairground hotdog onions… not really like caramelised.
Fine for Spanish Tortilla (or hot dogs), not so great if you need that Maillard-like reaction.
If you don't use the water, or the lid, you can slowly caramelise onions with little supervision, but not none.
Check them every 10-15 mins at 'too slow to burn' pan temperatures, with plenty of oil. This is another one of those "work it out by repetition based on your stove heat & your pan thickness" things that might take you a few tries to get just right.
After that you can do it every time.
You can also cheat a bit (it's a fake & doesn't taste quite the same…)
Sweat at minimal heat, like for tortilla, for half an hour, then push up the heat a fair bit once you're there to supervise & quickly brown the already soft onions by keeping them moving constantly.
That's still a bit 'fairground' but a reasonable cheat.
Very reasonable comments. I'll have to run a back-to-back taste test to determine just how bad the "fairgrounds" (lol) taste is like compared to caramelization. Nice third idea for onions. I use it frequently (perogies, etc). Two issues, both health related: 1- I'm not sure that the Maillard-reaction is healthy to use seven days a week. Some pointers online suggest it isn't. 2- The need for "plenty of oil" is problematic. Extra oil (or worse, butter) makes it so easy to improve flavor for _every_thing. The challenge is to make do with a minimum of fat.
You can do it with less oil, but you need more stirring. It's an either/or. They'll dry out, & not in a good way, with not enough of both. I'm afraid I can't contribute to the 'is it good for me?' club on either maillard or caramelisation. You can eat boiled tofu if you want bland :P
I doubt I'll find a better answer than the one you wrote, but let me wait until another authority materializes and gives me their blessing to use this method or a variant, at least some of the time.
Of course. Never rush into accepting (though you can always change your mind). Leave it a day or two to see if someone comes up with something better. I'm not in desperate need of the points ;)
You can (even should) strain off the extra oil at the end, so it probably doesn't affect the fat in the final product very much at all
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.423789
| 2021-01-31T18:54:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114045",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Preston",
"Sam7919",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119404
|
Category name for restaurants NOT dressing food?
Is it there a specific category name or whatever, defining restaurants that serve food without dressing, or any kind of food art or dish decoration, despite still serving good quality, tasty food, fill-me-up dishes? Not to mistake with low quality inns or cheap diners.
Hi Aram - can I check something? When you say "dressing", do you mean something like non-edible decoration? As opposed to "dressing" in the sense of salad dressing?
@VinceBowdren yes, as for decoration. I'm looking if there is a standard way to categorize a place that may serve excellent cook without any decoration....served just as we would do at home.
In that case I think the words you might want are presentation or plating?
Osteria In Italy.
In U.S., I would hazard a guess anyplace using the term homestyle
There are several types of restaurant that might fit your description. I am working from a US perspective here.
Fast food - Quick counter or drive through service. Mostly processed food in a restaurant that has a very casual ambiance. Food is mostly served packaged and/or wrapped.
Fast casual - Often sit-down service (though can include counter service), more expensive than fast food. Can still be processed food. Nicer ambiance, but still casual.
Family style restaurant - sit down service, where food is served to share on larger platters.
Casual dining - ambiance is still fairly casual, but nicer, less "corporate" feeling than fast casual. Sit-down/table service and higher prices.
I guess I could also include cafes in the list...coffee shops that serve food.
None of the above place a great emphasis on the aesthetics of plating food, though each has its own aesthetic.
You could certainly find "quality" in each category, though there is definitely a range.
There’s a concept in the United States of a ‘hole in the wall’ restaurant. But that usually means that the restaurant is smaller, and doesn’t obviously stand out (in terms of signage and decor)
The food typically wouldn’t be pretentious, but it might still have embellishments in the dishes if that was the norm for the cuisine.
It’s the type of restaurant that you might find in a strip mall, or industrial park, or down a side alley.
It doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the food— there are high quality hole-in-the-wall restaurants, and there might be ones that aren’t so great.
It’s a category in terms of how people might describe a place… I don’t think the hospitality industry focuses on it as a category like they would ‘fast casual’ or ‘dive bar’
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.424334
| 2022-01-04T00:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119404",
"authors": [
"Aram Alvarez",
"Vince Bowdren",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97164"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96093
|
Is it good to store a salt block with silica packs?
We recently started using an Himalayan salt block. We cleaned it as per the directions, and the storage said to scrub it, dry it, let it air dry, and store it in an airtight container.
It seems clear that these storage directions are intended to make sure we keep the block as dry as possible. I thought it would be even better to toss a silica pack or two into the airtight container, since silica packs help keep whatever is in their container dry. The instructions certainly don't suggest doing this, presumably because silica packs aren't common items to keep around. (If it matters, I scavenged this one from a bag of jerky we had eaten.)
Is there anything wrong with this idea? My understanding was that the silica packs keep their silica all inside the packet, and draw the moisture into the packet, and that it shouldn't interact with the salt block at all, but there's a fine line between food chemistry and magic for me.
Should I toss a silica packet in to the container that has my salt block?
I was going to add "silica" and "salt-block" as tags, but they're both new, and I don't have the rep on this site to do it. If any more "seasoned" hands think they're worth adding, please feel free.
I'd say that the extra silica bags were not necessary. Typical table salt is not greatly hygroscopic.
I'm not sure if a salt block is "typical". Other web sites said that it's mostly NaCl with a lot of other trace minerals, and that it's antimicrobial. If it's truly not hygroscopic, I wonder why the instructions were so insistent about an airtight container.
I'd judge the "airtight container" business to be some CYA from the seller, and not actually necessary. It's a block of salt; if you keep it from getting soaked or dusty, it'll be good for about 1000 years. Heck, that block is millions of years old already, and i can assure you it wasn't stored in an airtight container that whole time. ;-)
Mind you -- if you live somewhere very wet, like South Florida, I could see needing to keep it sealed away somewhere. It's humid enough to make the salt block slick, and maybe harm whatever it's sitting on.
Note that many of the sorts of packages that are found in jerky and similar items are not desiccants like silica gel but rather oxygen absorbers. Jerky actually has quite a bit of water in it (around 20% if I recall correctly), so desiccants wouldn't be much use. O2 absorbers preserve flavor and prevent growth of some harmful bacteria during storage.
@FuzzyChef For what it's worth, I live in Houston. We have gone over 100% humidity in the past, but it's not like I'm storing the salt block outside. It will spend the rest of its life with us in a pretty well climate-controlled environment.
@bob1 Huh. You're right. Looking at the actual printing on the packet (other than all the giant "DO NOT EAT" in multiple languages), it does say oxygen absorber. I'll read the fine print better in the future.
Anyway if you get a true dessicant which does not pose safety concerns then you could surely place it near your block. Just to answer the question :)
Anecdote not answer: a Himalayan salt lamp that was left in a humid room unattended for a few weeks had some runoff that damaged the table finish it say on. This just supports keeping it dry, though, I don't know whether desiccants nearby would have helped keep it from weeping salt water :)
Depends on exact composition of the salt. I've a block of Salt lake salt that's been stable in a basement for 10 years. If your salt contains Calcium or Lithium ions it is going to be hygroscopic AKA water absorbing. The Himalayan stuff looks like it has oxidized iron as its major impurity.
Depending on your climates humidity, if its too humid salt works like a big silica pack. It absorbs moisture, and you might get liquid salt runnoff. If you live in Denver Colorado, you could probably store it on your porch.
General suggestions are to wrap salt blocks in plastic wrapping.
Therefore if you double up that with an airtight container you can store it indefinitely.
Silica gel is also a form of porous sand that stores moisture and does not harm your salt block in any way. The two compounds are also separated by the silica gel packet wrapping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.424567
| 2019-02-02T17:20:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96093",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"MaxW",
"Scott Mermelstein",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72612"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14576
|
No broiler - is there a way to fake it?
My range (oven) does not have a broiler (grill), but I've been coming across recipes lately (for pizza, in particular) that require one. Any suggestions on how to fake it?
One thing I've tried is to preheat a baking stone, placing it above where I'll put other things. Unfortunately, it didn't work too well.
Not sure I could manage without one, it's the only piece of cooking equipment I use every day. Doubt there is an effective substitute, some things might be able to be baked, but flames overhead isn't an easy effect to replicate.
For certain applications, a blowtorch will do.
Pizza's are baked, not grilled. Just use your oven in regualr mode as hot as it will go. If you want to go crazy with heat you need 50KG of steel to hold heat as per Nathan Myhrvold
A broiler gives all of the heat from the top, and none from the bottom. If you really wanted to try to achieve a similar effect, and your oven didn't have a broiler option, I'd do the following:
Adjust one rack in the oven to the desired height from the top element.
Adjust a second rack slightly below that other one (as close as possible, so you can still comply with the next step)
Spread out a bunch of sheet trays (preferably shiny or light in color) on the lower rack, attempting to fill the rack entirely. You could also wrap the rack in heavy duty foil, if you didn't have sheet pans of an appropriate size)
Turn the oven up as high as it can go.
Prop the door of the oven open (if the sheet pans stick out too far because you rotated them, so much the better)
... and you'll waste a lot of heat, and might not be so fun in the summer time, but it'll give you something similar to a broiler. And as tempted as you'd be to close the door of the oven, don't do it; if the oven gets up to temperature, it'll shut the heating element off.
I hate to say this, but broiling a pizza IS faking it!
You could get one of those small electric ones that are popular with students and other one room living people for less than $20 - or just cook things right at the top of the oven (that works too well for me) - or use a blowlamp.
Personally, I don't need a broiler to reduce food to a charred mess ...
A toaster oven works great for smaller items. Most toaster ovens come with a broiler. Plus, toaster ovens are just a great tool for cooking smaller items without using a bunch of energy and heating up the house (especially in the summer months). Unfortunately a full sized pizza wouldn't work so well in a toaster oven. (Although you could split the dough and make two rectangular pizzas. Bake one today and save the other in the fridge for a couple days before baking.)
For something like pizza it might be best to just bake it. If you're looking for a crispier crust you can try putting the pizza directly on the oven rack. If you do that make sure to line the bottom of the oven with foil to catch any cheese or oil that falls/runs off the edge of the pizza.
Best bet is probably to use a barbecue. Barbecuing pizza is all the rage these days - Sur la Table and Williams Sonoma are featuring bbq-ready pizza stones in their summer catalogs. Of course, you don't need a stone, you can put it directly on the grates if you flour it well, oil the grates and use a peel to drop it on there fast. Keep the grill covered to get it as hot as possible. This is the closest you'll get to a coal- or wood-burning brick oven without building a DIY brick oven outside or a frankenweber.
Another alternative to stoneware is cast iron. I use a 12" cast iron skillet and I think it works better than my pizza stone. I put it in the broiler, but you can put it in the barbecue or in the oven, preheated as hot as the oven will go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.424907
| 2011-05-08T21:59:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14576",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Orbling",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17443
|
Did tomato paste come in only one size of can in the 1950s?
I found an old cookery book while on holiday at the german coast, it was published by Peter Pauper press, Mt. Vernon, New York in 1959.
All recipes that use tomato paste just say "1/2 can tomato paste (italian style)" without giving any weights or other measurements.
So, did tomato paste only come in one size in the 1950s? If so, which size was it? And would "italian style" denote anything special like it containing herbs or anything like it?
(I'd like to try some of the recipes at some point, but currently I've got no idea how much to use and if it should be anything other than plain tomato paste...)
I hate when I run into seeming imprecision like this in recipes. Guess that's just the OCD in me!
From: http://www.ellenskitchen.com/pantry/cansize.html
Can sizes change over time, important if you are adapting an older
recipe. Prior to 1980's), #303 was the popular size for most fruits
and vegetables.;
No. 303 = 16-17 oz.(1 lb.-1 lb.-1 oz.) = 2 cups = 4 servings;
Principal size for fruits and vegetables. Also some meat products,
ready-to-serve soups, specialties.
Tomato paste has, as far as I know, always come in size 1/2 (6 ounce) cans, at least since I began using it, starting in the mid 1960s.
Think this is what you are looking for.
There are lots of information bits on line, search; 'can sizes'.
cheers
+1 Thanks for this, I think that's it. I'm german, and it wasn't obvious to me that "1/2 can" actually would be something meaningful in it's own right, I thought it just meant take half of the contents of a can of size x without knowing what x actually is. That also explains why some other recipes in that book appeared to be a bit "vague" ...
There are all kinds of arcane measurements used in the older cookbooks. When I first started out, the can business had me baffled a bit too.
It can even seem that way with current recipes. In North America volume measurements are frequently in cups. Drove me mad (I have cups that differ by more than a factor of two in volume) until I realized they don't mean just any old cup - it's defined to be exactly 473176473/2000000 (or approximately 236.6) ml.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.425324
| 2011-09-03T14:46:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17443",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Eric",
"Erik P.",
"Frankie",
"Gabi L Seabra",
"Jamiho",
"Patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19428
|
In which kind of food items can Asafoetida be used?
I have heard about the medical benefits of Asafoetida.
I used it once in Brinjals (which while cooking contained only Ginger powder, Fennel powder, salt and red chilli powder). The addition of Asafoetida resulted in the diluted flavor of the remaining spices in Brinjal curry.
In which kind of foods does it make sense to use Asafoetida?
possible duplicate of In what kinds of dishes is asafoetida traditionally used?
I don't think this is an exact duplicate - the other question is about what the traditional uses are, which is slightly better defined (though still really iffy; it may get closed too). But this clearly is a poll-style question, and as such must be closed. See http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/740/can-i-ask-about-how-to-use-a-specific-ingredient-aka-culinary-uses-guidelines
I have only seen it used in dahl dishes, presumably because of it's claimed digestive properties. Asafoetida is incredibly pungent; anything more than a pinch seems too much and unpleasant.
I think of it as a flavour-enhancer, a natural, Indian MSG rather than a spice in the normal sense. It makes your mouth water quite intensely and seems to stimulate the savory tatse buds (umami). This is lovely when done subtley and kept in the background.
Therefore, I suspect you could add small pinches to all kinds of savoury food.
For a good flavor, use it in yellow dals.
It goes well in just about any kind of curry-based dish in the styles of the Indian subcontinent, from Sri Lankan mutton rolls to biryani to traditional curries. I've never seen it in tandoor-based dishes, but I don't get out much.
I used to have a recipe for a Pakistani curry gravy that was heavy on the hing (asfoetida). This was from a restaurant that used it as their base for many of their curry dishes. Googling has failed to turn up any hits that look right but I do get more and better hits by googling on hing than asafoetida.
In the recipes I've seen (and made) it goes mostly in dahls and other dishes that cook relatively slowly.
I think it usually goes in about the same time you would put fenugreek in: After the vegetables and some water are already in the pot, not directly into the oil like cumin.
Asafoetida is a digestive aid or specifically anti-flatulence.
So you'd predominantly use it in vegetable, lentil and bean dishes. It adds little in terms of flavour and like turmeric is used mainly for its digestive qualities.
Asafoetida or Heeng as known in Northern India should be used in lentils or any dish that has beans as its main ingredients. Its anti flatulent but has strong odour, hence use with beans :-). We use it mainly in lentils or Dals. I remember its being part of South Indian pickle recipes as well. Its must have in kitchen
South India calls it heeng too :)
A Rogon Josh curry recipe I have calls for the meat to be marinated in a mixture of yoghurt and a half teaspoon of asafoetida.
I have tried the recipe both with and without and there is definitely something different, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
You can use it in any dish as an alternative to garlic (but in smaller quantities). To be honest though, I haven't been able to find a dish which indeed tastes better with asafoetida than with garlic. :)
Asafoetida is used by some Indian religious groups as a substitution for onion. Unless you have a religious aversion to onion I would discourage this practice.
It is exceptionally pungent and has an onion-like aroma. Recipes will call for as little as 1/8 tsp to flavor an entire pot.
The only application that I have found that I like it is in lemon pickles. In that case I don't want chunks of onion and I want the flavor subtly and evenly distributed through the jar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.425537
| 2011-12-06T04:04:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19428",
"authors": [
"C. McClure",
"Cascabel",
"Cokie ",
"Derek Olson",
"Jonathan Howland",
"KatieK",
"Mamta D",
"Mark Saulys",
"Nick",
"Ultima",
"arclight",
"dga",
"geeky me",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78667",
"savilac",
"shreeree",
"user3822485",
"wanzulfikri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16097
|
What are purple small Brinjals called in English?
There are white and green Brinjals too. Are the purple ones known by some special name?
A lot of this is covered on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggplant#History
In Britain (and France), the large purple varieties are known as aubergines. Other (pale and/or small) varieties aren't usually found outside of Asian supermarkets, where I imagine they are still referred to as brinjal.
The name 'eggplant' is used in the US, Canada, and the Antipodes, mainly because the lighter varieties are more common there, which arguably have the colour of eggshell.
They are, however, all just different varieties of the same plant, like yellow and red tomatoes.
In bigger cities Asian supermarkets are common, so the smaller varieties are fairly easy to get hold of. Personally I hate all varieties, so I've never really looked! Eggplants in general are not particularly popular here in the UK; they are more popular in the Eastern Mediterranean I believe.
Could be! I do like Kashmiri curries. Every eggplant I've ever had has been slimy and bitter, however.
I used to live near an Indian restaurant specialising in Kashmiri cuisine. Not sure how authentic it was but it was different from the usual Indian food you find here, which I believe is more Bangladeshi/Pakistani influenced.
I'm surprised to hear you say that lighter varieties of eggplant are more common in the US. All I've ever seen here in mainstream grocery stores is purple eggplant.
No I'm from the antipodes and you assume wrong. We call them eggplants and they are mostly large with a dark purple to black colour. The smaller and lighter coloured ones seem to be a new and exotic addition with the recent foodies/cooking craze. My assumption is that we call them eggplant because of their shape (-:
We call them eggplants because that's what the British named them, when they first encountered the whitish ones. The name stuck, and spread to the various British colonies, whereas in Britian they abandoned the name in favor of the French "aubergine".
Also, the lighter colored varieties are only available from Asian and specialty markets here in the US. The most common variety is the large purple ones.
They are all known as eggplant.
@Anisha Kaul The point is that people make no difference. This is very usual - people lump stuff together based on what their language tells them. Consider cherries and sour cherries. For me, they are totally different fruit, like raspberry and blackberry. People who grew up speaking English are dimly aware that they taste a bit different, like yellow and red tomatoes, but tend to see them as the same thing.
@rumtscho : It sounds like you've read Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. There's a whole field of study where they try to see how babies (not yet understanding language) react to different things that might be lumped into the same concept in one language but are multiple concepts in another. (they show 'em something 'til they get bored, then show them another, etc, and see if they consider the new thing to be interesting or not)
In the UK they are all known as Aubergines and in the US as Eggplant as they are all fruiting bodies of the same family of plants, the nightshades. The ones that are in common use in Europe tend to be the larger purple and white varieties as these are the ones that have been cultivated in that continent. With the spread of the cuisines of different countries into other parts of the globe, ingredients used in these cuisines have recently become more readily available outside their native countries and are called by names that distinguish them from their native equivalents. Personally, I buy what I know as Indian Aubergines and Thai Aubergines in my local Asian supermarket, these are imported from these countries and are not grown locally.
I am grateful to know that the ones that are imported from Kashmir are known in that country as Brinjal. I would add that they all have a particular flavour/texture and are all of particular use in the cuisines of their respective native countries, after all, you wouldn't make a Moussaka with Brinjal.
Sorry, I meant to say "I am grateful to know that the ones that I buy as Indian Aubergine and which are imported from Inia are known in Kashmir as Brinjal"
In Toronto, we call everything in that family "Eggplant" (or Aubergines if you're trying to look cultured.)
The most common variety is the the large dark purple/black one.
The second variety is the long skinny purple one, which we call "Chinese Eggplant".
Then there are the small ones, about the size of a pear or even smaller, which we call "Baby Eggplant" the default being the dark purple/black colour.
These distinctions really based on size and shape. Any further differentiation is done by pre-pending an adjective. "I'd like a light purple baby eggplant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.425868
| 2011-07-12T05:13:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16097",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eric",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gardner Bickford",
"Jenny",
"Jeri",
"Joe",
"Nayana Adassuriya",
"ZAD-Man",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
19212
|
How to set yogurt in the room temperature between 20 to 16 degree Centigrade?
It is winters here, and the yogurt never sets the way I used to set it during summers.
If for example, we have 1/2 litre milk, what is the near exact temperature (for heating the milk), and the near exact yogurt to be added to the milk for setting?
EDIT 1:
When I mention heating milk, I mean that milk has been boiled quite a few hours ago, we just need a warm up session now. So how many centigrades are required?
Temperature depends on the bacteria you have (higher temp for L. bulgaricus, lower for strepto), and on the final taste you want (mellower with lower temperature). If the room is cool, wrap the yogurt jars in a blanket for the duration of fermentation, 16 to 20° is too low.
You can make the yogurt in an insulated container, like a thermos bottle. A wide-mouth bottle will probably be best. Pour hot water in and let it sit for a minute or two to warm up, then pour it out. Heat and add your milk and starter culture as usual.
That's brilliant idea, I'll surely try that.
But do I have to heat the milk to particular temperature?
@AnishaKaul - I've always heard to heat the milk to 150 degrees F (just below where it would develop a skin) then let it go back down to around 110 degrees F.
@AnishaKaul - Heat it just as you would in the summer.
This worked flawlessly! :hattip:
Here is my trick, and it works fairly well:
Make yogurt the usual way (heat milk to boiling, let it cool quickly to around 110 degrees F, mix in with starter yougurt culture)
Turn on oven at lowest temperature setting, for a few minutes.
Switch off the oven. Turn on the pilot oven light
Place yougurt in the oven for 4-6 hours, to set.
Once set, place it in the fridge.
I got my "leave pilot oven light on" idea from here:
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=525
Hope this helps.
and what is a pilot light? what is its purpose?
"pilot light" = the litlle light inside your oven. In the "normal" case, it turns on when you open the over door, and then turns off when you close it. On my oven (and on most other ovens), there is a switch as well, which allows you to leave the light on all the time.
@joy And in many cases the wiring to the bulb, or the bulb itself, doesn't work at all, in spite of the button labeled "Oven Light". However, I think you're not describing a pilot light (which is the spark or flame that ignites gas in the oven or on the range) but an oven light.
@mfg you are correct. Its not really a "pilot" light, but an oven light. I have corrected the mistake in my reply, above.
My mother uses a sort of "bain marie" but without additional heat:
1/4 fill a deep bowl with hot water from a kettle and let it cool for a few minutes
put the yoghurt in a smaller bowl and rest the bowl in the warm water
put a plate over the bigger bowl so that some of the warm water vapor circulates, and also warms the smaller bowl
leave overnight
There are yogurt-making devices out there that will hold the yogurt at a specific temperature. They tend to be a little pricy, and they take up a lot of space, and they're only good for making yogurt.
I like Alton Brown's method from the episode "Good Milk Gone Bad": http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/good-eats/fresh-yogurt-recipe/index.html
He uses a sealable plastic container, an electric blanket/heating pad, a bucket, and a thermometer. Fill the plastic container with the yogurt mixture, wrap with electric blanket, stick the whole thing in the bucket, and wedge the probe from your thermometer in-between the heating pad and yogurt container. Keep adjusting the heat level until you equalize at your target temperature.
I have a lovely insulated box I place my towel-wrapped yogurt bowl: it's called the microwave.
Overnight is all that's needed so it doesn't inconvenience me at all.
Most yogurt cultures thrive between body temperature (37 centigrade) and around 45 centigrade. If you put your hand in the water, and it's warm, but doesn't scald, you're probably good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.426294
| 2011-11-29T07:59:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19212",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"ArchonOSX",
"EcstaticSnow",
"Ed Varner",
"Morgan Thrapp",
"Renato",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"joyjit",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"nsn",
"paulraphael",
"rulnick",
"rumtscho",
"user41769",
"user41833"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21271
|
Does it make sense to take out the cake from the oven few times just to check whether it is done or not?
Does it make sense to take out the cake from the oven few times just to check whether it is done or not, before its total time completes?
Is there some other way out to check the same, in order to avoid a miserable failure at the end?
It's never the best of an idea taking the cake out of the oven during its cooking as you'll probably knock it a bit and knock the air out and then it'll cool down a bit and so take longer too cook. Saying that, the whole thing is when you take the cake out. As a rule don't take your cake out until at least half-way through the cooking time, that way the starch will have started to set. If you take your cake out multiple times 5 minutes before, say, it don't make to much of a difference as by then the cake is practically cooked.
Some cakes are more susceptible: foam cakes (genoise, chiffon, etc) are the most likely to feel the full force of you taking the cake out of the oven as it will likely deflate all of the air you've worked so hard to create, however, butter cakes (pound, fruit, etc) wil not be so effected as these are a lot denser and rely more on chemical leaveners.
There are lots of ways to check if your cakes done. If its a cake with quite a thin batter, open the oven door and give it a tiny wobble (not a great big shake to deflate it) and if it wobbles its definitely not done, if it doesn't wobble you can progress to the next step which is poking in a skewer or knife and if it comes out clean it's done, use this technique for all cake types. Another way is when the cake looks golden (unless it's a chocolate cake), press your finger down on the cake and if it springs back it's done. A lot is made about not opening your oven door, in modern ovens today, this doesn't make much of a difference as they can quickly get back up to temperature, particularly if you just open the door a crack. On a final point having a reliable oven temperature is one of the most important steps. Buying a little oven thermometer is a good investment, they're very cheap and will save a lot of hastle
Another thing to look for is whether the cake 'shrinks', letting loose from the walls. Then it's surely done as well.
Upvote for thoughtful answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.426664
| 2012-02-12T10:47:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21271",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"banavalikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43196
|
What method of coffee preparation gives the most caffeine in the finished cup?
As the question asks, which method from the list below will give the most caffeine in the final product (ie. a cup of coffee). Assume the same beans with the same grind (while the different techniques should use different grinds, lets try and keep things simple) and as much as possible assume things are kept constant - Aiming for a 200ml cup of coffee made from (if appropriate) a double shot of espresso, the rest made up by water. :
Professional Espresso maker (i.e. in a coffee shop)
Aeropress
Stovetop espresso maker
French Press
Consumer grade capsule coffee machine (e.g. nespresso). Once again assume that we can find the same bean in a bought capsule.
You can control the time for some of these, and not for the others, so I don't see how you can compare.
I suppose an assumption or simplification would be required. E.g. Time limit of 3 minutes brew time.
@rumtscho Or that's part of the comparison - if a given method doesn't let you increase the time enough to get more caffeine, then it's not a good method for the OP's goals?
Is this question significantly different from How can I maximize the caffeine content of my coffee?
@Aaronut The other question focused on things besides type of coffee maker, and the answers followed suit. I'm not sure I see something there that deals with how these methods would differ.
Maximum caffeine consumption is achieved by eating the beans. Maximum flavor is achieved by chocolate coating.
@Jefromi I very glad that the OP tried to constrain the criteria in order to get good, comparable answers instead of throwing a too broad question into the round. Now I look at my comment again, I think my main concern is that the situation is so complex that using these criteria still doesn't guarantee numbers which are both invariant enough for comparison (as opposed to "depends how long you brew") and pertinent for a decision (as opposed to "if you brew each for exactly 1 min, X is best, but nobody uses 1 min with Y"). I hope there will be good answers nonetheless.
The only method that is really time dependent is the french press (and possibly the aeropress depending on the exact technique used), everything else is a task that has a fixed end point, so maybe if the french press is eliminated it would make it easier?
Caffeine is extracted early in the brewing process, so longer brewing has little effect on caffeine content... especially if you standardized to a fine or medium-fine grind.
Are you no longer satisfied with your answer to the question which Aaronut links?
possible duplicate of How can I maximize the caffeine content of my coffee?
I do not believe its a duplicate question, that question focusses on maximising caffine by changing lots of things, bean, grind amongst others, while this question is trying to keep as much constant and observing its effect.
This question appears to be off-topic because it's about pharmacology; is answered in a analytic chemistry lab, not a kitchen; and doesn't appear to have any application to cooking. There is a http://chemistry.stackexchange.com; not sure if they can help.
This question is nearly unanswerable. Typical caffeine content data is given as a range based on the normal brewing factors of each method, there isn't data for abnormal methods i.e. french press with fine grind or espresso with coarse grind.
Typical caffeine contents:
3oz Espresso double shot: 70-200mg
8oz drip: 60-100mg
6oz French Press: 80-100mg
6oz Aeropress: 60-80mg
On average the espresso or moka pot coffee would have significantly higher caffeine concentration than other methods (with the moka pot maybe edging out the espresso because it uses higher temperature for extraction). There is so much variability that I don't know if there's any point in trying to answer this question. The article linked below shows that one method alone (espresso) can yield shots with caffeine concentrations that are radically different:
The extended range of caffeine values found in retail coffees in this study suggests that it is presently not possible for individuals interested in assessing the caffeine content of their diet to do so if the intake includes retail coffee. Our data highlights that, if just two retail coffees are consumed in a day by the same individual, that a variance of more than 290 mg can occur if both of these espressos are purchased from either the highest or lowest 10th percentiles of all the beverages sampled
If you control for volume by diluting everything with a typical serving size less than 200mL, all the methods are going to yield caffeine doses in the range of 60-100mg. A typical espresso based Americano (1 shot + water to make 5oz) would also fall in that range.
http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11020406.pdf
Perhaps the question should be what gives the highest caffeine concentration (mg/l)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.426885
| 2014-03-31T18:09:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43196",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aniket",
"Bisonwings",
"Carolyn Villemaire",
"Cascabel",
"Didgeridrew",
"Mallek Adalov",
"NBenatar",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"isle_of_gods",
"rumtscho",
"user101103"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5346
|
What type of sausage for bangers and mash?
On a recent trip, I ate at an authentic Irish pub that served the best bangers and mash I've ever had. As there's nowhere around town that regularly serves the dish, I've decided to try my hand at making it at home. While I think I can manage the potatoes just fine, I'm at a loss as to what type of sausage to use. So my question is: what brand of sausage would best approximate a traditional recipe? Ideally, it would be something I could pick up at the local supermarket.
What I am about to say might upset the purists. This is a bit like gumbo and paella, there are so many claims of authentic recipes because there are genuinely many variations. Depending on where you have bangers and mash, it could vary hugely from a modern gastropub, through to school food and museum cafeteria. And it is not just the sausage, the mash and the gravy (onion or otherwise) ...
The good thing about Cumberland sausages is that the meat is supposed to be coarsely chopped and in of itself has a very high meat content. However, all good sausages have this quality also!
So in essence look for a sausage with a high meat content (80%+) and you can't go too far wrong.
Personally I avoid supermarket sausages, but if its all you have then usually the premium range are usually alright. As Chad says, as long as its 80%+ meat then it should be OK.
I would strongly recommend finding a butcher, ideally one who makes his own sausage. Around me (Midlands, UK) this is fairly common. The specific variety doesn't actually matter that much (Irish, Cumberland and Lincolnshire are 3 of my favorites) but the quality does matter. Another source would be farmers markets. You can often get a good deal too if you buy in bulk. Simply freeze what you don't use.
Also make sure you cook them properly. Cook on a low heat on a cast iron grill pan and make sure you keep any juices that collect so you can make good gravy.
Look for Cumberland sausage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangers_and_mash
or, just ask the restaurant :-)
If it was an authentic Irish dish, to follow tradition you would want medium-link pork Irish sausages, seasoned with salt, pepper, mace and nutmeg amongst other spices depending on the recipe. Cumberland sausages originate in England, so if the pub was truly trying to recreate Irish dishes I doubt if these were the ingredient being used.
If you want to get as close as possible to the original, I'd suggest going to a local butcher and explaining your predicament. They will have a number of sausage recipes on rotation, and may be able to make you a small batch. Most butchers take considerable pride over their sausages, and the quality is generally better than the supermarket offerings.
the kind of sausage you use depends on what region/country style of meat you prefer. if you like pork with lots of fillers, more fat and less lean, then you want English style bangers. If you like a more lean pork with less fat and some lean beef with less fillers in it, then you want Irish style bangers. If you don't want pork at all and all lean beef with a moderate amount of fillers, then you want Scottish style bangers.
keep in mind thou that bangers have a very distinctive taste to them and there is NO American equivilant to them. and definately do NOT use breakfast sausages since those are made with maple syrup and/or molasses and is waaay too sweet for onion gravy and mash potatoes. especially if you serve thim with the traditional side dish of mushy peas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.427305
| 2010-08-17T15:41:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5346",
"authors": [
"Micah",
"MikaK",
"Nick Pierpoint",
"Terri Elmore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93604",
"user110084",
"user7947"
],
"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
}
|
3329
|
What are the differences between different types of onions, and when do you use them?
I used a recipe for a mean black-eyed-pea salad this past weekend which called for a red onion. Since I wanted extra onion flavor in the salad anyway, I decided to pick up a Vidalia onion to throw in as well.
As I was prepping the salad, I got thinking that I didn't know why the original recipe called for a red onion and what adding a different type of onion would do to the salad.
What do different types of onions add to a recipe and when might it be best to use type over another?
I'm rather lacking in this area of knowledge too. I bet Darin has a useful chunk of knowledge regarding this.
@hobo oh the irony. See his post and my subsequent comment :-)
The choice of one onion over another is really going to come down to personal preference based on color and flavor.
Red and white onions are usually milder in flavor than yellow onions which is the reason they're often the choice for hamburgers and sandwiches.
Yellow (sometimes referred to as "Spanish") onions tend to have a more pungent flavor.
Sweet onions (Vidalia, Maui, Walla-Walla, Texas 1015) develop more sweetness and fewer sulfuric compounds due to the mineral content of the soil that they're grown in. This is why you can have onion sets (small bulbs) from any of these varieties but they won't necessarily be sweet (or as sweet) because a lot of it has to do with the makeup of the soiling they're grown in.
Two years ago I hosted Jeanne Jones (syndicated writer of "Cook it Light" column for King Features syndicate and writer of over 33 cookbooks including "Canyon Ranch Spa Cookbook") for guest chef cooking classes. If I recall correctly, she said she used primarily white onions because they have a lower sodium content than any other type.
Did that "mean black eyed pea salad" recipe happen to come from a certain "Low Country Cooking Class"? If so, I used it for two reasons: not everyone will have access to Vidalia onions and it provides additional color.
Yes, it was your recipe :-). It proved to be a great hit at the pool party we went to, even though we forgot to add the celery!
@Ben: Glad you liked it! While I haven't yet used it in there, I think diced fennel bulb would also add a nice fresh flavor element. That salad is always better the second day after things have blended and melded.
Huh, I always thought it was the red onions that were Spanish onions!
There are some inaccuracies in this answer - also it is not sourced.
@RISwampYankee What is inaccurate?
@Jefromi - Red onions will be the strongest of the bunch, white and yellow onions are similar in flavor and potency; tho white is sometimes described as "tangier" than yellow, they can be used interchangeably.
Here is a visual guide to identifying and using different onion varieties from Epicurious. They break it down like this:
Yellow Onions (Spanish onions): Mild but not sweet
White Onions : Tangy flavor
Red Onions: Sharpest of the common onion varieties
Sweet Onions (Vidalia, Bermuda): Sweet and very mild
While I like the other answers, keep in mind in your case since you're looking to add more onion flavor to the dish that there are alternatives from the typical onions already mentioned.
You can also try more subtle onion flavors from scallions (or green onions) or shallots. For the salad it might make more sense to go with the scallions.
+1: I like this answer... These onions are great for subtle flavors.
Red onion tends to be milder, and more suited to eating raw than white onions. Of course, in salads, red onions can add a bit extra visually as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.427727
| 2010-07-26T17:56:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3329",
"authors": [
"Avishai",
"Ben McCormack",
"Cascabel",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Lannette",
"Misha Valentine",
"Quintin Robinson",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"crazy2be",
"edgerunner",
"heycam",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/898",
"nicorellius",
"sourcenouveau"
],
"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
}
|
991
|
What are the differences between brown/golden sesame seeds and black ones?
Unhulled sesame seeds can be either light brown (golden) or black. Other than their color, are there other differences are their between these two varieties? Why might you choose one type over the other (again, I only care about reasons that aren't related to color or aesthetics of a dish).
Dark sesame seeds are more common in Indian cooking. I personally think that they have a more intense taste. They are also smaller, for what little difference that makes. I wouldn't rush to use them to make tahini, because the color would be surprising and I suspect that the flavor would be a bit bitter.
Is tahini made with unhulled sesame seeds? If you hull them it wouldn't matter, right?
Hmm. I don't know. I confess that I've never seen a hulled sesame seed for sale, and the recipes I have for Tahini just say 'sesame seeds'. So, I would be using unhulled ones, but I might be wrong.
In my local health food store you can buy hulled and unhulled tahini. The unhulled is darker in colour and stronger in taste. Hulled tahini is milder and seems creamier.
Dark ones are perfects for Sushi and other Japanese dishes (I've tried to substitute them with golden ones, but disappointingly the flavor was not as good as with dark ones).
Also make sure you're comparing types of seeds not just their preparation. "Brown" sesame seeds may merely be roasted. They have a nuttier flavor, almost like popcorn.
Black sesame seeds are definitely a different variety than the cream/brown ones, and used in Japanese cooking.
Please don't make health claims, this site is for cooking techniques and not nutrition. See the [faq] for details.
Black sesame seeds do impart a stronger taste than regular sesame seeds, especially when lightly toasted in a dry pan. They are great ground and added to rich beefy soups or broths.
White sesame on the other hand, has a slightly lighter taste. Toasted white sesame seeds go great mixed with tuna mayo and red onion. They also go very well with chicken and some fish dishes.
Overall, white sesame goes well with lighter coloured and flavoured dishes. Black sesame goes well with darker and stronger flavoured dishes. At least that's what I do. Of course, you can try them with whatever dish you like. These are just some personal preferences.
Oh and black sesame oil, for some strange reason, does not impart as strong a taste as white sesame oil. Asians add black sesame oil to noodles to impart a wonderful taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.428078
| 2010-07-14T21:59:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/991",
"authors": [
"Hope Levy",
"Jonathon",
"Mary Steinberg",
"Sajad Bahmani",
"ThE_JacO",
"ala",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87496",
"kevins",
"nunu",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
515
|
How can I tell whether an egg has been hard-boiled, through the shell?
At my workplace, there's a mysterious carton of eggs in the common refrigerator. Nobody I've asked knows whether they're raw or cooked.
Is there a way to tell, without cracking one of the eggs open?
Take an egg from the carton and 'spin' it on the work counter. If it spins, it's cooked, if it does anything else, it's not.
Seriously? Why does that work?
The fluid contents of a raw egg move around and prevent the rotational velocity needed to spin.
Uncooked eggs will still spin. I find it's better to spin the egg, stop it with your finger, and let go. If it's uncooked, the momentum of the egg sloshing around inside will cause it to start spinning again. If the egg is cooked, it will just wobble around a little.
To clarify since the post doesn't mention it, this is spinning it on its end, not on its side.
@rchern, I can tell when I spin it on its side. Cooked and raw behaves differently. Raw will start spinning slowly with a lag and then faster. Cooked will just spin.
I have experimented with this at home. It's totally right. Both will spin, but the raw egg will spin slowly and awkwardly. Nobody likes awkward food.
If you only have a raw or cooked egg, it can be hard to tell if you haven't done it before. If you have one of each, its easy to tell them apart.
Shake the egg like you would a rattle. If the insides move, raw. If the egg feels solid, cooked.
That's a little hard to feel, don't you think?
The spinning trick is good, but instead of just spinning and then stopping, if you spin it in one direction, stop and try the other direction, a raw egg will spin badly in the opposite direction. The reason is of course the liquid is still going the other way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.428313
| 2010-07-10T16:38:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/515",
"authors": [
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"Henrik Erlandsson",
"JMK",
"Michael Mior",
"Omar Kohl",
"Rebecca Chernoff",
"Sam Hoice",
"Sy Maïmouna",
"Wayne Kao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/970",
"huynhjl"
],
"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
}
|
4754
|
What is sour cream?
What exactly is sour cream and How is it made?
also Is there a relationship between 'sour-cream' and 'creme fraiche'?
Julia Childs in Mastering the Art of French Cooking does say that you can absolutely not subsitute creme fraiche for sour cream or vice versa.
By the way, virtually all dairy products are pasteurized, by law, in the US. The description of naturally cultured product applies to France. But, in the US, any cultured product, for the most part, must have the culture introduced after the milk has been flash pasturized.
From wikipedia:
Sour cream or soured cream is a dairy product rich in fats obtained by fermenting a regular cream by certain kinds of lactic acid bacteria. The bacterial culture, introduced either deliberately or naturally, sours and thickens the cream. Although sour cream is only mildly sour in taste, its name stems from the production of lactic acid by bacterial fermentation, a process referred to as "souring"..
Crème fraiche (French pronunciation: [kʁɛm fʁɛʃ], "fresh cream"; from French crème fraîche) is a soured cream containing about 28% butterfat and with a pH of around 4.5. It is soured with bacterial culture, but is thicker, and less sour than sour cream.
From answers.yahoo.com:
I am a former chef and there is a big difference, sour cream is made with milk, cream and thickeners and gums to keep it together, creme fraiche is just thickened cream with a souring agent, I made it as a chef with just whipping cream and buttermilk, you can use S.C as a substitute for creme fraiche, but the sour cream has to be a full fat, 15% or higher, here in Canada I can buy one that is 30% and C.F is 35-40% BF. Just make sure if your using it in hot dishes not to boil it or it will split, C.F does not, or add a little cornstarch to the S.C and add it in the last 2-4 minutes of light simmering.
maybe he wants to get answers from people he can have some confidence in? You could answer 'why not google?' to a lot of stuff. Having said that though there is nothing wrong with you googling and posting exactly as you have done, I just don't think you need to say the first sentence. My $0.02.
Good point. This way he does get at least the filtering I (and/or others) do before I decide a link's worth it. I do like seeing some initiative from a poster (indicating he's seen or not seen google results), but that may just be me.
Not sure if this helps with the confidence, but this is my experience as well: crème fraiche works both in cold and hot dishes, but with sour cream you have to be very careful in hot dishes.
This is all very technical, but doesn't actually go into the flavor profile. Creme fraiche is very savory and rich, and only slightly tangy. Creme fraiche doesn't taste very much like milk, it's mostly savory. Sour cream on the other hand is much more sour, is also rich, but definitely not savory. It doesn't have umami flavor, that is. Sour cream has notable flavors of milkiness and sourness, it's the critical flavor in a lox bagel for example. Both have creamy textures, not quite like mayo though, they're halfway between crushed tomatoes and mayonnaise.
I found definitions of sour cream and creme fraiche from the book The Chef's Companion: A Culinary Dictionary by Elizabeth Reilly.
Sour Cream: cream commercially fermented with a lactic culture and usually 18 to 20 percent fat
Creme Fraiche: French for heavy cream with a lactic culture introduced; the culture acts as a preservative and gives a characteristic tangy flavor"
The Cook's Thesaurus recommends substituting "equal parts sour cream and heavy cream" and warns that just sour cream alone "has a lower fat content, and so it's more likely to curdle if boiled with an acidic ingredient." You can read the entire entry here.
I also found an online source that you may find interesting. This is a chart from the USDA National Agricultural Library that shows exactly what nutrients are found in sour cream.
I thought crème fraîche was traditionally made by letting unpasteurised double (heavy) cream sour naturally, so there was traditionally, at least, no milk or thickeners in crème fraîche. I'm pretty sure that French crème fraîche is made that way to this day. Sour cream was traditionally made in a similar way - but these days the cream is pasteurised first, and the bacterial cultures re-introduced.
Crème fraîche is not so sour, or so thick, as sour cream, and it has a higher fat content (about 28% compared to 12-16% for sour cream) which means it can take a higher heat - so it doesn't split as easily as sour cream in hot dishes.
Crema Mexicana is similar to crème fraîche and can be used in hot dishes.
Crème Fraiche vs. Sour Cream
Crème fraîche and sour cream are not the same product; however, they are very similar in their rich, tangy flavours. In recipes where they are not the main ingredient, they can easily be substituted for one another.
When you are quoting, please use formatting to make it clear that the answer is not originally your own. Thank you for the link and information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.428521
| 2010-08-10T12:23:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4754",
"authors": [
"Crystal Smallwood",
"Edward Loudenslarger",
"Erica",
"Erik P.",
"Erin",
"Holden",
"JOE SCHLUMPF",
"Linda Butler",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Olen",
"S. M. Shahinul Islam",
"Sam Holder",
"Seenu",
"StaWho",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"grag42",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9629",
"justkt",
"nahog"
],
"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
}
|
39850
|
can I freeze chicken defrost it and eat cold for lunch?
Recently, I have started to eat healthy and got into bodybuilding. I see a lot of videos of people cooking in bulk for the week online; this would save time for me as I'm very busy in college and work. I was just wondering if I could freeze meats such as steak and chicken then take them out of the freezer and eat them cold when defrosted? I would like to have them to eat on the go.
That's perfectly fine, assuming the meats were cooked properly originally. If you look up people doing bento lunches, they use freezer staples a lot; often, if the item is small enough, it can be packed in a lunch still frozen and be defrosted by lunchtime. However, if you're talking about a whole steak or chicken breast, you'll want to stick it in the fridge overnight to let it defrost first.
Thanks for responding and yeah am cooking the likes of chicken breast and a few pieces of steak and thanks for the advice much appreciated
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.428952
| 2013-11-28T16:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39850",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35208
|
How can I make whipped cream if I can't always get cream?
I sometimes want to make whipped cream for dessert, but can't get cream in the market. What can I do in that case?
One possibility: I did find that there is a quick way to do it by mixing a commercial powder called Dream Whip and milk. What are the actual ingredients of Dream Whip? I suspect that it mainly contains some foaming agents like corn starch or gelatin, but I couldn't find a recipe as an alternative to commercial Dream Whip powder. Can I make that at home?
Ingredients: Sugar, Dextrose, Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Coconut And Palm Kernel Oils), Modified Corn Starch, Propylene Glycol Monostearate (Emulsifier), Acetylated Monoglycerides (Emulsifier), Sodium Silicoaluminate (Anticaking Agent), Mono- And Diglycerides (Emulsifier), Cellulose Gel, Cellulose Gum, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, Artificial And Natural Flavor, Yellow 5, Yellow 6.
You want to make whipped cream out of milk or butter, but not cream? I'm having trouble imagining the rationale for that, since milk has almost no fat and butter is almost all fat. Why not just use cream?
Just use cream. Butter itself IS made from cream (heavy whipping cream which is churned to separate the butterfat from buttermilk).
I just want to know that what is the commercial Dream Whip powder. It is not butter or cream.
Can you not just look at the label of the package to answer this question?
@All But the primary ingredients are sugar and fat, so it's unclear what advantage it gives you over just using cream. What are you actually trying to accomplish here?
@Jefromi I wish to make whipped cream for desert, but sometimes, I do not have access to cream in the market.
@All I've substantially edited your question to focus on the problem you're actually trying to solve, because I think you've excluded some possibilities by restricting to trying to make an industrial food product at home. If it doesn't suit you, feel free to further edit it or roll it back.
@Jefromi very meaningful edit. You're quite right, I'm just looking for a solution, and do not care about a commercial product.
I take it from the results and comments that this question is region specific. The only ingredient I find on cream is cream, which once you whip it turns into whipped cream. Of course, it is possible that my country (Germany) does not requires to label the extra ingredients.
This site explains two methods of making whipping cream from milk.
The first is by manipulating store-bought milk, by adding gelatin, temperature and a lot of stirring. The second is by separating the cream out of raw milk. The site claims that the result of both methods can be used for whipped cream.
A third method I sometimes use when a recipe asks for a small amount of cream (usually in a sauce or something similar), is adding some milk and butter (till the fat percentage is roughly the same as if you'd added cream). I don't believe it would be possible to whip this though.
Cream does last quite a while in the fridge, especially before it's opened - it has a pretty high fat content. So you may be able to buy it when you can, and still have it around when you want it.
Failing that, honestly, I think that anything you can do with milk and additives is probably not going to be nearly as good as actual whipped cream, so you might as well fall back to another substitute: aerosol whipped cream. If you get a decent one that's actually made with cream (not milk and oil and stabilizers, like your Dream Whip) it'll probably still taste better. And I'm pretty sure it lasts a really long time (months?) in the fridge even once opened. (But I don't have any to check for sure.)
As for actually making Dream Whip: as mentioned in several comments, it has a lot of ingredients that'll be way harder to find than cream. Sure, they're probably shelf-stable and you could probably buy them online, but it'll be a lot of trouble, and it might well be more expensive than just buying the Dream Whip itself. It's possible that there's a more home-ingredients version (I'm no industrial food authority), but unless you have some more restrictions I don't know about, I'd still prefer the other alternatives I suggested.
Does previously-frozen cream whip? I seem to remember reading that freezing could cause problems in that area.
@Aaronut Oh... I guess maybe it ruptures the membranes around the fat, huh? You're probably right - I'll edit that part out.
very good points. Though in my experience, long-standing dairy products including milk and cream are not as good as fresh ones. But your suggestion is reasonable.
Alternatively you can use coconut milk. Use canned coconut milk-make sure it straight milk and not sweetened-and place it in the fridge until well chilled. Scoop off the firm layer of cream, making sure not to include the water which should be at the bottom of the can. Add in vanilla and sugar if desired, whip until soft peaks.
Per Food facts:
Sugar, Dextrose, Vegetable(s) Oil Partially Hydrogenated (Coconut Oil
Partially Hydrogenated and, Palm Kernel Oil Partially Hydrogenated) ,
Corn Starch Modified, Propylene Glycol Monostearate An Emulsifier,
Sodium Caseinate Solids from milk, Monoglycerides Acetylated An
Emulsifier, Sodium Silico Aluminate (Anti-Caking Agents) , Mono and
Diglycerides An Emulsifier, Cellulose Gel, Cellulose Gum,
Methylcellulose Hydroxypropyl, Flavoring Artificial and Natural,
Yellow 5, Yellow 6
Some of these ingredients are not the type of thing that you are going to replicate at home.
I do not want to duplicate the commercial product. I am just looking for a home recipe to prepare similar cream.
Recipe requets are off topic. But I suspect the answer is "no".
@All I don't think such a recipe exists at all. If it did, it would be more expensive, more time-consuming, more error-prone and less tasty than using either normal whipping cream or the commercial add-to-milk stuff. Also, it would require you to find a source for ingredients not typically found in a home kitchen. So I expect that nobody has bothered creating a recipe, given that the alternatives are obviously superior. Why do you want to do it at all? As Jefromi said, what problem are you trying to solve?
I would qualify this as being closer to the 'restaurant mimicry' class of questions than your general 'recipe request', and therefore perfectly on-topic to ask how to do at home.
There are some vegetable based vegeterinan whipped cream substitutes. But like with margarine vs butter or soy vs meat the tastes aren't exactly the same and most people prefer actual cream/butter/meat.
However whipping cream is a relatively standard product that any store should carry while the other is a niche product so if your store has no whipping cream it might not have that either.
Another obvious choice is whipped cream in a can. While it's not as stable as cream whipped at home at least you might be able to enjoy some N2O.
"whipping cream is a relatively standard product that any store should carry while the other is a niche product" - in some markets yes, in others it is the other way round.
I believe that vegetarian stores are still the minority (no hate about vegetarians)
vegetarian stores?
One alternate possibility to either dream whip powder or to fresh cream from the market is, well, there is heavy cream powder available for purchase - pretty much just dehydrated heavy cream - which can be re-hydrated and used for pretty much anything cream can be used for, including whipping.
The heavy cream powder is available for purchase online, I got mine from amazon.com but there may be other suppliers to be found if amazon does not suit. And I have used it for whipped cream, and other recipes asking for heavy cream without issue. Ordering online is not always as convenient as buying from a local store, but it is useful for things not readily available - especially shelf-stable things, which can be stored for quite some time and used on demand.
Unlike the fresh cream, heavy cream powder is quite stable and can be kept for a long time - as many dehydrated foods are - so purchasing one package would mean cream was available on demand until the powder was used up. And unlike dream whip powder, it is not heavily modified or heavy with chemicals, and should therefore have a more authentic cream taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.429085
| 2013-07-09T23:02:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35208",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Shirts",
"Eulenfuchswiesel",
"Googlebot",
"Joe",
"Matthew",
"Mr. C",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wellers",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300",
"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
}
|
96494
|
Turkey Dinners For A Group of 140 People
I am cooking turkey dinner for 140 people at our church. My meal consist of turkey, stuffing balls, mashed potatoes & gravy, green beans, noodles in gravy, and cole slaw. I am not sure of the amounts of food I should cook and your advice would be very helpful. Thank You
"... and cole slaw"? Quantities will largely depend on who is eating. A Football team, or the local Cub Scouts? A Women's Club, or the Contestants in the Boston Marathon? "It's all relative." More information would certainly be helpful.
It might be too late, but there's a question about planning for 100 people that might be useful : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/75505/67
I know this is late, but in answering another 'bulk-cooking' question, I stumbled upon a website with advice specifically for turkey dinners (with a note that this is for 'holiday' dinners, that might be more generous than usual):
http://www.ellenskitchen.com/turkey/planshop.html
In case of link rot (although some characters didn't come through ... I suspect 1 1/4 to 1 1/2):
Whole turkey and turkey parts- turkey only
Allow for 1 pound of uncooked turkey per person when purchasing a whole turkey up to 12-14 pounds or turkey pieces (legs, thighs, etc); allow at least to 3/4 pound per person when purchasing a whole turkey weighing over 14 pounds.
Reduce the total amount by 20 percent if you will have a server for the meat (not self serve) and want no leftovers.
Increase the total amount by 50% if you want lots of leftovers or expect lots of heavy eaters
Prestuffed frozen turkey (do NOT prestuff and freeze your own, it is unsafe)
Allow 1� to 1� pounds per person when purchasing a prestuffed turkey.
Turkey breast or boneless roast
Allow 2/3 pound per person when purchasing a bone-in turkey breast, which usually weighs between 4 and 8 pounds (4 pounds for each 6 people)
Allow 1/2 pound per person when purchasing a boneless turkey breast or roast, which usually weighs between 4 and 8 pounds (4 pounds for each 8 people).
To condense/summarize some of the rest of that page:
dressing or stuffing: 1/2 to 3/4 cup per person (6 ounces)
mashed potatoes: a pound raw of potato for each 3 persons for mashed potatoes.
vegetable casseroles and/or sweet potatoes and/or winter squash: 1/2 cup or 4 ounces by weight for each vegetable. A #10 can holds 24-25 servings. This is an inexpensive place to bulk up the meal, maybe corn AND sweet potatoes AND peas with onions or green bean casserole AND one or two others.
gravy: 1/3 cup is best, 1/4 cup minimum
cranberry relish: 1 pound per 5-6 persons
rolls: 4 for each 3 persons minimum, up to 1 1/2 per person
butter: 3 pounds for each 100 people
... and notes to see the dessert and drinks pages for more info on those
Pound per person for bone-in birds, so 140 pounds of turkeys (6-9 whole birds)
Sides are a half cup per person — 60 pounds potatoes, 18 heads of cabbage for slaw, 12 pounds pasta, and 70 cups stuffing.
This is the site I use
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.430082
| 2019-02-21T23:52:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96494",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122266
|
How can I dissolve turkey powder in water?
I dehydrated the turkey breast, ground it in a blender, then ground it in a coffee grinder. When I add it to water and mix it, only a small part of it dissolves. How can it increase its solubility in water?
It’s a solid, so it’s never going to truly dissolve. I think there are some questions on here about cocoa powder or spices that elaborate on the issue
Oh, and if the issue is clumping, try mixing it with a little bit of water, making sure that it’s fully wet, then add the rest of your water
See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/8274/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22648/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/68571/67
Perhaps say what is your ultimate goal here. Are you trying to make turkey flavour Bovril for example? Ground dehydrated turkey breast is something I have never needed. Though I suspect if you used a fattier part of the animal, you could emulsify the fat and suspend some of the non-fat particles in it.
This is weirdly off-putting. Thinking about "turkey water" is most unappetizing
I was trying to make a protein powder. My goal is to drink it easily. It makes me feel like I'm drinking a spoon of sand in a glass of water. I need to fix this.
Maybe be mix it with something other than water with some fat content in it, like milk, cream or yogurt, sort of like a smoothie
Meat will never mostly dissolve in water, because it mostly isn’t water-soluble. (If it were, how would you make chunky soup?) What you’re looking for is a smooth suspension of the particles. If you had special equipment like a wet grinder, you could maybe produce a homogeneous enough slurry that could be dried and reconstituted (though it’s not what a wet grinder is really designed for). But I don’t think this is something a coffee grinder could do effectively.
If it were, turkeys would dissolve when it rained!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.430318
| 2022-11-07T18:41:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122266",
"authors": [
"Daron",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Joe",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tolga çakır"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108830
|
A “puck” of frozen food
I found a recipe that calls for 5 “pucks” of frozen spinach. I cannot find a definition of the term. I need to know how many ounces are in a puck?
I suspect that this is going to be like measurements in "cans" -- although there might be a standard, it's going to be dependent on the time, region, and possibly even context. (in the case of "cans", those for home sales vs. industrial sizes like a #10 can)
do you have a link to the recipe or reference to the recipe you are using ? it'll make answering the question easier.
The term "puck" is not in general use for food, but it seems to refer to a hockey puck-like volume of frozen spinach. (Spinach is commonly found frozen into blocks.) Presumably the author of the recipe had a particular brand - and therefore size standard - of spinach in mind. The spinach "pucks" in my freezer are about 4 oz each, but other sizes are also common.
Find a better recipe, or ask the author for clarification.
Just to show how different the "pucks" can be: The ones in my freezer right now weigh about 20 grams each.
Yup, the 2 brands I get most frequently are possibly a factor of 2 or 3 different in 'puck' size. You really need a weight, not a count, for something like that.
Having never heard of a puck of spinach (in the US, I have seen them sold frozen in a small box shape- like the size of a paperback novel maybe), I searched online and found many ways to make your own pucks. But even there the size varies by what you make it in- ice cube tray to cupcake (muffin) tin. I agree that the cupcake would be closest to a hockey puck. Note I am not saying a cupcake is a muffin, just the tins are used for both.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.430490
| 2020-06-03T20:46:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108830",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71516
|
What compound can make crunchy biscuits?
I want to make Belvita like biscuits. What ingredients do I need to put or not to obtain a crunchy texture (but not a really hard like biscotti). Is "height of the biscuit a important factor ?
Here is my actual recipe, if needed :
1 cup of wholeheat flour
1/2 cup of butter
1/3 cup of sugar
3 eggs
1 tbsp of honey
I've seen on other sites that it can be a good idea to put the butter melted to avoid aeration. Right now they are a little too soft. Thanks for your replies
Welcome to the site! Unfortunately this is off-topic as you are essentially asking for a recipe. If you search the web for belvita copycat recipes you will find several which might work for you.
Thanks for the answer.I may have worded it badly but I wanted to know what contributed in the crunchy texture. I'll see if I can find something on the web !
So it's more of a question of what makes a biscuit (cookie) crunchy? It's likely that there are similar questions on this site.
@GdD : 'mimicry' questions used to be specifically allowed in the FAQ, but they still fall under "Recipe comprehension, improvement, and repairs". In this case, Bill is trying to get improve his crunchiness, and has given us his target (similar Belvita biscuits).
@Joe But Bill has not given us an initial recipe so that we can give specific advice to improve it. If we had said recipe, this would not be a recipe request, it would fit into recipe improvement.
@Catija : then people should ask for the recipe -- not tell him his question is off-topic and vote to close it. But people who are familiar with Belvita biscuits (ie, not me), might be able to tell him if it's an ingredient or technique that makes them crunchy.
Sorry for the mess. As @Joe said, I specified Belvita biscuits because it thought it was the best way to describe what kind of biscuit I wanted to make. Anyway here is my actual recipe, if needed :
-1 cup of wholeheat flour
-1/2 cup of butter
-1/3 cup of sugar
-3 eggs
-1 tbsp of honey
I've seen on other sites that it can be a good idea to put the butter melted to avoid aeration. Right now they are a little too soft. Thanks for your replies
Your comment update suggests that you might be melting the butter ... don't. Melted butter will make for a softer, chewy cookie..
I don't know if there are episodes of Good Eats available legally online, but there are transcripts of them ... you want episode 'Three Chips for Sister Martha' in which he discusses how some slight changes to a cookie recipe will make for dramatically different cookies:
Back to butter. But this time we're going to melt it.
...
The water from the melted butter will combine during agitation with the higher protein of the bread flour therefore producing gluten ... which is chewy.
You likely want to look at what he did for 'The Thin' variant, which is the only crispy variant in the episode ... but that's not to say that you can't make thick crunchy cookies. (one of my favorites is LU's Bastogne cookies; speculaas also comes out crunchy even when fairly thick) Unfortunately, the recipe from that episode focused on thin (with the side-effect of crispy/crunchy), rather than mentioning what could be done to make it crunchy without making it thin.
Guess I just have to try now.
Here is an article similar to the Good Eats episode where it discuss change in cookie recipe : http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html
@BillJ. : I had forgotten about that one. But in skimming it after having read it years ago -- I'd say you also want to drop the honey, as that'll act like corn syrup mentioned (making it stay softer).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.430653
| 2016-07-19T08:53:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71516",
"authors": [
"Bill J.",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48142",
"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
}
|
122750
|
Why does using very unsaturated oil for seasoning cast iron make the coating brittle?
It's a point mentioned in this video. I don't quite get it. The more polymerization= stronger coating... till a point? Why does too much polymerization make the actual coating ultimately weaker?
I can indeed confirm that flax oil is a very poor choice for seasoning, and it is indeed due to its being overly reaction-friendly. * Let's look at the seasoning process in depth, first taking the average case
Case A: average fat
When you season a pan with some common cooking fat, it first stays liquid. But at some point, you get enough energy in there for some bonds to open, and the now naked atoms are looking for new partners - potentially atoms from other oil molecules. When they form these bonds, these are the cross-links mentioned in your video. A polymer starts to form.
At first the polymer is sticky - it has a lot of naked atoms grasping around for a bond. This is the "brown sticky" stuff mentioned in the video at 2:35 (it may be present as spots as shown, or as a single tacky light brown polymer sheet, which novices tend to mistake for proper seasoning). But with some time, a lot of these atoms form new, more stable bonds, and you get a strong, well-linked polymer, which is no longer sticky. This is a really good time to stop the process and consider your pan seasoned enough for further use. **
If you continue heating the pan after this point, at some time even the stable polymer bonds fall apart, and the carbon atoms form even stronger bonds with each other. Instead of a seasoning, you now have charcoal on your pan.
Case B: reaction-lazy fat
Different fats (and their polymers) have different properties. If you pick some fat that is not so reaction-friendly (which is correlated with high saturation), the phases look the same as in the diagram of the average case, but are somewhat shifted.
This fat stays liquid for a longer time before it starts polymerizing, and spends less time in the polymer area. When using optimal conditions, it is more difficult to catch it at that perfectly seasoned point, as opposed to underseasoning it (sticky layer) or overseasoning it (burnt, brittle, flaky carbon). Also, something which is not visible in this diagram: it has less tolerance for deviations from the optimal conditions. If your layer is even slightly too thick, the oil will stay liquid forever without ever starting to polymerize, resulting in a very obvious failure. This is why many people prefer to not use it at all for seasoning, opting instead for more forgiving fats. It is also one reason for the "more unsaturated is better" mantra which leads to indiscriminate suggestions of flaxseed oil in many internet sources.
Case C: Flaxseed oil
Flaxseed oil is incredibly reaction friendly, to a point where its results feel qualitatively different from other oils (which is most important in industrial uses outside of food production). When you use it for seasoning, its curve is shifted the opposite way of the reaction lazy oils.
It stays liquid for a much shorter time, and is very happy to build a polymer. It is stickier the whole time than the other cases. And it is so sticky that it doesn't even go through a phase of being a non-sticky polymer. Instead, it burns into charcoal before it loses its stickiness. And this makes it such a poor choice for seasoning.
"Brittle" and "gunky" seasoning
As noted above, if you underseason your pan, it stays tacky. So, it is common wisdom that you just continue seasoning until it stops being tacky. With almost all fats, this leads to a good, strong, C-to-H bonded and crosslinked seasoning.
But if you apply this advice to a layer of flaxseed polymer, it just burns. It reaches the stage of hard, brittle, flaking-off C-to-C bonded charcoal before it loses its stickiness. This is what the video means by it producing a seasoning that is "too brittle". They could have as well said that it produces a seasoning that is "too gunky", if they would have stopped the process before the seasoning burns. With flaxseed, there just isn't a sweet spot to aim for, the zones of the two unwanted properties are not just close, they overlap.
And this is why you don't want to use flaxseed, saturation or not: it is very easy to create a polymer layer with it, but the layer is of no use as seasoning.
* I will use unscientific descriptors like "reaction-friendly" throughout my post. This is because I am not sure that saturation correlates with seasoning quality all that well; my hands-on experience is that other measurements of general willingness to create bonds, such as the iodine number, may in fact be better predictors. Since I haven't made any systematic tests, or seen any literature that goes into depth, I will try to be agnostic of the actual measurement used, and stop talking about saturation and such.
** nitpick here: most people call this just "seasoned", which misleads novices to think that a pan is either seasoned or not. In fact, a good seasoning is built up with repeated polymerization during pan use; this first step just lays down a much-needed foundation.
Do you have citation for this, or the groundwork behind it? - just because the 'whole wide world of the interwebz at large' thinks flaxseed is 'the best'… whereas I agree with you & consider it rubbish, too soft. Almost all pan seasoning 'research' in the wild seems to lead back to the one-woman low-science experiment that arrived at flaxseed.
So, when I have the brown layer, am I just supposed to keep heating?
@Tetsujin no citations, sorry. The answer is based on 1) years of making almost every mistake imaginable before getting properly seasoned pans, 2) basic chemistry knowledge, and 3) snippets of knowledge about flaxseed oil and oil choice in other applications (soapmaking, cosmetics, wood finishing, garden tool maintenance). And a bit of human psychology, I guess - the "if a little of X is good, then a lot of X must be perfect" is the kind of widespread assumption I am always suspicious of. The law of universal linearity is unknown to nature :)
@TrystwithFreedom yes, if you used non-flax oil and ended up with a nice, regular, but tacky layer, you can go back on the heat and give it another nice long round of heating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.430930
| 2022-12-22T19:39:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122750",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123713
|
The recipe says to cook in a slow cooker on medium setting for 5 hours (dry pasta cooking in last hour), but I only have low or high
I want to make a recipe that says to cook on medium setting for 5 hours, with the addition of dry pasta and cheese at the start of the last hour. The recipe says to cook the ground beef before adding to slow cooker, so there's no raw meat to worry about. I'm concerned that if I put it on high, the (tomato-based) liquid will run too low to cook the pasta in the last hour. Should I change from high to low every half hour?
There’s no standard for ‘medium’ heat in a slow cooker. You may want to look for a similar recipe to see if they have instructions for ‘low’ or ‘high’. It’s also possible that they mean the middle setting, which is ‘low’ if the settings are warm/low/high
This sounds like something that can be started on high for an hour or so then switched to low for the rest.
tbh slow cookers don't usually evaporate much in 5 hours, even on high.
@Joe I'm not even sure how standard the usual settings are. Low seems quicker on my current one than my first, and the one in between (with a non stick metal inner pot) was quicker still. None of it enough to really matter for what I cook but noticeable
@ChrisH I suspect that many of them just put a constant amount of power into heating rather than trying to hold a specific temperature, so they’re more vague concepts rather than anything truly fixed. And using a recipe intended for a smaller size crockpot could mean you end up cooking it at a higher temperature due to this
@Joe yes, fixed power is generally the case, in proportion to their size. The only time I follow a recipe with mine is Christmas pudding, all the mixed bean chilli, bean stew etc. I make just starts high and gets turned down when I reckon it's nearly done, if I started it a bit early to just leave on high
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.431375
| 2023-03-22T17:44:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123713",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"Joe",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123795
|
Lemon pound cake that falls
1 cup (120g) all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup (56g) salted butter softened
1/4 cup (48g) shortening room temperature*
1 cup (200g) granulated sugar
2 large eggs preferably room temperature
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
1 teaspoon lemon zest this is the zest from about 1/3 of a lemon
1/4 cup milk preferably whole
This is recipe for the lemon pound cake I am making that falls. I am using self rising flour instead of the AP. Any ideas why it falls? I have made it several times with the same results. I did add 1/2 tsp baking soda this time thinking more leavening agent might help. I also added a tsp of lemon extract. Could that be the cause?
Can you please include the method you are using and ideally a photo or two of the result?
Are you using self-rising flour AND including the full amount of baking powder covered by the recipe?
Besides the answers in the linked questions, consider your expectations. There are people who observe the highest rise while the cake is in the oven and assume that it has to stay that way during and after the baking, like a balloon that has been inflated. This is not realistic; many cakes lose a bit of their max volume, similar to a souffle. Only consider it "collapsed" if the result is too dense to be eaten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.431546
| 2023-03-31T19:28:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123795",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117569
|
Mold in my new vinegar batch
I found this mold in my new vinegar batch. It has grown in the second refill of alcoholic soda when the mother of vinegar was already formed. Does anyone know why this mold has come out in the vinegar?
Thank you for your help..
Probably the pH was not low enough and/or the sugar content was too high. The recommended way to make vinegar has 2 steps:
turning the sugars into alcohol through yeast: this is an anaerobic process, so mold should not be a problem (mold needs oxygen) if you install the airlock properly (note: the link above does not mention the airlock, but I highly recommend it, this video explains why)
turning the alcohol into vinegar: at this point there should not be any sugar left in the liquid, otherwise at the start when the pH is not low enough, molds can form. This is an aerobic process because the acetic acid bacteria need oxygen
There is one more reason to use this process: if you do not have a separate step for the alcoholic fermentation, you will never know, when it is finished. If you bottle an unfinished batch, the alcoholic fermentation might continue, causing the bottle to explode (you could injure yourself). This should not be the case for unfinished vinegar fermentation, because the AAB run out of oxygen.
Thank yoy GB for your answer. I forgot to explain that this vinegar is made of Cinzano bitter soda, a beverage with a 8.5% vol alc, so the first step of fermentation to get alcohol is not needed. As you said, at this point there should not be any sugar left in the liquid, and there was sugar and caramel added in it. Probably that has been the problem. In the first batch the vinegar was succesfully created and I followed the same process in the second batch, thats why didn’t understand what failed. Even with an 8.5% vol alcohol, this molds can appear? Thank you again
Thank you for the clarification. I updated the answer, then lost the changes when I signed in. Shortly: cinzano bitter contains sugar and sulphites, which does not favour the AAB when they have to compete against mold. Why your first batch succeeded, I can't say, maybe you had luck. To get rid of the sulphites, you could use some polymer wine filters, like Üllo or some say hydrogen peroxide also converts the sulphites to something less harmful. Then you could start the alcoholic fermentation by adding yeast and after that kick-start the AA fermentation by adding some of the old/live vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.431679
| 2021-10-20T16:55:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117569",
"authors": [
"G. B.",
"Sonia D.B.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96070"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41503
|
non stick presto electric skillet
My skillet is dishwasher safe but it comes out with rust colored spots on the bottom. The non-stick surface is rough and if I use a paper towel to wipe it down it leaves little pieces of paper behind.
Instructions say not to soak it. It has a sticky feel to it and patches that look and feel like burned on grease.
I feel like I have tried everything. Anyone have any suggestions for me?
If the surface is rough, your pan may be damaged beyond salvagability, at least as far as non-stick goes. Can you give a picture?
Everything in your description points to the skillet not being dishwasher safe. Where did you get the information that it is dishwasher safe? Could it be that some overenthusiastic seller gave you info on the wrong model?
A rough surface on a non-stick pan sounds like you have used oil or fat in it at a high heat
You do not need to use oil or fat in a non-stick pan, and doing so may result in the polymerisation of the oil or fat into a rough and tough surface
You can remove this by the normal use of a polyester scrubbing bad (green 3M pads) and dish soap. Normal non-stick surfaces are strong enough to resist polyester scrubbers, but polymerised oil is not. I use broad circular scrubbing patterns to avoid wearing out one spot when "fixing" a non-stick pan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.431882
| 2014-01-27T14:13:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41503",
"authors": [
"Ezzat Halabi",
"MarilynB",
"Ms Tina Denise Flores",
"Rice7373 Rice",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"alimirah5454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98328",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42890
|
No Shortening and No Refrigeration, Buttercream Frosting
Can anyone tell me what I can add to Buttercream frosting that doesn't include shortening and will still allow me to keep the cake at room temperature?
I hate the taste of shortening
I'm not a fan of the taste of shortening on its own, but if you add enough vanilla (or other flavoring) and sugar into the icing, you shouldn't have the shortening taste coming through.
There are several different types of icing that are referred to as buttercream, none of which require the use of shortening, including:
American Buttercream -- Butter, powdered sugar, perhaps some milk, and flavoring such as vanilla beaten together. While some recipes call for shortening, using actual butter gives a better flavor. See a sample recipe from Savory Sweet Life.
French Buttercream -- Egg yolks are beaten and cooked by adding hot sugar syrup (at the softball stage). The yolk mixture is then beaten until it is cool, and butter and then butter and flavoring is beaten in. See sample recipe from Chicago Tribune.
Italian Buttercream -- An Italian Meringue (egg whites beaten with hot sugar syrup) is prepared and then cooled, and butter and flavoring beaten in. See sample recipe from Martha Stewart.
Any of these are stable at room temperature for a day or two, but like most perishable foods, should not be held indefinitely.
In addition to buttercreams, you may wish to consider other frostings which don't contain shortening, including ganache (chocolate melted with hot cream and cooled), whipped ganache (ganache that has been beaten until it is foamy), and Seven Minute Frosting (essentially a meringue frosting).
All these are safe enough for a day or two at room temperature, but when the cake is decorated elaborately, the fine details melt slightly. Roses but, petals droop, hanging ribbons might fall off. This is why buttercream decorated cakes are held in the fridge, especially in warmer climate. Shortening, with its different melting pattern, is safe.
@rumtscho Sure, and truly elaborate decorations are done wit royal icing which has all of the good flavor of plaster of paris, but also its fine structural properties. The OP did not mention decorations, though.
Whip butter, and then add whipped egg whites
Then blend in sugar which has been boiled to "soft ball" state (115°C or 240°F)
Should be plenty of recipes on the web
Buttercream frosting is kept in the fridge because the butter softens too much at room temperature. Decorations lose their definition, and many people prefer the firmer texture for the taste.
There is no way to change the properties of butter, so you will have to work with another fat if you can't refrigerate. The problem is that all solid fats bring their own taste into the frosting. You can have frosting which tastes of butter and is safe to eat for 1-2 days outside of the fridge, but turns soft. (If that's what you want, SAJ's answer is great). You can have frosting which tastes like something else and keeps firm. But you can't have both at once.
If you want a firm frosting, shortening is usually the best choice, because it has the most neutral taste. But if you are for some reason sensitive to the taste, you can use other firm fats, which will change the taste. A good choice which will probably harmonize well with many cakes is coconut fat. It is very firm at room temperature (unless you live in the tropics), and cocos taste is frequently associated with sweet pastries. Palm fat could be another alternative, but I guess that more people will have an aversion to an unexpected palm fat taste in cake than to an unexpected cocos taste in cake.
A different solution might be cocoa butter softened with dairy butter. Cocoa butter on its own is too hard, but carefully mixing it should give you a more spreadable result slightly reminiscent of soft white chocolate. The problem (beside the expense) is that no standard recipe for buttercream will work with such a mixture. If you haven't done standard chocolate work before (truffles, guanduja etc. from scratch), I wouldn't recommend going that way, as it is really very finicky. But it might be worth a try if you have previous experience in conditoring.
You're forgetting about 'butter flavored shortening' ... which will fool most people, especially when you cover it up with vanilla and sugar. (but there's no fun in hiding it, because I love the expression on people's faces when they tell you how great the icing is, and then you tell 'em it's whipped crisco). (crisco == a brand of shortening in the US)
@joe I believe you, but I don't think I could that for my own pride... I would know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.432129
| 2014-03-21T04:30:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42890",
"authors": [
"Endemoniada",
"Gaiungan Gallery",
"Joe",
"Judith Houston",
"Linda Oberle",
"Meowie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Vic Seedoubleyew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paul cappucci",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26119
|
What are some methods to deal with cleanliness when working with raw chicken, pork, etc.?
I'm super paranoid when prepping/cooking chicken, pork, etc...especially now that we have an 11 month old crawling around. So, I'm constantly trying to be vigilant about keeping the raw meat prep area confined and I'm constantly washing my hands with hot soapy water.
When you watch chefs on TV, they basically wipe their hands on their aprons, wipe down cutting surfaces with a cloth, etc. I don't see any system or methodology for keeping things sanitary.
Any recommendations on methods, techniques, etc.?
Commercial kitchens use a few methods that are hidden from the camera during kitchen shows. First, there are cutting boards for meats, and separate cutting boards for vegetables. These are often color coded so they aren't mixed up. If there is room, raw meats use an entirely different table. Any possibly contaminated board is sanitized before reuse.
Second, the cloths you see are stored in a bucket of sanitizing fluid which kills microbes on contact. When a surface is wiped down, or hands are cleaned, they are being sanitized by the liquid on the cloth. Finally, there is usually more than one person working behind the scenes and labor is divided so the raw meat people are not the same as the green salad people.
At home, planning is the key. Try to do all of your non-meat prep first. Then you can contaminate your cutting board without having to wash it again. Then try to take care of all of your meat prep, so you only have to wash your hands once. And remember that if you drop a vegetable on your raw chicken, it's not a big deal if it's all going to be cooked.
I wonder what this food-safe sanitizing liquid is. :)
I use separate boards, cut meat last, and spray the board and knife with anti-bac spray before washing them as normal in hot soapy water. If I'm going to be very hands on with the meat, rubbing in a marinade say, I wear rubber gloves.
@milesmeow In all the restaurants that I've worked at the sanitizing liquid was simple chlorine Bleach (i.e Clorox) mixed with water (1 teaspoon per gallon of H20).
Bleach works but the professional standard is now quaternary solution... an example but not a product rec http://www.amazon.com/Steramine-Quaternary-Sanitizing-Tablets-Sanitizer/dp/B004BLPE3C
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.432489
| 2012-09-12T03:17:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26119",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"milesmeow",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43140
|
The whey of mozzarella or tofu
Mozzarella, tofu come with a liquid, I think is whey. Is it useful in any way? has this any culinary value?
The purpose of this liquid is to prevent the cheese or tofu from drying out. Its main use is for storage, not for consumption. If you don't consume the cheese at once after opening the original package, you are supposed to transfer the liquid into a storage container, or replace/fill up with water.
There are people who drink the whey, because they like the taste. There isn't much to be said here; they pour it into a glass and drink, without further preparation.
Otherwise, any recipe which uses water can use whey instead. The taste difference for mild wheys such as mozzarella and tofu whey will be very slight, almost unnoticeable. There is nothing special to take into account, except a small probability that you won't like the taste and would prefer to use water instead. There is no way to predict whether you will find the taste harmonious: it is a personal preference.
A known use for the whey created during cheese making is to make ricotta. It will not work with tofu whey, and I don't think it will work with the liquid in commercial mozzarella packaging either; you'd have to make your own cheese to get the necessary type of whey for ricotta.
The liquid used to keep mozzarella and tofu isn't always whey, often it is just water or a mild brine solution.
@Didgeridrew I was unsure about this (never knew what exactly they put inside, from the taste it could have been either), but then noticed that the answer doesn't change between brine and whey, so posted it anyway.
Another use I've heard is to use instead of water in breadmaking. It acts as a preservative.
Yes, you are right. You can make some bread using whey and I should say that it is really good.
I have put a small quantity of tofu water/whey in breadmaking once. I believe it is the ingredient that made my bread rise higher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.432701
| 2014-03-29T12:45:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43140",
"authors": [
"Carapace",
"Didgeridrew",
"Elizabeth Armstrong",
"Johny Morrisson",
"Karen Black",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tolga Kısaoğulları",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93779",
"rumtscho",
"sisee",
"spammer"
],
"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
}
|
123943
|
Nuts soaked and dried. Fridge or not?
I usually soak nuts overnight. I usually do this with walnuts, almonds, and hazelnuts. Then I dry them at low temperatures. After that, is it better to store them in the fridge or outside if I want a long shelf life?
There have been comments asking why the OP is soaking the nuts. It turned out to be a health-related reason, which devolved into a discussion on the correctness of their health beliefs. Please do not ask this again - we don't need this discussion, and it isn't really needed for an answer anyway.
Are they fully dried again, or just enough to get the surface water off (you can check the weight before and after the process)? This could affect the keeping properties
They are fully dried
A study ("The Effect of “Activating” Nuts on Fat and Mineral Content" https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/9017) which soaked and then dried nuts at low temperatures found that these activated nuts (except for whole almonds) do have less fat, and we know that the oxidation of fat produces rancid flavors and odors. However, there is still a significant amount of fat left to go rancid after soaking and drying, so there seems to be no reason not to refrigerate them, when that is known to increase their life.
There's like 1 sentence in here that actually answers the question, buried under discussion of (off-topic) heath benefits. Would be nice if it were inverted to bring the relevant part to the fore.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.432906
| 2023-04-16T14:17:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123943",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Nrc",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43920
|
What is the US equivalent of Golden Syrup (UK)?
Having recently moved from UK to US, when making honeycomb, what should I use as a replacement for Golden Syrup?
I assume honey comb here isn't the larvae-protecting sheets of wax made by bees? Excuse my new world ignorance. Is it this stuff? http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/honeycomb_80005
Maple syrup in Canada ;)
@Preston Have you come across the term cinder toffee? Or a Cadbury's crunchie bar? It's that stuff. It uses hot sugar and baking powder to create that honeycomb texture.
@SamLee Nope, but it sounds great.
Honeycomb can be made with honey or molasses but the flavor will not be the same. There isn't a US equivalent - we have molasses, but it's darker. You can substitute corn syrup in recipes where it isn't the principal ingredient, but here that would not work.
That being said, my local grocery store has a British food section which carries golden syrup. You probably don't have to substitute, you just need to find it in your local grocer.
Edit: Another answer suggests "King's Golden Syrup" as a golden syrup available in the US. This is not golden syrup - this is corn syrup derived product containing: Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Refiners Syrup, Water, Potassium Sorbate and Citric Acid.
If you look at the ingredients of Lyle's Golden Syrup to compare, it contains simply Cane Sugar Syrup.
I use Golden Syrup, here in the US, all the time; I find it in the regular baking section, but I have seen it, like the previous answer, in the international section. I'm sure it's the same in the UK, but here it now comes in easy-pour plastic bottles (just in case you were looking for it in different packaging), rather than only in tins like I used to buy (centuries ago) at the British NAAFI in Rheindahlen, Germany. I have actually substituted it for corn syrup (my nephew is allergic to corn) w/great results (you must stir constantly when making peanut brittle because it burns faster, but it still makes great brittle, & it makes a slightly softer truffle, but not enough that most would notice), so I'd be interested to hear what happened if you still cannot find Golden Syrup in your area and did use corn syrup...perhaps you'd have to add some cane sugar, to keep it from being too stiff (ahem)? I'm not a food chemist, obviously, but I do like to experiment with food & was happily surprised by my results. My other answer would be "Amazon. They have everything."
As an addition to my note above, I also just googled "golden syrup" & found there is an American brand, "King Golden Syrup". You might find that in your local grocery, if they don't have Lyle's. I still would like to hear how your honeycomb comes out using corn syrup! If it's anything like brittle, where you heat the sugar & corn syrup very high & add baking soda at the end (baking soda foams the mix), it would work just fine. I could see calling that "honeycomb", especially if you didn't stretch it thin when poured, as we do for brittles. Very light & melt-in-your-mouth, but w/crunch as well.
I've added a note to my answer re: King's Golden Syrup. That's a corn syrup product, not a true golden syrup.
make your own golden syrup by boiling sugar and water and add a little lemon juice to stop it crystalizing there are a few videos on youtube to show you how its made well easy hope this helps another brit now living in the usa
This sounds like a great idea but you could improve your answer by mentioning one or two in particular that you've found to work. Even better would be to include a summary of your favourite technique here to save searching elsewhere.
This is an inverted syrup (which is one of the things that seem to be sold as "golden syrup"). Recipe that works for me: cook 1:1 (by weight) sugar and water for ~1h at 80-90°C with the juice of one lemon per litre water, then boil it down to ~118°C (gives a light golden color, a thin honey like viscosity). A very versatile ingredient!
The classic Tate and Lyle golden syrup is a 'partialy' inverted syrup. I don't know what that means, but I'm reading the tin as I type this!
I had never heard of golden syrup and found these when I googled it.
You can order it online, for example from King Arthur.
And you can make your own as in this video.
I find it odd when people say there's no equivalent in the USA, I beg to differ . We have Golden Eagle Brand golden syrup since 1928 that's made right here by hand to this day. It's made in Fayette, Alabama and it's far superior to Lyle's. You can order it online it's $3 a pint!! You can order it in the 16 oz or all the way up. I usually purchase the 32 oz for $6. If you haven't tried it please do!! Check out their Facebook page GOLDEN EAGLE SYRUP.
Golen Eagle Syrup from Alabama may work like Lyle's golden syrup in a recipe or it may not. It isn't the same thing at all. Lyle's has no corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup nor honey.Golden Eagle has all three. The first two ingredients being potentially unsafe for those with corn allergy. The flavor would be different too, causing some people to prefer one over the other.
In the U.S.A. you can buy Lyles Golden Syrup (11.46 ounce) in the International Foods section at Publix.
For those of us in the US but not near Florida, Publix appears to be a regional supermarket chain in the Southeastern US.
just make your own...its simple and for 1/4 price
Welcome! This sounds like a good idea, and has been suggested by some of the previous answers. Do you have a specific method or recipe that has worked well for you that you would like to share?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.433081
| 2014-05-06T01:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43920",
"authors": [
"Angela Tomkinson",
"Ballixxe",
"Chef Pharaoh",
"Crystal Sazo",
"Hannah Regalado",
"Hosted PBX spam",
"James",
"JamieB",
"JasonTrue",
"KMerrell",
"Mars Argo",
"Martin Jevon",
"NadjaCS",
"PeterJ",
"Preston",
"Sam Lee",
"Thomas David Kehoe",
"Wendy Voogt",
"aguilina123",
"beachgirl",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73671",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
44852
|
At which end of the scale on the knob is the refrigerator temperature lowest, at which is it highest?
At what point the temperature of refrigerator/frig going high or low ? For example the numbers are given 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 some people set at 5 or some people set at 1 at which figure temperature is high or low?
I doubt that there is a worldwide standard for all refrigerators. After all, it is just numbers painted on a knob, every manufacturer can paint there whatever they please.
You have to measure the temperature to know exactly where you get the optimal 4 Celsius. But even without measuring, you can leave it for a few hours at one end and you will notice if it is too cold or too warm.
Alternatively, just look up the user manual.
Consensus seems to indicate that fridge settings are unreliable anyway, and you ought to go by temperature instead: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4529/what-temperatures-should-i-keep-my-refrigerator-and-freezer-set-at?rq=1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.433534
| 2014-06-13T16:43:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44852",
"authors": [
"Bendaily Real Estate Bussines",
"CatByte-io",
"Mary Rowley",
"haley billings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45676
|
Should I drain water after I cook noodles in microwave?
I have just cooked noodles in microwave. In some websites it says to drain water before eating it. Some doesn't say about draining water.
Should I drain the water as I have cooked it in microwave?
Hello SrikanthJeeva, and welcome to our site. We specialize in cooking only, and nutrition and healthiness of food is off topic for us. So I had to remove the part which asked about health consequences. The rest of the question is fine.
Do you like your noodles swimming in water? If not, drain them.
Depends on what sort of noodles, but you could cook them with less water. If you cook the noodles with 'just enough' water it will all be absorbed during cooking, so there will be none left to drain.
This would probably be quicker, as there is less water for the microwave to heat up. Also, if the noodles have any sort of seasoning, draining the water could wash this away, so you would lose some flavour.
+1 - "Depends" is indeed the best answer. There are noodle recipes which require the noodles to remain in their cooking liquid, e.g. ramen soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.433650
| 2014-07-17T20:58:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45676",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38222
|
How to store/what to do with leftovers from Ayurvedic ginger & turmeric cold/flu drink?
I've made an Ayurvedic drink for a cold/flu (though I adapted it to my tastes) - minced ginger and turmeric brought to a boil over medium high heat then simmered till it turns a dark amber color.
Can I store the leftovers in the fridge or are there any other ideas on how to store them?
What can I do with the leftover minced ginger and turmeric, which have been boiled and strained out?
It seems like you're really asking two distinct questions here.
It sounds like you have made what is essentially an oddly flavored vegetable broth. According to Still Tasty, that should last about 4-5 days refrigerated.
The leftover ginger and tumeric is going to have given most of its flavor into the broth. I don't think you would want to use it for anything, although it would be safe to eat.
I never thought about looking at medicinal recipes as culinary recipes, even though that's exactly what they are. Thank you for the quick answer, info and new way of looking at cooking!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.433768
| 2013-11-07T09:21:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38222",
"authors": [
"Car Park Barrier LTD",
"Cynthia Chapman",
"Gary Tapley",
"Gym Doctors",
"Lauretta Ross",
"Mike Bell",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Supanan Phumiprapai",
"Tazpool",
"brenda tarter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90028",
"privatesexkontakte spam",
"user21142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46417
|
How can I incorporate brown lettuce into something appetizing?
I have four bags of lettuce that have gone brown. A nice fresh salad is obviously out of the question. Is there anything I can do with it?
brown, as in rotting? ...spoiled?
I'm assuming that this is cut lettuce that is just browning a bit. Four bags is a lot to try to use quickly. You would "condense" it considerably by cooking it. Look here for inspiration: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45901/why-is-lettuce-rarely-cooked
@moscafj From what I've researched, browned lettuce isn't actually rotting, just "oxidized." It's perfectly safe and nutritious, just not very tasty.
It was unclear from your description, that's why I was trying to have you clarify....also, what type of lettuce? ...iceberg? ...leaf....romaine? All important information for the best response. For example, if it were romaine, you could use all of it quickly and deliciously by charring on a hot grill, drizzling with olive oil and hitting it with some salt.
@moscafj According to the package, it's mangold, rucola, spinach leaves, bulls blood and mizuna all mixed up.
if it's slimy or shows other signs of decay, pitch it. If the stems have started to get a bit dark, you could probably throw it into something where it won't be seen (eg, inside a burrito, where the heat would've wilted it anyway) ... but give it a taste first, make sure the flavor hasn't gone strange on you. The only other thing I can think of is to blend it into a smoothie.
Oof... delicate greens such as those are really best when they're fresh. At best, you might be able to do a sort of creamed spinach treatment by cooking them down, but you'll want to pick through them carefully to avoid any actual soft, rotted bits. Otherwise: compost heap.
Brown lettuce may or may not be harmful to you, it depends on how far gone it is.
We get a lot of questions on this forum asking about how to use ingredients which may be past their prime, and the advice is almost always not to try - mixing bad ingredients with good ingredients is almost always going to ruin your good ingredients and waste time and money.
So don't try to incorporate it into anything, either make a dish that can stand on its own or throw it away. If it's not smelly, or slimy, or looks rotting then taste it. Try each type of leaf in each bag, if they taste ok then you could try making something out of it.
Personally I'd chuck it. I wouldn't want to be served brown lettuce, and I wouldn't serve it to anyone else.
I have a slow baked fish recipe that will be just perfect for you. I found it about 30 years ago in the New York Times Magazine.
Cut the lettuce into julienne strips.Rinse it, shake but leave it wet.
Place a bed of the lettuce it in a baking pan with sliced aromatics such as onion, shallot or garlic .
Sprinkle the lettuce lightly with water or white vermouth.
Lay thin white fish filets on the lettuce bed. White fish or orange roughy work well.Season to taste. Dot with butter if you like but you can skip that if you want to avoid the fat.
Cover the pan with foil and seal the edges.
Bake in a low oven,around 200-225 F for about 40 minutes.
Remove the fish and discard the lettuce/aromatic base.
I topped it with lemon and capers .
Essentially the julienned lettuce acts as a steaming base. Because you discard it after cooking it doesn't matter what it looks like.
I used iceberg and romaine. You need to be mindful if your lettuces are in the bitter range such as arugula or rocket. Watercress would be good, though.
Just don't try to reverse the scheme using a rotten fish and fresh lettuce....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.433921
| 2014-08-15T11:10:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46417",
"authors": [
"Brian Kelly",
"Christie Patterson",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Penny Morgan",
"Sharon Barr",
"Sheryl Smith",
"Tanya Hense",
"caffeinator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46597
|
Why can't I heat water properly on a new glass cooktop using a stainless steel pot?
I have just started using a glass cooktop and my RACO stainless steel cook pot takes ages to heat and won't boil unless on the highest setting. It makes a scummy mark on the cook top. I thought that RACO was a brand that was recommended. Any ideas about what is happening?
Is cooking in all your pots different between the old and new stove, or just this one? Is the cooktop induction or resistive? (resistive = "plain", the kind you can usually see a read heating coil glowing through the glass). The scummy mark is normal, you have to clean the cooktop after cooking.
A little poking with Google tells me that at least some Raco stainless cookware is induction compatible, but whether your cook top is induction is still an important question. Also, is the bottom of the pan flat, or has it warped over time?
I've found my non-induction glass cooktop somewhat worse for boiling water with my stainless bottom pots, but generally better with cast iron. You may want to try aluminium pots, adding a lid to your existing pots, or bootstrapping it with an electric kettle (the kettle method is the fastest).
I assume you are not using induction; Are the base of the pots clean and flat ?
One possible reason for this would be if the cooktop used induction, where rather than heating up, it used electromagnest to cause the pan to heat up. For this to work, the pan must be ferrous and able to be magnetized. Although stainless steel is made from iron, it isn't strongly magnetic, and thus will not work well on an induction cooker.
To test if this is the case, you can try pans from other materials and see if they have similar problems. Aluminium, copper, or ceramic cookware simply won't heat up at all. You can also try turning an element on high without a pan, and waiting a minute or two. If you can hold your hand above the element without feeling any heat, it's either an induction cooktop or defective.
If you place a cast iron or carbon steel pan on the element, wait another minute or two, and test again but can feel heat, then it's induction.
As you mentioned it's a new cooktop, if it's new because you bought it (and not because you've moved), find the manual, and if it's an induction cooker, it should proudly proclaim that fact, and list what types of pans are recommended.
...
The next possibility is that if you're coming from a gas cooktop you may not be used to the speed of electric cookers. With a glass-topped cooker, it's difficult to see the size of the elements, and so you may only have one or two elements on the cooktop that are rated for fast boiling or other high-heat applications. You can try each of the burners in turn, and see if some of them heat up faster than others.
... but there's also a chance that the element is defective. I'd suggest calling their customer service number, or e-mailing them to ask about the cooktop.
Let me preface my answer by saying that I have a gas range, not a glass cooktop. However, I have found on both gas and electric ranges that there is a world of difference in pans made of different metals.
I have two sets of stainless steel pots and pans. One is a more expensive brand with a thick bottom and the other is a more moderately priced set with a pretty thin bottom. With pots and saucepans from either set it seems like it takes forever to get water to boil. It's very frustrating to say the least.
Also, it causes issues such as when boiling eggs. Because I put the eggs in before the water boils and start timing when the water starts to boil, I never could seem to get the time just right as the eggs have set in very hot, but not boiling, water for an extended period.
What I have found that works best and quickest for me when boiling water for eggs, pasta, etc. is porcelain enamel cookware. (This is a porcelain enamel coating on aluminun - not to be confused with enameled cast iron.)
I'm not sure if the porcelain enamel cookware is appropriate for glass cooktops. I would suggest trying cookware made of materials other than SS, always making sure that it is appropriate for use on your cooktop.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.434337
| 2014-08-23T05:05:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46597",
"authors": [
"Arnold Purisch",
"Bob Brown",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Ellie McFarlane",
"Kayla Wilcox",
"Keith Fisher",
"Max",
"Merle Nagely",
"apol n",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97134
|
Dough volume calculation
Consider simple dough, flour and water. For simplification we will disregard salt, sugar and any other additives. The question is, how do I guesstimate volume of dough, say, 1000gr of flour and 1000ml of water (consider that water/floor ratio for my theoretical dough is known). I'm well aware that different flours have different properties, for simplification, lets say it is GP or 00 flour, whatever it is called in your country. Is there some property like absorption ratio of flour? If there is one, the rest can be easily calculated.
Example:
Usually I mix water and flour (for theoretical dough, forget leavening agents and particular application, like bread, pasta, whatever) in 7:10 ratio - 700 ml of water with 1000 gr of flour. I want to fill with that dough a pan, lets say, 750 cm^3, how much flour and water I should use to get that volume of dough.
Dough for what? You're not adding any raising agent, and most unleavened breads use a lot less water than that (e.g. half as much water as flour by weight). Would you even have a dough rather than a paste at that water content?
I think I have to elaborate more, will update the question right away.
I think the point Chris H was making is that, if it is a leavened dough, there is no answer. It is not about the pinch of leavener, it is that the dough changes its volume constantly during the proofing process (if yeast, but chemically leavened batter can also see some small changes before it is used). You can of course fill that pan with pasta dough, but you cannot bake a loaf of pasta in the pan. If you really only want to know how to "norm" your recipe such that you always produce exactly one loaf from this pan, this is empirically derived information which changes with the recipe.
First, whatever leaving agent is used (yeast or chemical) the initial volume (right out of the mixer bowl) is the same as with no leaving agent. Second, yes, you hit the point, I want to produce exact amount of dough for particular pan. Empirical approach will work, but it is a) time consuming b) should be repeated for each recipe. Technically it is solvable problem to find a way to calculate it. Will update if I find something interesting. Hint: farinograph
You can make a first-pass estimate of the volume of risen dough by roughly doubling the initial volume -- that's a rule of thumb that's often used for judging whether a dough has proofed enough to bake and/or punch down. Beyond that, there are way too many variables to give a concrete answer here -- the only answer that would be accurate is "it depends".
Bread dough is a living microbe colony. What you describe in your question is essentially an autolysis step -- mix water with flour and let it sit. Even that is going to have different absorption and gluten strand growth effects depending on how long it sits at what temperature. Autolysis is an early step out of dozens in a long process, with variables that include not just hydration and flour quality and protein content, but also particular yeast and lactobacillus strains, temperature during kneading, temperature during proofing, temperature during baking, kneading time, proofing time, pH of dough before and after knead, resting time after mixing before kneading, and probably several other "basic" items I'm skipping here.
And that's ignoring the effects of salt, sugar, oil, and other ingredients.
All of the above have major influence on the final volume, with chaotic effects in terms of the way early variations in process can affect the eventual outcome.
Baking is surprisingly complex biochemistry and physics.
Erm, I don’t think that the question is about rising dough? It’s comparable to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/27350/28879, asking for the combined volume of flour and water.
@Stephie The question is about volume of dough...which usually rises/changes in volume. This is probably the best answer kruzerkreig is going to get. Hopefully, he passed the class without this problem being solved.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.434702
| 2019-03-27T19:31:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97134",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73736",
"kreuzerkrieg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24912
|
Can I substitute duck breast for leg?
I managed to pick up a couple of duck breasts that were on offer. I had a nice meal recently that included duck breast served on duck hash.
The recipe for this meal involves jointing a whole duck, serving the breast on top of the hash in which the shredded duck leg meat is mixed with potato and onion.
As I have 2 breasts and I only need one, so can I simply substitute a breast for the leg meat or will the breast have the wrong texture or other shortcoming?
I'm morally opposed to this question. It's equivalent to "I'm out of hamburger. Can I just grind up this Kobe Beef filet instead?"
Like poultry, duck has fatter legs than breasts and also the meat itself is darker, adding a different flavor to the meal.
The fat in the legs will melt and the potatoes and onions will cook in it.
It would be great if you had some duck fat to add to the breasts or at least any kind of fat, for the flavor.
But if you like to eat learn unfatty meals, you can stick with the breast only.
The breasts still have the skin on, so there is a decent layer of fat on there. I'll try roasting to medium-rare then adding to the hash. Thanks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.435000
| 2012-07-08T15:46:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24912",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Butterfly451",
"Chris Cudmore",
"DanNsk",
"Karl Miller",
"NBenatar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56911",
"mollie",
"user1896636"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18245
|
Making a goats cheese tart more substantial
Last night I made a goats cheese tart using pesto, puff pastry, finely chopped onions, peppers and courgettes. (Spread pastry with pesto, put veg on, break up goats cheese and bake in a 200 degree oven for about 30 mins).
It was very nice but not filling enough for a main course.
What can be added to bulk up the tart but that does not need (significant) cooking before hand and doesnt alter the cooking of the tart too much.
Ideas include - small cubes of potato (not sure if it would cook enough), and eggs (creates more a quiche rather than a tart).
Anyone else have any ideas?
I voted to close because this is an invitation to a poll. You could add anything to the tart, and "filling" does not constrain the possible solutions to a manageably small numbers. Besides, it is subjective what you consider filling, it depends on your eating habits. There are people who can eat thousands of calories in a sitting and feel hungry if they didn't have bread.
I'm inclined to agree with the close vote because it is a What can I add to X? question. However I think if the question is simply more specific about "substantial", it might be workable. Maybe you can focus on a specific nutritional element (protein?) or a specific pairing (meat?).
Eggs -- not enough to make it a quiche or custard, but enough to bind it together a bit, and give it a richer mouth-feel. I'd suggest either a single egg, or one egg + one egg yolk.
If you do decide on the potato, I'd cook it first -- cubed, tossed in olive oil with salt, pepper, and garlic, and roasted in a hot oven till brown. I'd use either Yukon gold or small waxy potatoes -- no russets; they're too mealy.
I'd like to suggest a rather Zen way of bulking up the tart.
I think it would be easiest to use whole flour for the pastry instead of white flour. This will add fibre to the dish, making it more filling. It also adds a certain "rustic" flavour, in my opinion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.435146
| 2011-10-07T09:07:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18245",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Iftekhar",
"Maveňツ",
"arshad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77227",
"rumtscho",
"sturakov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5977
|
How do I get caramels to turn out grainy?
Yes, I know the opposite of the usual question. I've been making candy since I was a little kid. My caramels are always smooth and creamy. My partner's father thinks they taste good but that the texture is all wrong. He liked the gritty/grainy ones his mother used to make. Everything I have ever seen listed as a way to fix grainy caramels I have tried reversing.
I have tried many things, including:
adding granulated sugar late in the process
not using corn syrup or other invert sugar
cooking them at high temps
cooking them for too short a time
stirring or not stirring at all the wrong times
switching recipes
varying the fat content
I guess I am wondering what makes caramels turn out grainy. It's not as far as I can tell, wholly related to the sugar dissolving/melting. If it was adding some granulated sugar as it cools should cause more crystals to form.
Is it related to the liquid content? Because sometimes after months in a cupboard even ordinarily smooth caramels will have developed some graininess.
Awesome question. We need a set of questions on how to make dishes completely wrong. :)
Next up: curdled custard and gluey mashed potatoes!
Why not? You learn more from failures than successes.
Are you trying to make a caramel or a classic southern style praline?
Avery, I am not trying for a praline. He specifically likes what I think of as caramels gone wrong. That is to say still gooey but somehow slightly gritty.
As you mentioned it is all about how the crystals form.
Some of the factors off the top of my head:
How saturated is the solution -
The more sugar packed into the syrup the more easily it will crystallize.
How quickly it cools -
The slower the bigger the crystals
Interference -
Do you have a starch or other sugar molecules gumming up the works?
Obviously you already knew this from your question.
Not using other sugars will help.
You might also try adding more sugar to the recipe at the beginning to fully saturate your solution. The fact that you add sugar at the end and it still dissolves in makes me think your solution could take a bit more. Letting the solution cool slowly with your seed sugar at the end should help.
You would think it would be easier to get it wrong. Perhaps you simply have too much experience doing it right.
Ask an amateur to try out your recipe and see if they fail properly.
More sugar is a good idea. Generally when I am trying to get the caramels to crystallize I don't handicap myself by adding invert sugars of any sort, no starches either. Sugar, Butter, Cream or milk, some vanilla right at the end.
I wish I had time for a more complete answer, but it sounds like you are trying to make fudge. It's quite an involved process. To give a very brief outline of the process without explaining why it works, you need to,
Bring your candy mixture to a boil and then stop stirring.
Use a sugar thermometer and wait for the temperature to reach 115C (softball stage).
Wipe down the sides of the pan while you do this or the sugar crystals that form will be too large.
Take the mixture off the heat and allow to cool to 43C.
Stir the mixture for 10-15 mins until it stiffens up.
Hmmm. Well, I'd try stirring it after it came to a boil. That usually works for my wife =P
Do you add any acids? They can prevent crystal formation. Lot of people put some lemon juice in for that reason.
I don't add any acids. I hadn't heard that one though.
Seeing your recipe would help. Try using only granulated sugar as your sugar. When you add other sugars to the mix (like corn syrup) you are helping ensure a smooth product by disrupting the way that a single type of sugar crystallizes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.435342
| 2010-08-25T19:30:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5977",
"authors": [
"Avery Wittkamp",
"Laura Thomas",
"Lois Lane",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"steve_0804",
"user15757"
],
"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
}
|
5474
|
How do you form Marshmallow Ropes?
I have made marshmallows before and formed them into a pan, and then cut them into squares. That works fine and they taste great.
I'd like to achieve the effect of the long marshmallow ropes that I have seen in France.
I tried using a piping bag with a big tip and piping them onto a sheet dusted liberally with powdered sugar, but mostly they just stayed stuck in the bag and made a huge mess with limited success.
I'm looking for suggestions on how to get this effect.
Is it possible that the recipes that use more egg and less gelatin would work better?
Have you tried using a marshmallow recipe that is only made from gelatin and cooked sugar syrup (sugar, water, and light corn syrup to soft ball stage, 240 degrees F)?
I have made various piped marshmallows that will hold swirly shapes using this type of marshmallow recipe. It is a bit more stable than the egg based recipes. The most important thing is to make sure that the marshmallow mixture is whipped to a nice fluffy, shiny, smooth stage (about 7-10 minutes on high speed) and piped very quickly into whatever form you want before it sets up using a large round tip. Timing is of utmost importance here and you may lose some marshmallow during this process at home.
I would also recommend piping onto a silpat (silicone) lined sheet tray or a piece of wax paper that has been lightly dusted with a mixture of cornstarch and confectioner's sugar.
I have tried with an egg free recipe, but I think I got to like 245-250 degrees F. I don't have my notes on me. Maybe I was too slow and it was a bit too stiff.
Silpat is a great idea! I can't wait to try again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.435920
| 2010-08-18T17:12:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5474",
"authors": [
"Africa",
"Cory Klein",
"Kunal P.Bharati",
"Laura Thomas",
"Tamara Morgan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"user14597"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5663
|
Why roast beets in vinegar?
I have always roasted my beets in a bit of vinegar in the bottom of the pan like 1/4" or so. It is how I was taught. But why do it? What does the vinegar do for the beets?
I think it is mostly for the taste. It certainly isn't necessary - I roast beets without any vinegar all the time, and they turn out great. I just roast them in their skins, without any oil or anything added. It takes a long time, over an hour depending on how big they are. When they are completely tender, let 'em cool, and the jacket slips right off. Roasting intensifies the flavor by caramelizing some of the sugars and removing moisture. You can always season with vinegar after roasting, depending on what you plan to do with them.
That's the first I've ever heard of roasting beets in vinegar.
Acids will intensify the color of anthocyanins which are the red, purple, and blue pigments in foods. For instance, sauteed red cabbage will end up a blah blue color unless you incorporate some acid (red wine, vinegar, etc.) and then it will brighten right up to a bright red/purple color.
This could be part of the reason that someone started doing it this way (whoever it was that showed you) but when the beets are whole there would be minimal contact with the vinegar so I would say it's primarily for the sweet/sour flavor contrast.
Have you asked the person that taught you to do it that way?
Whole beets will absorb very little of the vinegar.
Correct, I negelected to add that when I mentioned that whole beets would have little contact with it anyway.
All of the above, and one aesthetic reason: Beets and cabbage will often turn a blueish color when cooked - the acidic nature of vinegar will revive their reddish hue, making them potentially more pleasing to look at, thereby more palatable....
Vinegar does a couple of things. Taste, obviously, which is a good reason when cooking.
The acidic nature of the vinegar does have additional effects - the acid will 'cook' your beet somewhat as well.
Specifically about beets: well, they have an earthy, sweetish flavor, often. The vinegar can complement this nicely.
Thinly sliced beet (carpaccio) in vinegar can be nice enough for the beets not to require any additional treatment (read: heat).
Who doesn't like pickled beets?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.436088
| 2010-08-20T18:41:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5663",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Cemre",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Malene",
"Philippe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Satanicpuppy",
"anna-earwen",
"copumpkin",
"dhasenan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19695
|
What precautions should be taken while cleaning silver utensils?
I have silver cups, plates, and bowls too.
Is it safe to clean them with normal washing powder? Or Does it need some extra attention?
Also, how do I clean the layer of black tarnish/patina without damaging it?
Dish soap will not damage silverware. To remove tarnish you can get special silverware cleaning solutions like tarn-x. Note that the tarnish itself is a form if damage caused by the oxidized metal, so by removing it you are essentially scraping of a tiny layer of silver every time.
Edit - A good tip I forgot to mention: tarnish is self-limiting (meaning that only the surface of silver can get tarnished). This means that the best way to prevent tarnish is by leaving on the existing layer of tarnish. If you leave silver for 100 years and remove the tarnish the silverware will lose one layer of silver, then it will be good as new. But if silver is de-tarnished every month for 100 years, you'd have to remove 1200 layers of silver. So it's not good practice to de-tarnish too frequently; only do it when you need to.
Use a catalyst cleaning method; dunk your silverware into hot water with aluminium and soda
http://www.darylscience.com/Demos/Silver.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsKLcc13WBo
No silver lost this way!
This is what I always do and it comes out amazing http://howtohacklife101.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-to-clean-your-jewellery.html I use the one with the shampoo
Jessica, link rot is a fact of life. Could you please post a summary of the contents of your link?
And unfortunately, this link is now dead. :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.436312
| 2011-12-16T08:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19695",
"authors": [
"Bfcm",
"Erica",
"John B",
"Marti",
"Mickael Caruso",
"anarchivist",
"batingus",
"hibafebin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42967"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21071
|
Is there a difference in the taste/seeds of egg-sized eggplants, and long and slim eggplants?
Is there a difference in the taste/seeds of egg sized eggplants or brinjals, and long and slim eggplants or brinjals?
They are different in shapes. Is there any other "known/visible" difference?
possible duplicate of Can a "regular" eggplant be substituted for a chinese eggplant in a recipe?
Disagree on the duplicate vote. The questions may be related - closely related, even - but they're quite a ways off from being the same question.
The varieties of the 2 eggplants shown in the pictures are not actually given, but to me the long variety looks like the Japanese/Chinese eggplant and the round variety looks like The Indian eggplant. By the way, there are many different eggplants out there. If you want to have a look, check out this: website.
The Chinese eggplant has a thinner skin, more delicate flavour (I think sweeter) and less bitter seeds, although most modern varieties have bred these out anyway.
The Japanese eggplant is very similar and again has a thin delicate skin and sweet flavour.
The Indian eggplant is similar to the American eggplant with a thicker skin, more seeds and a stronger flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.436482
| 2012-02-05T09:00:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21071",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15772
|
How can I achieve the same flavor and texture as roasted garlic without an oven?
I'd like to make roasted garlic, but I don't have an oven, only a gas range. Is there any way for me to get the same results with the range as I would in a conventional oven?
If not an oven what cooking implements do you have? Stove? Charcoal Grill?
@Cos I have this: http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.craftindia.in/two_burner_stove/Gas_Stove_Click.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.craftindia.in/two_burner_stove.htm&h=381&w=720&sz=50&tbnid=D-pj1oe5Wh6wmM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=140&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgas%2Bstove%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=gas+stove&hl=en&usg=__0S5bjdjgFapj8cZ2L1-eObHjTFE=&sa=X&ei=RRIITrrCCcfGgAeInpTnDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ9QEwAA
Since you ipso facto cannot "roast" something without a source of dry heat (and you really don't want to try using an open flame), I've edited this question to refer to something slightly more realistic.
I have had great results by taking individual garlic cloves and cutting the root end off each, but leaving them in their papery skins.
Then you put those dry into a small saucepan (ideally one with a thick bottom) over low-to-medium heat. Put a lid on it, and let it go for 20 minutes or so, shaking vigorously every couple of minutes to turn the cloves over. When the cloves are really soft, you're done.
The paper skins protect the garlic cloves from burning, but the direct contact with the hot pan cooks them nicely. When you're done you can squeeze the soft, roasted garlic goodness out of the root end of the skins. This is a particularly nice technique when you want roasted garlic flavor but only need a few cloves, not a whole head.
The first time I did a recipe that called for this process, I was sure the garlic would scorch or the skins would catch fire, but it worked great.
Thanks, your method looks promising, I'll try that and get back. I would like to know roughly how much amount of time is need to cook this on a very low flame?
@anisha kaul: I wish I could tell you exactly, but that's really dependent on your cooker and your pot. I'd suggest putting in more garlic cloves than you need for your recipe, and testing one of the extra ones for doneness when you think you're getting close. When they're done, the insides will be very soft and will squeeze out of the skins and spread easily.
I tried this yesterday, putting 10 cloves on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tava, covered them with a steel plate. They developed a brown burned line on them, when I ate them they tasted burnt. :(
I'm sorry to hear this didn't work for you. All I can suggest is that maybe your heat was too high, or you didn't turn them often enough, or both. Perhaps this technique isn't as failure-proof for everyone as it has been for me, since it probably requires more experience than I thought to get the balance between temperature and turning and time.
Heat wasn't high, but I didn't turn them "often", and too because I had put a lid over them. :)
You can get the same result by frying the garlic in a saucepan of oil.
Place peeled cloves in a saucepan and add enough light olive oil or canola oil to just cover the cloves. Cook at medium to medium-low heat, stirring not too often until the garlic becomes golden brown.
Strain the cloves into a strainer or colander to remove excess oil, but save as much of the oil as you can. It is now filled with the lovely roasted garlic flavor, and is wonderful for sauces, salad dressings, and drizzling over cooked foods.
If you don't mind a less-neutral base oil, you can use good extra-virgin olive oil instead of light olive oil. The resulting infused oil will have an even richer flavor.
Thanks Bob, but if the oil is involved it will be called frying rather than roasting, isn't it? Nevertheless, I shall try the same and get back to you. :)
Technically it's not roasting if there's not an oven involved, true. But the result is the same. Just be careful not to use too high heat; I assure you it works, I've had it demonstrated to me in a fine dining restaurant kitchen, and have done it myself.
When I've done similar (more to infuse the oil than cook the garlic), you dont want to get anywhere near the temperatures that it'd be considered frying. It should be slow cooking, more like a confit.
My first suggestion would be a "dutch oven" at a low temperature. If you have a small ceramic dish you might set that into the dutch oven and then the garlic into the dish in order to further manage the "low and slow" effect that is desired for roasting garlic. (add a couple of small wood chips on some aluminum foil in the pot but away from the garlic to create a 'smoked garlic'...if you like that.)
If you can invest in additional kitchen equipment, you might consider a small crock pot to get the same results.
The Dutch Oven is what I was thinking as well. Only thing I would recommend is to raise the garlic up from the bottom of the pan. And perhaps put something between the food and the bottom to diffuse the heat.
@Sean, thus the ceramic dish to put the garlic in, inside the Dutch oven.
Ah, didn't catch that. Great idea @Cos!
I have these: http://www.hawkinscookers.com/2.1.5.futura_CNS_bowls.asp Is this the same as yours?
Those should work just fine.
Just did this over the weekend (oven pilot is dead), used a steamer basket inside with the bulbs wrapped in foil; worked great
Roasted garlic needs a lot of slow, even heat to cook through and not burn. I doubt that you will be able to replicate this without an oven or oil. I have two ideas that might work.
First, take four or five heads of garlic and cut them flat at the stem and place a little bit of oil in a pan to sear the cut surface until it begins to caramelize mostly to get the process started and begin to develop the roasted flavor. Then place the head of garlic up so it sits on its side in a crock pot. I bet in four or five hours it would make nice roasted garlic. (I've never done this but would like to try.)
I know a very famous French Chef who boils the garlic for his vichyssoise in milk for about half and hour to take out the bitter, spicy bite. So if you need soft, sweet garlic for pureeing to use instead of roasted you can boil it in milk first. Because if you saute the garlic raw it might burn before the inside is softened, boiling before using a little oil in a pan to saute the garlic to get some complicated flavor and color might work very well.
These are just two alternatives to the other answer of cooking the garlic in oil. However, it is very frequent that restaurants will cook the garlic in oil to not only get nice caramelized garlic but also amazing flavored oil to use as a condiment or in salad dressings.
You might want to look up confit garlic.
Not bad ideas. You don't need milk or a lot cooking time to cook garlic; blanching it will do just fine.
Hot air rises and one needs a vegetable steamer, or crumpled aluminum foil will do, for the bottom of the pan, or both, to keep the garlic from burning on the bottom. The drizzled evo over the tops of the garlic cloves is important and keeps garlic moist. A cast iron skillet and lid, plus the mechanism to keep the garlic off of the bottom, works beautifully.
My technique is to heat the iron skillet, put in the steamer amd foil, and wrapped garlic on top, and immediately turn the flame down to low. The fragrance of the garlic will surely alert the chef when the garlic is ready, or almost roasted. Doubtful you will have a 'burned head of garlic, if you check after 25 - 35 minutes, then roast longer if necessary. Also, I have used an oven thermometer sitting in the pot on top of the vegetable steamer and foil to help regulate the heat. This method is better for me, because it uses less energy than heating an entire oven for one head of roasted garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.436615
| 2011-06-26T06:19:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15772",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"David Ravetti",
"Joe",
"John",
"John Rama",
"Sean Hart",
"Zachary Miller",
"Zeeshan Mahmud",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lzl",
"mfg",
"natevw",
"y.lub"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21782
|
Can oil be replaced with yoghurt in a cake recipe?
A cake recipe is asking for "one cup" oil!!
I don't want to eat so much "oil", can I replace it with yoghurt or something else?
How are you "drinking" oil by eating a cake made with it? Have you ever eaten a salad with vinaigrette or balsamic dressing? Whatever your concern is (fat, calories, ...?) I think you're vastly overestimating its effect, especially compared to all the sugar and flour in it.
Have you considered a cake recipe that calls for less oil, if you don't want to use a cup of oil? Also, does it make a large cake or a cake with a small serving size? Unless you are planning on eating the whole thing yourself, you won't be downing that much oil.
No, you can't replace fat by something containing less fat and expect the texture to stay the same, no matter if it is milk, yogurt or something else. You can replace by lard or butter or shortening, but for everything else, @elendil's answer holds.
@Aaronut You said: Have you ever eaten a salad with vinaigrette or balsamic dressing? No, I haven't, nor I ever will (I think). I don't even know about names that you have mentioned here. I live in India. "One cup" oil is too much. BTW, it can also be the case that by now all I have done is eating readymade cakes so maybe I was eating 1 cup oil without knowing?
Why is a cup of oil too much? A quantitative limit has to be based on some quantitative criteria. Did you try this and end up with a distinctly oily texture? If so, that would be a more interesting problem to tackle.
1 cup of oil has same calories as four cups of flour, or three cups of sugar
@Aaronut time for another trip :-)
@AnishaKaul a ratio which uses 1 cup of flour, sugar, oil and eggs each, to produce 12 pieces of cake, is standard for two very common types of cake, sponge cake and pound cake. You can expect to have eaten that often in readymade cake (plus any fat contained in the icing and/or ganache on the cake).
@Anisha Kaul: by the way vinaigrette is an emulsion of olive oil and vinegar (sometimes with others flavours added) that is generally used in French/mediterranean cuisine as a dressing for salads.
@nico Thanks for the explanation. Haven't seen French foods yet. :)
@rumtscho time for a trip into a non-western country :-) Ready made cake? Icing on cake?
Short answer - not really. Fat is an essential component in any cake, and milk just isn't very fatty - about 5% for whole milk. You can make cakes with milk, but they require totally different recipes: you can't simply substitute milk for oil.
Bear in mind that you're distributing the cup of oil throughout a whole cake, so that any one slice will only have a fraction of the oil. I assume you'll also be sharing the cake with others, so you'll be 'spreading the calories' somewhat.
You should be using a neutral oil like canola (rapeseed) oil anyway, as it has a relatively mild flavour. A popular alternative these days is to substitute all but a couple of tablespoons of the oil with apple sauce (really), but this can be hit and miss and doesn't work with all recipes - it usually works best with things like quick breads (scones etc).
Of course, there's also the point that cakes are supposed to be a treat, and they'd be less of a treat without the fat, in which case why bother? If you want to be healthy, make a salad. If you want a treat, make a cake and don't worry about the contents too much.
Actually, the two cakes which I made by now didn't require oil more than 1/4 cup - banana cake and the plain cake. They just asked for 1 cup milk. Is there a reason behind this?
@AnishaKaul Did they require butter? Butter's a more common fat for baked goods than oil
@Yamikuronue yes, but 1/4 cup only.
Elendil, can I put yogurt instead?
I would think that the sour taste of yogurt might effect the overall flavour of the cake. Sour cream is often a component of chocolate cakes so it might work. Try it and see!
@anisha The cakes you have baked (which needed less oil) are a different type of cake, which has a different texture at the end. If you want the cake outlined in a recipe, you can't replace the fat, it is a vital component. If you want to eat less fat, you will have to eat a different kind of cake and find a tested recipe for it, but a cake which needs this much oil won't function well with a low-fat replacement. The fat ratio determines both the taste and structure of the cake.
Milk is naturally acidic, and yogurt/sour cream are even more acidic. Using them in a chemically leavened cake recipe (i.e., recipes that call for ingredients like baking soda or baking powder) might alter the way the cake rises. In other words, you will likely need to add more basic ingredients like baking soda to balance out the pH of the batter. Also, if your batter is too acidic than that will hinder browning.
Alright, I use oil. :) @rumtscho Thanks for all your advises.
The comment thread here illustrates why we try to avoid even minor references to health. I made a minor edit - since as you say, the flavour-neutral aspect is more important anyway - and am deleting the argumentative comments.
It's a popular suggestion to replace oil (yes, a whole cup of it is common in cakes and quickbreads) with applesauce. I've done so and liked the results. I've also used nonfat but sweetened yogurt (a caramel flavour to be specific) with great results in a cake made with zucchini and raisins, and now do that every time I make that cake.
I think you'll run into trouble with milk. Part of the purpose of the oil is to keep the flour from finding other flour and getting breadlike. So you have to experiment a little, and the successful experiments always seem to be something sweet - not all the way to honey or corn syrup, but at least slightly sweet.
you mean I can replace the oil with yogurt?
@AnishaKaul - note that the applesauce suggestion has several caveats helpfully outlined in this question. It's really not trivial, and no, yogurt is not going to work.
I have used yogurt on more than one occasion and it has worked. Not unsweetened yogurt, I would not expect that to work. I don't know why it works, just that I tried it, it did, and I routinely use it for that cake now. As for applesauce, despite all the caveats in that question, I've had no disasters from substituting it. Important Point this is always for quick breads with a lot of fruit or veg in them - banana bread, zucchini cake, carrot cake etc. I wouldn't do this for a birthday cake or the like.
@Kate Gregory Your seconds paragraph hits the main point. Cake without sufficient oil/fat is called bread, and tastes like bread, not cake
It really depends on what you call a "disaster", I suppose. I hear this often about low-fat/low-carb/low-calorie/non-dairy substitutes, that they "taste fine", but that's only when you're used to them and aren't comparing them side-by-side with an original/traditional recipe. Obviously I've never personally tasted your cakes - but I've certainly had quite a lot of cakes and cupcakes in my day that were dry and gritty as a result of insufficient oil/fat or just overbaking, and I'd definitely call that a disaster. Of course, true quick breads are more forgiving because they're... breads.
If yogurt works at all as a substitute then I suspect it would either be due to the pectin that's added to many commercial yogurts, or the sugar, or both. That will help to slow gluten development in a similar fashion as fat, but it will be much less effective per unit of weight (and obviously will also add sweetness, and many such as myself can't stand over-sweetened cakes). I wouldn't hesitate to use applesauce if making low-fat scones, muffins, banana bread, etc. - but as you say, applesauce is not very good in cakes, and yogurt would be worse than useless.
A great substitute for oil is an equivalent amount of apple sauce. It makes it more moist and healthier. I've heard that for people with juicers, the pulp can be used, but I'm not sure how much.
Most people do not know that bean puree can be substituted for ALL THE FAT! If you are new to this, you may want to experiment by only replacing 1/2 the fat with bean puree. Keep in mind that you never want to choose a bean that is darker in color than the cake you are making. For instance, if you are making a white cake; use white beans. If you are making a spice cake; use pinto beans. If you are making a chocolate cake; use black beans. Never use black beans for a white cake. To make the bean puree: you can either cook beans yourself as directed on the bag or use a can of beans, then dump the beans and some water in a blender or food processor and puree. You don't want it runny but add enough water until it looks pureed. If the recipe calls for 1 cup oil or butter, you can use 1 cup of bean puree OR use half oil/butter and 1/2 bean puree. Not only will this lighten the fat but it will also "health-i-fy" your recipe by upping the amount of protein and fiber AND save you money (have you seen the price of butter lately--whew!). I do this ALL THE TIME with my family and they still love the sweet treats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.437335
| 2012-02-27T12:02:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21782",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andre",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Berat Cevik",
"Bigmike",
"Christine Lupo",
"DEVries",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Geraldine Berry",
"Kate Gregory",
"Patty of Wales",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"justkt",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user6651517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13319
|
Using anise seed instead of star anise
I have wanted to make Vietnamese pho bo for a while, and a simple recipe I found calls for 6 star anise. I couldn't find this, and instead bought some anise seed since I read anise seed is used as a substitute for it, sometimes. I'm wondering if a) the anise seed will work for pho and if so, b) how much anise seed should be added when the recipe called for 6 star anise?
Thanks!
I asked a few friends, and one linked me this website:
http://www.foodsubs.com/SpiceUniv.html
It says 1 tsp. of seeds for every 2 star anise (crushed).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.438051
| 2011-03-20T21:10:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13319",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13614
|
How to get "burned" effect on cheesecake?
I've eaten hot cheesecake in restaurant. It looked like the cheesecake was properly baked and then only a slice of it, which was going to the plate, was fried or baked or I don't know what so it was all warm and crispy and looked like it was slightly burned on the sides.
Any idea how to get this effect? I mean consider I have cheesecake done and I want have just a slice which looks like that. How can I do that?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.438127
| 2011-03-30T21:40:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13614",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13390
|
How to prepare mutton so it's not tough?
I had a mutton shoulder and I wanted to prepare it in a way which imitated to some point doner kebab, so the meat was sliced into thin pieces and fried on a pan. However it was a bit tough.
I'd marinaded the meat for 24h in sour milk and spices - it didn't help much.
The meat wasn't low-quality and it tasted very well, the only issue was it wasn't tender. Any ideas what to do about that?
Maybe Mutton is like cooking squirrel? to cook squirrel, you put the squirrel in a pot of boiling water along with a baseball-size rock. when the rock is tender, the squirrel is ready
Please look at this answer, which outlines a very good way to cook very good Döner Kebab meat at home.
Doner kebab is A) not a single joint of meat and B) cooked in slices, so attempting to get anything similar with the technique you described is a triumph of optimism over reality I'm afraid.
As Gary suggests, lamb/mutton shoulder requires long, slow cooking, but this will not yield a doner-like result in terms of texture. I would rub the lamb with plenty of spices, cumin, coriander, garlic etc and olive oil. Make small cuts in the meat and really massage the spices in. Place the lamb in a roasting tin and cover with foil.
Get the oven as hot as it will go, put the lamb in, and turn it down to 150C. Cook for 4 hours and the meat will fall off the bone. Pull to shreds and serve in pitta breads with yoghurt, salad, onions and chilli sauce. Voila!
+1 good point I forgot to mention - doner 'logs' are shredded lamb offcuts reformed back into those huge cylinders. Generally they're better quality meat than you might expect but it does mean the texture is pretty hard to recreate at home. You can get the flavours right with a spicing combination like you mention though.
Thanks. I'm not really trying to make doner kebab, definitely not it terms of texture. Just wanted to be close in terms of taste. Btw: would such a long cooking work even if I have small piece of mutton, say 0,75kg? Wouldn't the meat become dry?
The foil lid should keep it moist, but you could probably take it down to 3 hours - a bit of experimentation is probably in order. The other thing I should mention is that you should take the meat out of the fridge an hour before you cook it.
It worked :) A bit less than 3 hours was enough for such a small piece of meat - it was tender indeed. Thanks!
Welcome, glad it turned out well.
Lamb shoulder requires only one thing - time.
The marinade would work wonders I'm sure. However lamb shoulder needs a long slow cook. I would roast it in one piece then carve it for serving. I suggest two methods:
Slow roast. Perhaps a 150C heat, maybe 5 - 6 hours. It's ready when you can pinch the meat off the bone between finger and thumb. Make sure you allow it to rest for a good hour.
Part-braise. A Greek family taught me a lovely recipe which involves using your spices slackened down with enough water to cover the base of your roasting dish, then continually basting the lamb as you go along. Roast in about a 170C oven for about 2 hours, covering with foil for the first hour to build up steam.
Get a pressure cooker and make 'wet' dishes - stews, curries, pie-fillings. It will turn your mutton into a soft, melting, velvety delight.
A trick from Indian cookery is to marinade in yoghurt and lemon juice prior to cooking. The longer the better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.438195
| 2011-03-23T18:41:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13390",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary",
"Theorian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"pawelbrodzinski",
"rbp",
"user3522492"
],
"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
}
|
27208
|
Will marinating chicken for 18 hours make the meat fall apart?
I decided to marinade some chicken for tomorrow night's meal but the only time I have to do it is tonight. Obviously it's going in the fridge for that time period.
I've never marinated meat for that long before and I'm concerned the acids in the orange juice marinate I'm using will break down the meat too much and it'll be all mushy and gross.
Any experience or thoughts on this?
It'll be fine. I've done this multiple times, even occasionally for more than 1 night and never had a problem, if anything it improves things as the marinade has time to work into the meat.
If you can, give it a stir a coupe of times (every 6 hours maybe?) to ensure even coating.
The acids in orange juice and most (?) marinades are generally too weak to break down chicken into component parts.
This depends on what ingrediens you use. Enzymes from for example papaya will break down meat to mush eventually, but when following a recipe with that kind of marinade, you will probably be told that the time is very important. I assume here that you are using a regular marinade with citric acid or yoghurt and different spices.
Such a marinade will not reach very far into the chicken. Heston Blumenthal did an experiment in his show "In Search of Perfection" scanning chicken in an MRI to see how far different marinades reached. I don't remember exactly how far, but he found that yoghurt-based marinades reaches the furthest.
My guess is that your chicken will be fine. I haven't tried marinating chicken in orange juice, but there are several recipes that recommend marinating chicken overnight.
For examples this Orange Marinated Chicken from Simply Recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.438486
| 2012-09-17T04:32:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27208",
"authors": [
"JacintoCC",
"Matthew Steven Monkan",
"Nikhil Varma",
"Seasoner",
"ZioByte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61272",
"thumbtackthief27",
"user61269"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44060
|
Crispier pizza crust. What surface to go for in a home oven?
After having read most of serious eats' recommendations for better home oven pizzas, I still have a question regarding the surface to be used to achieve a better and crispier crust.
I am on a budget an hesitating between a pizza crispier such as:
Airbake-Nonstick-15-inch
or a pizza stone like this one:
Fox-Run-13-Inch-Pizza-Stone
Both are under $20 and I was wondering which is a better performer to achieve the crispiness in the pizza crust?
The pizza stone, used properly, will work far better. The heat stored in the stone will help brown and crisp the bottom crust.
The perforated pan just allows some better air circulation into the bottom, which has little effect. Its only true value is that it is fairly dark, and will therefore absorb the radiant heat of the oven better than a shiny pan would.
Recently, it has become apparent that the extremely high thermal capacity of a small steel slab, preheated and used as a cooking surface much akin to the pizza stone, actually performs the best, providing an effective blast of heat to the bottom crust. Sadly, these are currently being marketed at a much higher price point than the products you mention.
See also:
The Pizza Lab: Baking Steel, Lodge Cast Iron Pizza
I'll second everything @Jefromi said. Pizza stone for sure, and the new tech regarding baking steel has me quite excited.
@franko I didn't say anything, I just made a tiny edit!
Any old slab of steel will do, no need for some fancy 'marketed" rubbish
And is there any inexpensive pizza stone you would recommend? The bigger the better, of course. Thanks!
Pizza stones also give the benefit of helping to keep a stable temperature in your oven, I keep mine in even when I'm not using it directly.
As far as large stones, this brand has won the hearts of America's Test Kitchen Baking Stone.
Another thing to consider, especially if you're on a budget, is using an overturned cast iron skillet as a baking stone. Like the stone, it will work for bread and for pizza (just not very large pizzas) and it has the added advantage as working as a skillet! I use my 12" skillet as a baking stone all the time. For use as a baking stone, you need to be sure that it lays flat upside down. I've never seen one that doesn't, but that's something to check, if the handle is at any point higher than the rim of the skillet, it wouldn't lay flat. The skillet works great for pan pizza too. Here's a picture of a recent pan pizza I made in my 12" Lodge cast-iron pan using the Serious Eats Recipe
The skillet will run 20-34 dollars Amazon Skillets. Treat it right and it will be something your great-grandchildren can use. As a matter of fact, mine belonged to my grandmother. I recommend Lodge brand. I didn't know they had this one, I'd buy this before buying a stone 17" Lodge Skillet especially considering the multitasking benefit.
BTW, I have one of those pizza pans as in your first link. It's useless. I keep meaning to throw it away.
EDIT: I need to add a caveat to the idea of the 17" skillet. I just discussed it on Amazon, and I realize that it might not fit in my (or most others') oven. The 12" works great though. If you do end up buying a stone or big skillet, be sure to measure your oven rack first.
The heat source in my oven is below the oven. To crisp my pizzas I bake them for several minutes simply on the bottom of the oven.
A stone absorbs moisture from the crust bottom. For roughly the same price above I bought a new kiln shelf at a pottery supply store. They're thicker and take longer to heat, but they retain heat well and work great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.438659
| 2014-05-12T00:50:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44060",
"authors": [
"3mYouOL",
"Cascabel",
"Central Jersey Real Estate",
"GdD",
"Kirk",
"KplanSitusMpo",
"KplanSitusMpo01",
"Marjorie McIntosh",
"MobilePhones12",
"Smooth Spam Studio Waxing and",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Twenkid",
"Ward W",
"fbjon",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"samyb8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30106
|
What is the modern alternative to sieving soup recipes?
In soup recipes of Elizabeth David's French Provincial Cooking, the reader is often instructed to sieve to puree food multiple times with increasingly finer mesh. I suspect that such a sieve is rare these days even in UK or US. In such instances, I always use a blender instead. But, I'm not sure this is a right way to do this. Is one of the purposes of sieving to remove coarse particles ? What is the modern way to do this ?
The purpose of the sieving is to puree the food? Or to remove larger items? The wording's a little unclear, and without knowing the specific recipe, it's hard to say what the effects would be.
I think the question is: In the recipe, it is asked to sieve (push) the food though a smaller and smaller mesh. This would have a similar effect of blending, so if you use a blender, would you still need to sieve also. I think no, you do not have to, but it depends, do you want the soup to be more smooth if so, sieve also or get a 'better' blender.
I want to know what types of ingredients are being "sieve[d] to puree"; it would be beneficial to specify to determine what method might be substituted for the sieve.
@nicoleeats: For example, in her recipe of CARROT SOUP (1) ,the carrots are shreded and cooked with the chopped shallot and the diced potato. Then, they are simmered with the stock. Finally, they are sieved.
The modern way is still to sieve.
I actually did this a couple of days ago. I made a sauce out of boiled onions, capiscums, chilli peppers, canned plum tomatoes, carrots, garlic, ginger and spices. This was then whizzed in a blender and sieved through a fine metal sieve to remove the pulp, seeds, large fibrous pieces that wern't blended.
It makes for a smoother sauce.
The fine metal sieves are fairly cheap and easy to obtain. There are also finer sieves made from plastic or even muslin you can also use.
The technical term seems to be chinois.
A food mouli:
Thank you for answering my question. Elizabeth David suggested a device called mouli to sieve food in the book, although I cannot find such a device elsewhere.
I wonder if you could use a food mill on a fine setting. It does the pushing part for you.
A mouli is basically a hand held food mincer. If you have an electric blender it's far better and far less work than a mouli! Remember, Ms David's book was written some time ago (I have a copy) and some of the terms it uses is out of date.
Food mill and mouli is the same thing according to Wikipedia and it's the one pictured above. It mashes and sieves at the same time. Often it comes with 2–3 bottom plates with different hole sizes. Passing food through a mouli and a blender will not produce the same result. If you make a tomato soup for example, the bottom plate will catch the seeds in a mouli, but not in a blender. Consistency will be different. Julia Child once said that "There is something un-French and monotonous about the way a blender reduces soup to universal baby pap".
And that quote was preceded by a recommendation to use a food mill rather than a blender, in her cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking.
@citizen And the difference between using a food mill/moulli and a blender and fine metal sieve...is?
@spiceyokooko if you have starch in your food, there is a large difference. A blender chops up the cells, releases the starch, and your food ends up gluey. A device which presses the soft vegetables (as opposed to cutting them with a blade) breaks them apart at the cell borders, and the non-released starch within the individual cells swells with the liquid, resulting in a creamy feeling of your soup. The effect is easiest to notice if you try to make "mashed" potatoes in a blender, but it is also noticeable in foods with less starch.
@rumtscho That explanation is really helpful, thank you.
blender invariably adds extra air leaving soup fluffier which was my problem here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26030/any-tips-for-degassing-blended-soup
This kind of sieve is usually used in conjunction with some method of breaking down the food (eg blending, mashing, or stewing down). The edges of that rotating blade are not sharp, they just squeeze the already broken down food through the sieve. Quite effective to separate out skins and big seeds from cooked fruit for jam making, tomatoes, bell peppers... but will just spin around and damage a solid piece of ingredient thrown into it. pressure feed + cutting + sieve = meat grinder, different piece of kit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.439123
| 2013-01-15T13:40:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30106",
"authors": [
"Aki",
"James B",
"Jobic",
"Joe",
"Pat Sommer",
"Rawmilklover",
"Stefan",
"citizen",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70254",
"kukis",
"lemontwist",
"rackandboneman",
"rftghost",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko",
"user31389"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41647
|
Why did the bottom of my stainless steel pan burn during seasoning?
While I was seasoning my stainless steel pan, the bottom turned brown before I added the oil. Why did the bottom of my stainless steel pan burn? Can I remove the stain?
The capacity of the pan to store heat is much smaller than for oil or water. Without anything in the pan, the temperature of the pans surface goes up very high quickly. The color change is done by chemical reaction on the surface, thus removal can be done with chemical reagents and/or scrubbing that effected material off the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.439526
| 2014-01-31T21:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41647",
"authors": [
"Kevin Bustard",
"Original Tulsi Mala spam",
"QQCash 168 spam",
"davoid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97121",
"juragan view spam",
"rwusana"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51767
|
What is the procedure for Pillsbury cookies?
I read the answer about spritzing the dough with a little water but my question is....do you
take the dough (I buy Pillsbury in a roll) out of the refrigerator and immediately start your cookies? Or do you let the dough get room temperature? When working with the dough should you
continually use flour to keep it from sticking to the rolling pin?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Given that you mention a rolling pin, I guess you're talking about Pillsbury sugar cookies, for decorating? And what's the answer you mentioned reading?
You should let the dough get to room temperature (IMO, no more than 20c)
And the dough contains enough fat that you should not need extra flour for the rolling pins.
This video shows how to make pillsbury cookies : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzyD_0ySatE
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.439625
| 2014-12-19T16:31:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51767",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cliff Schultz",
"Dale Kotthaus",
"Rachel Meadows",
"Rose Raknerud",
"ami santos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54858
|
Can I make fermented lemon soda using yogurt cultures?
I'm trying to make a lemon soda using fermentation.
Is it possible to make a lemon soda by mixing sugar, lemon, warm water and a scoop of live cultured yogurt? I put it inside a pressurize cooker, is this okay?
Where did you get the idea to use yogurt in this way?
@Jolenealaska http://wellnessmama.com/9087/beet-kvass-recipe/ states using whey from yogurt. Then some articles said that lactobacillus bacteria loves warm temperatures and that they feed on sugar, but I haven't heard anyone trying it out yet, so I wasn't sure if it would work.
Hmm, maybe?? I'd like to bring your attention here: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/ginger-ale-recipe.html I'd feel a lot better starting with a variation of that. That one is on my list of things to do.
@Jolenealaska I guess I'll just have to push my luck. Thanks for the info though.
Soda-like drinks have traditionally been made in the same way as beer, but with less fermentation to keep the alcohol content low. Without alcohol, (and with a bunch of protein and fat around from the yogurt) you run the risk of growing some botulism in your soda. Some traditional fermentation techniques carry risk of botulism, and any 'new' technique should undertaken very carefully. That being said, your soda should be quite acidic and probably safe. Get some pH paper and use it!
There are a few things I would change in this plan:
Yogurt is made at fairly high temperatures to encourage lactobacillus growth while inhibiting others. Find out the best temperature for your culture, and make sure you can maintain it during fermentation.
Try get the culture growing independent of any yogurt: grow it in your sugar/lemon solution for a few generations without pressure and with a bit of oxygen. If it's still alive and still tastes good, you're probably OK. Otherwise, if the culture dies halfway through fermentation, something else is likely to grow in its place :-(
Lemon juice is quite acidic, and will clean metals quite nicely. So don't put your soda in any metal container unless your really like the taste of iron. (Even beer is acidic enough to cause this problem, fermentation is always in glass, plastic or stainless steel). Used plastic soda bottles work well when clean.
The other major problem with a pressure cooker is getting the soda out: if the cooker did hold pressure from a fermentation (actually it will probably leak CO2 faster than it is made) you shouldn't be able to open it until the pressure is removed. Again, soda bottles are a good choice here.
Last - your water should not be chlorinated, the flavor of your soda could be ruined by chlorine.
Thanks! I find your information very informative. Now that you mentioned botulism, I wonder if the acid in the lemon enough to keep botulism away?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.439736
| 2015-02-18T05:28:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54858",
"authors": [
"Amanda Beaton",
"Bruce Towne",
"Cyndi B",
"Elaine Reeves",
"Jane Street",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33623",
"user741630"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21158
|
Is it safe to eat dog food in regular diet?
In our animal science class, we were fed dog food (dog cookies) by our professor who claimed that if we were ever at war and had a shortage of food, we should keep water and dry dog food on hand rather than other types of food. His reasoning was that dry dog food provides all the nutrients humans need in a minimal package.
Is it safe to consume dog food in volume or regularly? Does it really keep a human in good health? What ingredients in dog food should we look out for?
This sounds like a health question (which is off-topic here, because we're not health experts), not a food safety question. Food safety-wise, you'd want a dog food approved for human consumption. Also, once mixing with water, you'd want to consume or refrigerate within two hours (etc.) I'd suggest that if you're planning for disaster, MRE's are probably a better choice.
This is way off topic, but FWIW, dry pet food and treats have been subject to all kinds of recalls and FDA shutdowns, many of them involving atrociously high levels of mold (mycotoxin/vomitoxin/etc.). So even if it was healthy in a nutrient sense (and many argue that a 100% dry food diet is not even healthy for dogs), it might actually be unsafe to consume, especially considering the amount you'd need to eat just to satisfy your hunger. Would you really want to always be uncertain of whether or not your next meal might poison you? If you're worried about nuclear war, buy canned human food.
@Aaronut I don't think it's legal to buy or sell canned human, even during nuclear war.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.439972
| 2012-02-08T08:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21158",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23076
|
What is Vegetable Meat?
I have come across this food, but I am not sure what it is called. This is a totally vegetarian food but looks like non vegetarian. It is made up of soya(soya beans). Does any one knows whats its real name and whether such food exists or not? Also, how organic/non artificial free from chemical is it? How Hygienic is it? What are the famous restaurants in the world for it? I have heard some Chinese restaurants which offers vegetarian Chinese food, is that the same?
I have never heard of Tofu being called "vegetable meat". There are some fake meat types based on different types of soya products (or also other plant proteins), like "fake duck". But the only product I have seen bearing the generic label "vegetable meat" is textured vegetable protein. It is made from soya beans whose fat has been extracted to be used for oil production.
As for "non artificial", I have no idea what your personal definition of "artificial" is. It doesn't grow on trees, but then neither does butter, and I have never heard people condemn butter as "artificial". It is a processed product, and it is not a traditional process, but I can't tell you if it is more or less processed than traditional heavily processed foods such as sugar. Also, the amount of chemicals involved is probably dependent on the manufacturer. I guess you have to trust the regulatory organs of your country to not allow the production of food containing something harmful. Organic? This depends on the manufacturer too. If he adhers to organic production guidelines, then it is organic. And hygienic? This is even harder to answer, it depends on not only the manufacturer's decisions about the process, but also on the day-to-day process quality measures his employees take.
There is no reason to say that "vegetarian meat" is the same as vegetarian Chinese food. A cup of rice served in a Chinese restaurant is vegetarian and Chinese, but does not include any kind of meat substitute. If I cook a French recipe and use textured soy protein as meat replacement, this makes it vegetarian, but not Chinese. There can be some overlap between the two, but I doubt that it is big. China has had social conditions leading to vegetarian lifestyles (poverty, religious restrictions) for long before production of such protein began.
I doubt that any restaurants in the world are famous for it, mainly because it is a poor meat analogue. Yes, it offers a high amount of protein. But it does not taste really like meat. World-famous restaurants are world-famous because they offer high-quality food, and no food using inferior substitutions is high-quality. Yes, there are good vegetarian restaurants, but they don't make poor imitations of meat dishes using fake meats, they offer vegetarian dishes made from good ingredients. Some of them can feature some of the more popular soy products like tofu, but they are probably not famous for their tofu, because the tofu is not the main star of all dishes.
This all assumes that what you refer to is actually the textured vegetable protein I linked, but that is far from clear from your question. Other possibilities exist, because people have long tried to find a suitable meat substitute for vegetarians and for people who can't afford real meat. Most are soy-based, like the mentioned tofu and tempeh, but there are also wheat-based ones like seitan, and I think that there was some kind of beans product used sometimes instead of meat. Without you giving us more information, we can't conclude for sure which one you mean. But the answers to the other questions is about the same, with the exception that some processing methods are older than others and so can be considered more traditional (in case this plays a role for your understanding of "artificial").
Similarly, there are plenty of uses of tofu in Asian cuisines, but the point is not generally to be vegetarian (though if the dish is, it can be a convenient side effect); the point is to make some awesome tofu.
Are you talking about Tofu? It is often used to make imitation meats (example: Tofurkey), and is made from soy. It's perfectly hygienic, popular around the world, and no more artificial than most other mass-produced foods -- it can be entirely organic, but is not always. It's not one of those new laboratory-produced chemicals, it's just soybeans processed similar to cheese.
Another alternative is tempeh- fermented whole soy beans that is more meaty rather than cheesy, in my opinion.
In my experience, most "soy based" vegetarian meat substitutes (other than tofu) are processed, commercially-produced foods, e.g. from companies like MorningStar Farms.
More common for homemade meat substitutes is seitan, also known as "wheat meat." This is made by mixing vital wheat gluten with various liquids and spices to make a chewy, flavorful dough, which is then boiled or steamed before use. My favorite recipe for it is from the PPK. If you use organic, chemical-free ingredients, the end product itself is also organic and chemical free.
In the US, one of the most famous vegan restaurants is Millenium in San Francisco. They also have two cookbooks.
I'm not sure exactly what the meaning of your first statement is; tofu is generally processed and commercially produced, and one can buy things like seitan and tempeh made by just as many companies as tofu.
A fair point, but it's less of a "processed food" than, for instance, a "vegetarian chicken nugget." Sort of like a block of manchego cheese is commercially produced, but not a "processed food" in the same way that spray cheese is. Does that make sense? Maybe "convenience food" would be the better term.
In what sense is tofu (soybeans soaked, ground with water, boiled, filtered, coagulated, pressed) less processed than seitan (flour kneaded in water to leave only the gluten, then formed) or tempeh (soybeans soaked, cooked, and fermented)? Yes, "vegetarian chicken nugget" is more processed than tofu - and a chicken nugget is more processed than chicken.
I was specifically talking about those packaged products, and not tofu. (Especially as tofu, like seitan, can easily be made at home).
jackfruit is also one of the vegetable meat
Interesting, I have never seen this. Is this a cultural thing, do you have examples of recipes/cooking sources which assume that a reader knows to use jackfruit when vegetable meat is mentioned?
@rumtscho Just searching for "jackfruit vegetable meat" you do find a few things.
The meat which is now going to be genetically produced is called veg meat. The meat which scientists have discovered. Now meat can be produced without harming the animals. They will take a very small piece of flesh from any organisms whose meat they want to produce and then they will genetically make the pieces big fleshy pieces of meat, after that it will be packed in polythenes and supplied in market to be sold.
Hello and welcome! This site is different than the forums you might be used to. Your answer can be improved if you add some references supporting their idea. Could you give some?
There's actually an industry of 'fake meat', which is making stuff that looks like meat, but isn't:
http://www.adventuresinfakemeat.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/beyond_meat_fake_chicken_that_tastes_so_real_it_will_freak_you_out_.html
that stuff scares me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.440123
| 2012-04-16T16:05:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23076",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Carolyn A. Lucas",
"Cascabel",
"Ghost",
"Gras Double",
"House3272",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jeremy Parker",
"Kingsley Stephen",
"Make Mark",
"Sobachatina",
"chef jack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8610",
"jerryf",
"rumtscho",
"sheepeeh",
"vladdobra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40344
|
How Is Microwave Popcorn Flavoured?
I want to make brown paper bags of popcorn kernels and flavouring to give as gifts, but i can't seen to get the popcorn flavouring to stick to the unpopped kernels.
How do companies that sell microwave popcorn make sure it's flavoured when it's popped in the microwave? I don't want to add anything after, just have it already flavoured when it's popped.
Is this actually a dup? The other question is about seasoning already-popped popcorn.
This isn't a duplicate.
@Holly No need to shout in all caps; I've folded in your comment about seasoning it before popping and flagged this for the mods to remove the duplicate mark.
OK, I reopened it after seeing the comments. Still not 100% convinced that there will be much difference in the answers (the old ones talk about adding the flavoring to the unpopped kernels), but who knows, if this one gets better answers, we can close the old one and merge.
I wasn't shouting :) just didn't know how to get it noticed.. I hope someone knows how the companies do it.
@Holly If you feel something needs emphasis, there are formatting buttons in the editor (and common keyboard shortcuts work too).
For the record, related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15157/how-do-i-coat-popcorn-with-flavor?rq=1. And on looking further, I agree with rumtscho: the other question isn't itself a duplicate, but the answers pretty much all apply here, so you might want to have a look, Holly.
Not really an answer but I make pop corn by adding my ingredients to a casserole dish after 50% of popping has occured. So add pop corn to a dish with oil or butter, then after about 3 mins add parmesan cheese, or papercia, or garlic, etc
If you inspect any commercially sold bagged popcorn, you'll notice that one side of the bag (before it's popped) is denser than the other. They put all the butter and flavourings on one side of the bag and it disperses as the corn pops. The flavoring should be on the side labeled "this side up".
Here's a great YouTube video that walks through the process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCgbwp8uSw
Basically, you use oil as the coating. The oil will adhere the seasonings you'd like to add to the kernels. They recommend 1/4 cup of popcorn to a 1/2 teaspoon of oil.
Some commercial kinds use a butter flavoring called diacetyl, which is very potent and likely effective if just sprayed on. It's in butter too, naturally, but also in a tiny enough amount not to turn the butter into hazmat (which an ounce of pure diacetyl would be). In the end, the chemical that makes butter taste like butter is instead used directly on the popcorn.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.440668
| 2013-12-17T21:35:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40344",
"authors": [
"Bella Thorne spam",
"Ben Saunders",
"Cascabel",
"Evan",
"Holly",
"Kristie Coulson",
"Maged E William",
"Matilda Molly",
"Paul B Ganjon",
"Petah",
"Reina Phair",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95959",
"napstablook",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82851
|
Mole sauce without chocolate?
Would you recommend a way to make mole sauce without chocolate? If so how? I'm diabetic and don't want a lot of sugar in my sauce.
There are many moles (Oaxaca is known as the Land of the Seven Moles, although there are plenty of variants on each), so it's not clear exactly what you're looking for. Would any Mexican sauce which doesn't include chocolate do? Do you want a variant on a specific mole (e.g. mole negro without chocolate)? Or something in between those two extremes?
Somewhere in between the extremes @PeterTaylor
Mole is usually made with dark chocolate with no added sugar. Normally 95% cacao or so, you should be fine.
I think you have three options.
Mole doesn't require chocolate. Find a recipe that doesn't have any. This recipe on Epicurious doesn't have chocolate, though they address that by noting that their inclusion of ancho chiles gives the chocolate flavor (I haven't tried any of these recipes, so don't take this as endorsement of them).
Ancho chiles — large, wrinkled, reddish-brown dried poblanos — add body and a chocolately flavor to many moles. They range from mild to hot. Guajillos are large, dark-red, dried chiles with a nutty flavor and not too much heat. Both varieties are available at www.kitchenmarket.com/. Four ounces will equal about eight to ten chiles.
Find a recipe that calls for a small amount of Mexican chocolate. This recipe from Mexican cooking enthusiast Rick Bayless calls for only 2 oz of chocolate in a very large batch. It calls for additional sugar but you can probably omit it if you're concerned about the sugar.
Alternately, find a recipe that uses cocoa powder instead of bar chocolate like this one from the Food Network. There's no sugar in cocoa powder.
There's no one recipe for mole so you should be able to adapt whatever recipe you have or find so that you get the flavors you like.
Mole is often made with unsweetened chocolate or cocoa powder. No added sugars are involved. (There is a tiny amount of natural sugar in the cacao, about 1%.)
Chocolate is not absolutely necessary in mole. Mole verde generally does not contain chocolate; some recipes for mole rojo also leave it out. You could simply leave out the cocoa from a mole recipe, if you wish.
But you don't have to simply because you're diabetic. Seek a recipe which uses cocoa rather than Mexican chocolate; the Googles are full of such recipes.
Is your first sentence actually accurate? Mexican chocolate does have sugar in it and many of the recipes I've found simply call for "Mexican chocolate"... the brand I see the most, Ibarra, according to a listing on Amazon has more sugar in it than chocolate: https://www.amazon.com/Ibarra-Mexican-Chocolate-19-oz/dp/B003T0ICCG "Sugar, cacao nibs, lecithin (emulsifier) and cinnamon flavor."
That's why I need to know how to make the sauce without chocolate!
@Catija - Maybe "often" instead if "usually", but I've seen plenty of mole recipes without sugar (even if there are also plenty with sugar) - looking for cocoa powder recipes instead of bar chocolate recipes as he suggests seems like a good place to start.
@Megha I'm not disputing that using powder is a solution... it's in my answer as well. What I'm disputing is the "usually".
@Catija - I was mostly agreeing with your comment, that is why I said that "often" would be a better word to use in that sentance - because it can be often with, and also often without. I mentioned I was more familiar with powder recipes because your comment sounded like you had not often seen them. It's not really important in the end, both kinds of recipes are available and seem interesting.
I concur that it should be "often" rather than "usually". It was the case with all the recipes I use, but a google search reveals lots of recipes that use Mexican-style sweetened chocolate. Thank you for noticing that; I will edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.440933
| 2017-07-07T21:32:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82851",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"Catija",
"Joshua Engel",
"Megha",
"Peter Taylor",
"h3h325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59107"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117339
|
Cannot Get My Starter to Start
I have prepared my starter from Chad Robertson's Tartine Book three times. Twice it grew mold. Once it never grew anything for almost a week. I am using the exact recipe and clean utensils. What am I doing wrong?
Update/Comment on Oct 1:
I used brand new bread flour and wheat flour 100 grams. I live in Tennessee so it is humid. I used tap water. Should I use bottled? Had a cloth lid.
Can you edit your post with the precise recipe? It will help other users provide the best possible answer, and ensure the question is useful to people who don't have access to that book.
Also, note anything that's different between your setup and a commercial kitchen in the Mission in San Francisco. Humidity? Ambient temperature? Sources of flour (yes, it matters)? The growing mold really seems like an indicator of something in your environment.
Did you use the same batch of flour? What kind of water (e.g. tap water which can be chlorinated)? Ambient temperature? Closed or open container?
Voting to close because of lack of detail from OP.
I used brand new bread flour and wheat flour 100 grams. I live in Tennessee so it is humid. I used tap water. Should I use bottled? Had a cloth lid.
Do you know your local tap water is treated? If it’s chlorinated, it might kill the bacteria you’re trying develop.
To me it sounds like a temperature and humidity issue. I have experienced this when I have tried to begin a new batch of starter and it is both above 80 degrees and over 90% humidity. I suggest that you feed your "baby" starter every 3 days. If you have an environment that is more ideal 75 degrees and under 50% humidity you should have better luck.
I agree with FuzzyChef in that flour does matter. I personally use Guistos Ultimate Performance flour. I know this will sound like cheating and the purists will probably tear me a new one but if you still have issues to get your starter to "kick", then I suggest to get your hands on and add a very small qty of fresh or instant yeast to kick start you starter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.441324
| 2021-09-26T16:04:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117339",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Mitzi Smith",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95730",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123748
|
Browning food too large for a frying pan
Does anyone have any tips to browning large quantities of food that will take too long to do in batches in a frying pan? For example meatballs, which I will brown before putting in the oven with a tomato sauce. Can I use the grill or oven? What temperature would you set it at?
Grill, oven, or broiler can all work. Specific temperatures for the oven are not necessary, because ovens vary wildly and are rarely that precise. You can just think in terms of low (200 - 300F/93 - 149C), medium (300 - 400F/149C- 204C) and High (above 400F/204C). For the grill or broiler, you simply have to keep an eye no things and turn regularly so as not to burn. For browning in the oven, I think in terms of high heat...so I might set my oven at 475F/246C. Place items on a sheet pan...again, keeping an eye on things and turning as necessary. I would suggest you have the largest risk of overcooking with the oven method, as the other methods will likely brown faster.
(BTW, meatballs can also be poached in sauce without browning).
Agreed on browning in the oven. I’d also recommend high heat ‘til almost browned, then rotating them. If you’re doing two sheet pans at a time, I’d start them up high to brown the top, then move them lower and start the second pan up top again. You can put them on a wire rack in the pan if you don’t want them to poach in their own juices, but be sure to give them a bit of space in between so they don’t steam each other. If you have a convection oven, turn the fan on. You can also broil them (top heat only), but be careful you don’t brown them too much.
Browning comes from cooking at a high temperature. The problem with overcrowding a pan is that water/liquids will come out of whatever you're cooking, and water is super-effective at taking heat away. You're pretty much capped at 100ºC until the water's gone, giving you a boiled effect, instead of the nice fried browning.
With that understanding, here's some options:
Bigger surface area, e.g. bigger pan or switch to an oven tray
Bigger heat source (think chinese noodle shops where they use jet engines)
Less contents, i.e. batch cooking
Less moisture—this is a big one. For meat, patting it dry with a paper towel can make a big difference. For anything that will end up wet (e.g. cooked in a sauce), don't add any wet ingredients until the browning has occured.
Oil—another big one. Oil gets super hot, then (as it's liquid) gets all up in every crevice of the food. Water gets steamed away very quickly, leaving a browning that is not just where the pan touches the food, but where the oil touches the food. Much more thorough, and the extreme example is deep-frying, where the entire outside gets that delicious browning.
For large quantity meatballs, I would personally try deep frying or (preheated to very hot) oven
A griddle or low sided pan also helps, as the moist air won’t be held near the food. Well, not for deep frying; you want high sides for that
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.441499
| 2023-03-27T14:01:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123748",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77381
|
Need to cook pasta for 200 people
I need to make fettuccine alfredo with chicken,it's for my daughters Quinceñera. I need to know how much pasta and chicken need to purchase to make for each person approximately 2ounces .
You want to know how to measure it? Or do you want to know how much you need to buy to feed this many people? Measuring is easy... by weight.
How much I need to buy
We need more information. Are you doing a main dish pasta with bits of chicken in it or are you doing a piece of chicken with a side of pasta? Please use the edit link to add information to your question. It's helpful to know what sorts of people you have at the dinner. If it's mostly big men, they'll want to eat more... if it's a bunch of ladies and kids, they'll eat less.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43353/67 ... and you might also want to look at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12068/67
To really get an answer you should definitely do a test dish. Prepare 1 or 2 portions as you usually do at home. If you approve the result just multiple the ingredient quantity. To me it is impossible to give you a better answer as your portioning has to depend on how filling the sauce is as well. Also doing a test of the recipe will be helpful for your peace of mind on the big day.
Hope this helps :)
A standard serving of meat is 4 ounces. If this is the main dish you will need 400oz or 25lbs of chicken. If it is a side dish I would half that.
A "serving" and "what people actually eat" aren't the same thing, unfortunately. Could you address this somewhat? Also, the question is asking about both pasta and chicken, not chicken alone.
It's also worth noting that cooked chicken weight =/= raw chicken weight. I typically say 4 ounces raw gives about 3 ounces cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.441735
| 2017-01-12T03:16:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77381",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Mat",
"Raquel Cortez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53671",
"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
}
|
74254
|
What type of flour is "wheat flour" in the UK?
I want to replicate an American recipe of Banana Chocolate Chip Muffins. It requires 1 cup of wheat flour.
What type of flour would that be in the UK shops?
What you are looking for is called wholemeal flour.
Here's a quick US to UK baking translation guide. US on the left, UK on the right:
All-purpose flour = plain flour
bread flour = strong flour (both have extra gluten)
whole wheat flour = wholemeal flour
1 stick of butter is 113g (get a scale, trust me)
1 large egg = 1 medium egg
doh. I had the rest, but was missing 'wholemeal' in the list of translations
Regional differences regarding soft and hard wheat used for various flour grades can still yield unexpected results...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.442144
| 2016-09-26T14:36:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74254",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86201
|
What are the main differences between a stand mixer, a countertop blender and a food processor?
I'm looking to replace my countertop blender. Since my kitchen space is rather limited, I was doing some research to see if there are any "multipurpose" devices. I found out that there are also stand mixers and food processors and many of the tasks they can be used for overlap. I've never used a food processor or a stand mixer before.
So my question is: What are their main differences? E.g. thekitchn lists all three (!) of them as essential small appliances which seems very odd to me, given that so many tasks they can do overlap. Why are all three of them necessary?
I suspect you may be thinking of something like a KitchenAid stand mixer, which has multiple attachments (one of which is a food processor) that perform different specific functions in addition to the standard stand mixer functions (beat/cream, knead dough, whisk, etc).
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34378/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/17497/67
I'd stand mixers and food processors are more labour saving devices than essential.
While two of the three items you mention are similar (though not identical) - the food processor and blender - the third is completely different - the stand mixer. There's actually a pretty awesome, in-depth guide to these and more kitchen tools on BuzzFeed. I'm going to reference this some and use images from it.
Stand Mixers
A stand mixer is not a cutting implement, which the other two are. It doesn't have a blade at all. It's closer in equivalence to a hands free hand mixer.
It usually comes with two or three options for mixing - a "paddle", generally a stiff, heavy, flat metal piece; a "whisk"... which is a large balloon whisk; and a dough hook... which is generally a hooked shape attachment that helps knead dough. Here are what the attachments might look like, though they vary based on the model.
Which attachment you use depends on what you're making and will usually be indicated in the recipe. But, in general, you'll use the paddle for most cake batters and cookie doughs, whisks for whipping up frosting, cream, and egg whites, and the dough hook when you need to knead dough.
Many of the brands of stand mixers, particularly Kitchen Aid's various models, have secondary attachments that can be purchased separately. This includes things like pasta makers, choppers, grinders, sausage stuffers, etc.
Food Processors
I find food processors more broadly useful than blenders - I don't actually own a standard blender, preferring to use an immersion blender instead. They're generally larger but they won't have the vortex action that you really need for things like smoothies. Food processors all come with a blade that spins, chopping up all of the stuff in the bowl. You can use it to quickly chop vegetables or grind meat, though your results can be a bit mixed. It's also great for making pie dough (my preferred method) and making dips and sauces like hummus and pesto.
In addition to the main blade, many brands either come with or sell separately a collection of slicing and shredding discs. I find these to be lifesavers when you're trying to make something like Scalloped potatoes. You can slice the potatoes perfectly evenly and paper thin and then swap out the slicing disk to the shredding one and shred your cheese in 10 seconds.
You can certainly do some of the same things in a blender - making (thinner) hummus and pesto, for example, but it's not going to have the discs and you're not going to want to try and make pie dough in it or anything you just want coarsely chopped.
Blenders
As I mentioned, I don't personally have a stand blender because I rarely make the thing it's really good at - smoothies (and frozen drinks like margaritas) - and it's more convenient to use an immersion blender for soups than to try to transfer boiling hot soup from the pot into a blender bowl.
From the article:
A blender makes soft creamy liquids (purées). For example, you'd put a bunch of cooked vegetables it in with stock to make soup. But if there's not enough liquid in the blender, the blade won't make enough contact with the mixture being blended to churn it around and purée it evenly. Translation: without enough liquid, ingredients in a blender won't blend, and the motor will burn out. So, blenders are better for anything with a thinner consistency, while food processors are better for thicker mixtures.
So, do you need all three? No, not really... you don't need any of them. They're time savers and convenience tools. Anything that we use them for now, we could still make before they existed... but I personally don't want to spend twenty minutes with a whisk and a copper bowl making meringue or trying to evenly slice potatoes for gratin, or actually... maybe smoothies would have been pretty impossible before a blender... but there's always Jamba Juice.
To decide what you need in your kitchen, think about what you cook and bake (or would like to) and go from there.
Thanks for your answer. For almost every stand mixer of a well-known brand (Kitchen Aid, Kenwood), there are many optional addons that are called "food processor" or "blender", and the Kenwood blender and food processor even sits on top of the stand mixer. Would it still be outperformed heavily by a "normal" countertop blender or food processor?
I've never used any of them but ... the food processor attachment for the KA just does slice/shred/julienne, not chopping, so you can't use it for things like pie crust dough or pesto/hummus... and it costs as much as some of the lower-end actual food processors. As far as I can tell, they don't have a blender equivalent on the KA. The KW does have both but they look to be small volume and are very high up above the counter, making them likely difficult to use. I personally wouldn't bother, even not taking performance into account.
@Huy your question in the comment is understandable, but I am afraid it is not answerable. Countertop blenders vary a lot in quality and performance, stick blenders too. The blender on top of the stand mixer also varies with brand and model. So some of them will outperform countertop, others will not. We cannot give brand- or model-level consultations here, this need studies under controlled conditions and people tend to just praise whatever they have at home.
The blender for my stand mixer and food processor (two separate products both made by Kenwood, with an overlapping range of accessories) is a perfectly good blender. But if you use it daily you may find a couple of irritations. It's a little more fiddly to use/wash/reassemble than a dedicated blender, and it takes up more worktop space (I have plenty of cupboards so these appliances are put away). Because I very rarely use the blender, it's perfect for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.442235
| 2017-12-08T18:31:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86201",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Huy",
"Joe",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73396
|
What's (really) the difference between fruit and vegetables?
I was wondering what's (really) the difference between fruit and vegetables. Obviously I can name different fruits and vegetables, but if you ask me what's really the distinguishing factor, I wouldn't know.
Things that I think may be the difference are:
Taste: sweet or not
Historical reasons
Whether it is mostly eaten raw or cooked/baked
But for all of the above there seem to be some fruits/vegetables, for which it isn't clear under which category they fall. So, what's the difference between them?
Thanks in advance.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) is one ruling on the matter.
Just to double check, are you asking about the botanical definition (by which things like peppers, eggplant, and squash are fruits) or the culinary one (by which they're vegetables)? I'm not wild about answers/discussion rehashing all that, claiming the botanical definition is the one true definition, etc.
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." - Miles Kington
If you want to answer, please post an answer, not a comment.
(@Jefromi) Rhubarb is a nice example in the opposite direction; pumpkins (fruit) may be used in sweet or savoury dishes (pie, soup)
This could also fit in the English Language SE. Interestingly, German has, in addition to the more botanical "Frucht" (fruit), the more food related "Obst" (old English offet[t]).
@PeterA.Schneider Es ist die gleiche auf Niederländisch (meine Muttersprache): "vrucht" (en: fruit, de: Frucht) und "fruit" (en: fruit, de: Obst). :) Ich habe nur "Obst" gelernt, wenn ich Deutschunterricht hatte. Dank für Ihren Kommentar. (Entschuldigen Sie bitte mein schlechtes Deutsch.)
@Jefromi To be honest, I didn't knew there is a difference between them when I asked this question.
Disguised Queries and the related posts are the solution to 99% of questions of this type.
@Kevin Okay, so it's nice to learn of the botanical definition, but given your mention of sweetness, it sure seems like you're asking about the way people use the terms in common speech to talk about food (the culinary sense), where peppers, eggplant, and squash are vegetables?
@eipi10, I've used tomato in a fruit salad before now. It has a lot of flavour compounds in common with strawberries, which is why strawberries can substitute for tomato in recipes like gazpacho. And if you look at the Flavor Bible you'll see lots of fruits listed as going well with tomato and each other.
There is no real black and white definition of that difference, because where the line is drawn varies from crowd to crowd.
Botanically speaking, a fruit is a seed-bearing structure that develops from the ovary of a flowering plant, whereas vegetables are all other plant parts, such as roots, leaves and stems. By those standards, seedy outgrowths such as apples, squash and, yes, tomatoes are all fruits, while roots such as beets, potatoes and turnips, leaves such as spinach, kale and lettuce, and stems such as celery and broccoli are all vegetables.
The outlook is quite different in culinary terms, however. A lot of foods that are (botanically speaking) fruits, but which are savory rather than sweet, are typically considered vegetables by chefs. This includes such botanical fruits as eggplants, bell peppers and tomatoes.
You can find the whole article HERE, including this nice graph that I think nicely illustrates things.
The US's classification of tomatoes as vegetables was actually decided by the US Supreme Court due to the implications of import tariffs. I wouldn't be surprised if the food industry is keeping it that way (so they can claim ketchup as a vegetable). I'm personally of the opinion that grocery store tomatoes are vegetables, while correctly grown tomatoes are fruits.
I believe something similar happened in EU - a law/directive passed to classify what everubody thought was one thing to the other. Not sure it's the same case, but there was also a problem with carrots and juice - since the EU-definition stated that juice could only come from fruits.
That diagram's a little misleading, since it could be taken as suggesting that the tomato is the only common botanical fruit that's a culinary vegetable. Peppers, aubergines/eggplants, cucumbers, courgettes/zucchini and all other squashes also fit into that category.
And there are examples of the opposite; the rhubarb stem is considered a fruit rather than a vegetable in culinary terms.
That's a decent definition, but there are obvious problems with it, as pointed out by the answerer. Corn are the actual seeds, themselves, how does that qualify? Vegetable, I guess, but then what about peas? Also seeds, unless you are eating snow or snap peas, which includes the pods, which all come from the fertilized flower. Squashes and pumpkins are definitely the seed pods, as are all the varieties of peppers, etc. Ugh.
Given that the OP didn't actually know about the botanical definition, it might be worth clarifying that it's not the one used in common speech, and the culinary one is. If you send someone to the store to buy fruit, they're never going to come back with eggplant. (Or tomatoes, unless they're being a smartass and want to get to say "technically they're fruit.")
@BaardKopperud: well, in the case of tomatoes the Supreme Court classified what everyone thought was one thing, to be the same thing they thought it was, a vegetable. "Everyone" in this case being, "everyone except botanists, who didn't invent either the word 'fruit' or the word 'vegetable' and therefore have no especial right to define it, and some lawyers acting on behalf of tomato-importers hoping to avoid tax" :-)
I considered just editing your answer to add some of the kinds of things I was pointing out, but decided that that'd be pretty aggressive editing, so I just wrote an answer of my own. Feel free to take some ideas from there if you want to edit, though!
All of your observations are correct - both the distinguishing factors and the fact that there are foods whose belonging to a category is unclear.
The reason behind this has nothing to do with cooking and everything to do with human cognition. Humans organize the information in their world in categories, which together build "folk taxonomies". For some reason, the prevailing opinion is that the categories in folk taxonomies work like mathematical sets, while the empirical data shows that they do not.
In school, we are taught that categories have a definition, and things either fulfill the definition, or don't. The definition is a bit like a boundary - if you define category X as "all natural numbers below 10", you know which numbers fall inside X and which fall outside.
In reality, all categories we use in everyday life are structured around prototype members. There are elements which feel like they truly represent the category, and other elements are more or less similar to the prototypes. This builds a core of elements which clearly belong, and others on the fringes of a category which might or might not belong, depending on how you want to argue.
Now I don't know of any research identifying which are the prototype elements of the categories "fruit" and "vegetable", or which are the important qualities which have to be partially or fully filled to be considered for membership in one of both categories. Taste is the only one I have seen given by food historians, who say that fruit played the role of candy before we learned to refine sugar, so the category depended more than what it is good for (a sweet treat, ready-to-eat) than on what it contains. Thus many botanical fruits became culinary vegetables due to lack of sweetness, but practically no other plant part became a culinary fruit, as the other parts do not have enough sugar concentration. But I am sure that if cognitive scientists have looked into the matter, they will have uncovered more criteria and will have measured whether a pepper or a potato is more prototypical of being a vegetable.
Bottom line, it is all convention. You will never find a strict definition.
Sweet potatoes would seem to be the obvious example of something that's sweet and even sometimes used in desserts but not generally considered a fruit.
@Jefromi yes, that's exactly how categories work. If it is good enough by one criterion, but less so by others, it feels like it belongs less to the category (category belonging is gradual, not binary). In other cases, where there is no competing category, this might be sufficient to view the element as an unusual representative of the category. For example, a white cherry is still considered a cherry, because there is no other category which it fits better. But because a sweet potato fulfills "vegetable" criteria to a greater degree than "fruit" criteria, it does not count as fruit.
Well, I was sort of responding to the "practically no other plant part became a culinary fruit, as the other parts do not have enough sugar concentration" - in this case, there's plenty of sugar concentration, but it's left out for other reasons.
If this answer intrigues you, I highly suggest "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things" by George Lakoff. It was our textbook when I took classification (a library science course).
Another interesting grouping by convention is fish. Biologically the category "fish" does not exist because any grouping of branches of evolution that include fish must also include all four limbed animals including rats, frogs, birds and humans.
@Jefromi: Potatoes are never fruits. They are tubers. In the biological category where the definition of fruit is concrete (seed bearing product of pollination of flowers) the groupings are fruits, tubers, legumes etc. Biologically potatoes are tubers while wheat and rice are fruits.
@slebetman This answer is about the culinary notions of fruits and vegetables, not the botanical notion, and my comment was a response to one specific part of it, which raised the possibility of other plant parts being deemed culinary fruits then said it didn't happen due to lack of sweetness. I'm fully aware of the biology.
@Jefromi: Yes, my point is THERE IS NO CULINARY NOTION OF FRUIT. Fruit is a botanical notion and it overlaps with our culinary grouping called "vegetable" -- that's what the answer basically says. Fruit is not a culinary grouping. Vegetable is not a botanical grouping. So the notion of "fruit" and "vegetable" may overlap in the case of tomatoes.
@slebetman There most certainly is a culinary notion of fruit. For example, apples are a culinary fruit and eggplant is not, despite being a botanical fruit. It's not a well-defined category, but the category exists, and that's what this answer says. And... maybe don't shout?
@slebetman yes, fish behaves like any other category. A really interesting categroy would be one which does not, a categroy with a firm definition and binary membership, which is also used that way in everyday life (when these categories exist, they tend to be postulated by somebody, and rarely match reality).
@slebetman: tubers (or rather, tuber-bearing plants) are not a clade, just like animals commonly called fish are not a clade. So if on the one hand you say fish is "not a biological classification" simply because it isn't a clade, you could say the same of tubers, or in the case of animals you could say the same of "eyes". Cladistic taxonomy of species isn't the same thing as the labelling of biological structures. It's still true that "vegetable" isn't a botanical grouping, except perhaps as an old-fashioned name for the version of Plantae that (mistakenly, by modern views) included fungi.
@Jefromi - I'd heard one of the reasons sweet potato is a vegetable is that it is substantial and nutritious enough to be a main course food, while fruit is usually lighter. On the other hand, I have actually heard a few votes for sweet corn to fall on the "fruit" side of the equation, since it's high in simple sugars, low in other nutrients, doesn't fit in with grains (though flint corn does), and also - corn syrup. One person just said the sugar content means it's more like a fruit than a vegetable, another flat out compared it to a berry - little bubbles of sweet juice, basically.
The wikipedia article distinguishes between botanical fruits and culinary fruits. (Interestingly, both German ("Obst" vs. "Frucht") and Spanish ("Fruta" vs. "Fruto") have distinct terms for these.)
To quote:
In culinary terminology, a fruit is usually any sweet-tasting plant
part, especially a botanical fruit; a...); and a vegetable is any savory or less sweet
plant product.
(Both the German as well as Spanish Wikipedia articles support this loose definition.)
And the vegetable article says:
The term vegetable is somewhat arbitrary, and largely defined through
culinary and cultural tradition. It normally excludes other food
derived from plants such as fruits, nuts and cereal grains, but
includes seeds such as pulses. The original meaning of the word
vegetable, still used in biology, was to describe all types of plant,
as in the terms "vegetable kingdom" and "vegetable matter".
There's a bit of confusion here because there are two senses of the word "fruit": the botanical sense with a more precise definition (plant parts with seeds), and the common everyday culinary usage with no precise definition (mostly sweet plant things).
In a culinary sense, i.e. talking about food, among chefs or just in common speech, there is no strict definition of fruit, and no completely precise delineation between fruit and vegetables. Sweetness and how it's eaten play a big part in defining fruit, as you've noted, and culinary fruits are mostly botanical fruits that meet those criteria, but that doesn't form a perfect definition. See rumtscho's excellent answer for more on how categories like this are (and aren't) defined. Vegetables, then, are basically everything from plants besides the fruit, also excluding grains.
This is the sense of "fruit" you'll generally hear. If you ask someone to organize a grocery store produce section, to go to the store and buy some fruit, or to put fruit in each lunch bag, they'll tend to use this sense of fruit/vegetable. So apples, oranges, and bananas will be fruits, while spinach, peppers, cucumbers, and beets will be vegetables.
But other things are less clear. For example, if you cook green plantains (starchy, not sweet, can be used much like potatoes) and ask someone if they're a fruit or a vegetable, you're pretty likely to get a response along the lines of "well, they're like bananas, so they must be fruit, but they're not sweet." And you could hear differing opinions on whether fresh corn is a vegetable or a grain.
Then there's the botanical sense, i.e. talking about parts of plants. In that sense, there's a strict definition: fruit is the seed-bearing structure of the plant. Other parts of the plant then have their own names; you'd talk about stems and leaves and roots, not vegetables.
You'll hear this sense in botany, such as "the fruit of the maple tree are called samaras or whirlybirds". It's similarly used in gardening, as in "my zucchini and tomato plants are bearing plenty of fruit".
Note that while it makes plenty of sense to talk about fruit in this context, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk about fruit vs vegetable in this context. You're not going to look at a tomato plant and say "it has a lot of fruit, and the vegetable parts look healthy too." You might talk about your garden as having fruit and vegetable sections, but then you're coming back to the culinary sense.
Unfortunately, when the two senses come together, people can sometimes make pretty wild claims. Perhaps because the botanical definition is scientific and precise, while the culinary one is unscientific and fuzzy, people sometimes portray the botanical definition as the "real" one. This leads to statements like "technically, fruit has seeds, so tomatoes are fruit."
But it's best to simply consider the context. Generally you'll be clearly talking about food, or clearly talking about plant anatomy. And if you're talking about food, most foods have uncontroversial categorizations, even if explaining why is difficult.
So if you want to be a smartass, by all means, when someone asks for a piece of fruit hand them a tomato and say "technically...". But if you want to just enjoy food and not get into pointless arguments, just use a bit of common sense and avoid trying to force the two senses of "fruit" together.
Botanically, a fruit has seeds.
A vegetable is the edible portion of a plant. Vegetables are usually grouped according to the portion of the plant that is eaten such as leaves (lettuce), stem (celery), roots (carrot), tubers (potato), bulbs (onion) and flowers (broccoli).
A fruit is the mature ovary of a plant. So a tomato is botanically a fruit but is commonly considered a vegetable. According to this definition squash, pepper and eggplants are also fruits. Then there are seeds such as peas which are also considered vegetables.
As a food they often get reclassified.
One factor is the amount of complex versus simple carbohydrates. Think simple - sweet - sugar. Medically complex carbohydrates are preferred as you don't spike. Nutrition is off scope for the site. What I am saying is if you group by simple versus complex it explains a lot of the common exceptions.
Tomato, cucumber, or pepper are botanical fruits that are commonly thought of as vegetables. They are all relatively low in simple carbohydrates < 2/3 of the carbohydrates are sugar.
An avocado is very low in sugar and is commonly considered a vegetable.
And apple is actually low in simple carbohydrates but most people would hold with fruit.
A sweet potato is sweet but it is still relatively low in sugar.
Almost 1/2 the carbohydrates from carrot is sugar but I would still call it a vegetable. But I would call carrot juice a fruit juice.
If you're confused by the fruit and vegetable differentiation you can remember a rule of thumb - a fruit has seeds while vegetables don't.
This is the botanical definition, not the culinary one. (And while it worked out this time, you might want to avoid using humor novels as sources for answers?)
The stated question is "What's (really) the difference ... but if you ask me what's really the distinguishing factor, I wouldn't know." +1
By this definition, not only tomatoes but also e.g. cucumbers, zucchini, pumpkins and eggplants are fruits. Also, plant breeders have managed to come up with plenty of seedless fruits. When did you last see a banana with seeds?
Perhaps they are fruits and, like the tomato, are just as misunderstood. I also don't get why a botanical answer wouldn't be as acceptable as a culinary one. I would've thought that a scientifically based answer (despite the source and validity of this specific answer) would outweigh whatever some random chefs/cooks/etc have decided to call it over the years. Also, it's an interesting twist to include GMO produce into this debate.
The OP is pretty clearly not asking about the botanical definition; they mention sweetness as a dividing line, and tons of botanical fruits are not sweet and widely considered to be vegetables. It's not that it's wrong, it's just not what was asked about.
@IlmariKaronen: Yesterday. Of course, in my country the varieties of banana we eat are closer to the wild banana than the commercial version available elsewhere (yes, varieties - there are about 3 species (yes species, not breeds) that are commonly sold but around a dozen total)
@IlmariKaronen Last time I saw a banana with seeds was... the last time I ate a banana. Of the ordinary yellow supermarket variety. You know those little black specks you find throughout the core of the fruit? Those are seeds. They've just selectively bred them into a variety that produces tiny seeds that don't cause any problems with chewing and swallowing the fruit. "Seedless" oranges and grapes are very similar.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
So, I don't remember this from Hitchhiker's Guide, and I can't find the quote (or even little pieces of it) anywhere on the internet, let alone associated with Douglas Adams. Maybe I'm missing something, but... where did this come from?
"Seedless" means without MATURE seeds, not without any seeds whatsoever.
Since you didn't respond, I've gone ahead and removed the misattribution of your statement. Utility of the answer aside, it's not good to mislead your readers.
I don't think it really matters, does it. Botanically, as already said, a fruit is any seed containing capsule (drupe, berry, nut and so on), or one that would carry seeds without the intervention of Man, so a pine cone is a fruit, along with the usual plums, apricots, courgettes (zucchini depending where you are) tomato and so on. Roots, shoots, stems, leaves, and tubers are not fruits, but are of plant origin, and many of these will be described as vegetables. How cooks decide on a description is probably entirely down to whatever they're being used for - does the addition of mango or grape to a leafy salad make it a fruit salad? Clearly, it does not. As far as cooking goes, there are definitely blurred lines between 'vegetable' and 'fruit', many often being used in both savoury and sweet dishes. So unless you feel like creating a new term or two, you're stuck with describing anything of plant origin that's served as a dessert as 'fruit' and anything served as savoury as 'vegetable', regardless of its botanical definition.
Even the botanical definition is a bit confusing as a 'true fruit' relates to a very species type of structure and does not include, for example apples and strawberries.
A good practical definition is that fruits are specific parts of a plant which are produced seasonally and harvested without harvesting the whole plant or to put it another way fruits are something which is 'picked'.
Clearly a big part of this is down to language, we are discussing this in English and when English developed there was a pretty clear distinction as in medieval north western Europe you had apples, pears and berries and anything else which couldn't run away was a vegetable and a lot of the confusing cases like tomatoes, peppers, squashes, cucumbers (and related) were either completely unknown or didn't travel well.
In terms of cooking there are some clear differences in their properties. Often fruits have a high moisture content (juice) and as well as being sweet may also be sharp or sour and tend to have more complex and aromatic flavours.
Really it is all about convention and the important thing is to understand the characteristics of a specific ingredient
This answer is from a culinary point of view only, but I thought it worth mentioning.
I asked this of a chef I used to work with, figuring he'd know due to his education (CIA) and experience (40+ years), and this was his answer:
If you only remove the part you actually eat but leave the main part
of the plant intact, its a fruit. If you actually cut off part of the
main plant or eat the whole thing, its a vegetable.
By this reasoning, fruits would be things like apples, citrus fruits, stone fruits, grapes, cherries, tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, bananas, pineapple, cucumbers, and all manner of squash or berries. Meanwhile vegetables would be things like potatoes, carrots, yams, spinach, lettuce, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, turnips, asparagus, jicima, and onions.
A really crude definition: A fruit is something you put in your pudding/dessert or your breakfast; a vegetable is something you put in your dinner.
Apple - goes in cereal and pie --> fruit.
Tomato - goes in pasta and salads --> vegetable.
Of course, this isn't perfect. Pineapple, for example.
This leads to some interesting definitions. In my country, pumpkin is a vegetable, because we roast it and make soup out of it. In North America, it is a fruit, because pumpkin pie is a dessert.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.442744
| 2016-08-24T17:31:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73396",
"authors": [
"Baard Kopperud",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Joe",
"Kevin",
"Klas Lindbäck",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Megha",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Peter Taylor",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Robin Ekman",
"Steve Jessop",
"barbecue",
"coblr",
"eipi10",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho",
"slebetman",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124715
|
Intuitive way to measure calories on homemade oatmilk (Betaglucans) or similar liquids
I am following a recipe for oatmilk, consisting on 1L of water, 100gr of oats, a pinch of salt and desired sweetener. This recipe let´s them soak and also blend them for 2 minutes before filtering it in a cloth to get the solid out. The result is then slimy oatmilk, which I like and it seems it's due to Betaglucans and it seems healthy. I know how to make it non-slimy, not soaking, not blending for more than 30s.
After letting sit the oatmilk, I can see a division of densitities between the more watery part and the part that has more "oaty" content.
Measuring the calories of this drink makes me think it can vary depending on the process... I assume that in the state the milk was in the picture, the watery substance had less caloric value than the bottom "oaty" liquid. We can also weigh APPROXIMATELY the grams of oats filtered with the cloth. But then if the oats were blended for less time and they were also harder (not soaked, not softer), ergo, non-slimy milk, it means that the solid residue to filter with the cloth will be bigger? Decreasing the caloric value of the drink?
Is there any intuitive way (not using a bomb calorimeter) to determine an approximate number of calories for this type of liquids? Do Betaglucans have any impact on the process?
It’s going to be dependent on what dissolved in / was extracted by the water. So it won’t just be a ratio of how much weight the oats lost (after being dried)…
I would say that your options are pretty limited, but it also depends on what your expectations are, exactly.
First, it's unclear if you want to measure or calculate the calories.
The "calculate" part is much easier to cover: you can't. Calculating calories only works when you are combining ingredients, then it's simply the sum of the ingredients. But when you're taking away part of the ingredients, there's no way to calculate how much is left. You'll have to measure it empirically.
Your suggestion of approximating by the weight of discarded oats isn't workable. You're soaking your oats, so you'll probably discard more weight than the weight of the dry oats you're putting in. This doesn't mean that your milk has negative calories, but simply that you're discarding some of the water along with the oats - and you don't know how much.
As for measuring, then it's unclear what you mean by "intuitively", since measuring is the opposite of intuition. If you're asking for a method that is doable under home conditions, the answer is "maybe".
There certainly are ways to rig a simple calorimeter at home and use that. It doesn't even have to be the "bomb" type. You can find many descriptions around the Internet, intended for kids' science projects and the like. You'll run into several problems:
It will require a lot of time investment on your side
A simple homemade device will probably be rather inaccurate. You can of course try to calibrate it, by using published calorie tables and foods which aren't likely to vary much from one sample to the next, such as plant oil or sugar. But you'll probably have to do a lot of experimentation series until you have an inkling of how reliable your measurements are.
Your oat milk is liquid. You'll have to dehydrate it completely before burning it in a calorimeter. As you don't have access to industrial methods, you'll have to choose a slow dehydration method - during which enzymes and bacteria can change the composition of your oat milk (although this will likely cause a shift in the macronutrient composition rather than a big change in total calories)
It's unlikely that you're able to produce consistent results between batches of oat milk. So even if you can overcome the practical problems of creating a measurement, you'll end up with a somewhat broad range. Although that last part is inherent in calorie counting anyway, and the major databases simply list an average value.
It's of course up to you to decide if you want to invest all the time needed just to get some approximate results. If I were counting calories, I would probably simply opt for counting the calories in the oats as an upper limit, and call it a day.
I basically agree, but drying the discarded oats could in principle come up with the discard weight. The problem is there's dry and there's dry - the water content will never be zero in the bought oats or the discarded ones. Any approach like this also has to make an assumption about whether the weight retained in the drink has the same composition as oats, or is more starchy or more fibrous. This would still provide a better upper limit than assuming you consumed all the calories in the oats
@ChrisH: you could also dry a sample of the initial oats to determine their water content. But even with a bomb calorimeter to test the remnants, you’re not going to get truly useful numbers as part of the issue is how bioavailable those calories are
@Joe bioavailability isn't taken into account in standard tables, to which we might like to compare the result. So I doubt we need to worry about it. But I'm addressing the beginning and end of the answer, about estimating - as much as the idea of making a calorimeter appeals, it doesn't seem realistic
Great answer, thank you very much! Indeed, intuitively was not the word! I meant "something more or less accurate but doable to do at home without lots of equipment". I will do some more research and decide what to do, but you lit a little bit the path. Thank you as always! Thanks also to @ChrisH and Joe! (cannot tag 2 users)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.444566
| 2023-07-12T09:27:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124715",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"M.K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99223
|
What to do with soft chicken bones after making bone broth?
I have chicken bones after being boiled down to mush.
Can they be crushed? Then what can I use them for?
You kicked out the last bit the bones had to offer. Apart from milling and feeding it to animals, you are pretty much done.
Dear all, please note the specifics of the [tag:culinary-uses] tag. Only uses as human food are on-topic; any other kind of suggestion is out of scope.
No.
Bone is not typically considered fit for human consumption. Cooked, they become dangerous. They are brittle and sharp and can puncture the intestines(source). Uncooked they become a pathogen risk, especially with chicken bones.
There was a time when people ate bone meal, presumably for calcium, but that is no longer considered a good practice. More reading about Bone meal from Wikipedia.
Bones from bone broth are not brittle or sharp.
Paitan broth
Depending on how long you cooked your bone broth, your chicken carcass still might have some flavor. After straining your first broth, add fresh water and more aromatics to the pot. Boil for a few more hours, and then blitz it with an immersion blender. Strain, yielding a thick creamy broth that makes a delicious bowl of ramen.
(Most of the actual bone meal will be strained out and can be added to your compost heap.)
Recipe: https://www.seriouseats.com/2018/12/how-to-make-chicken-paitan-ramen.html
Given how broken down those bones are in the picture, and assuming that the boiling action broke them (as opposed to a mallet), there there is probably not much flavor to extract.
I started using the slow cooker to make chicken bone broth. I put the carcass with water in slow cooker on high till it comes to a low simmer then turn down to low and cook for about two days with an occasional stir. I remove the skin that has floated to the top, pour in a strainer over a bowl, when the broth has cooled put it in the fridge. I scrape the fat off the top the next day. For the bones and solids in the strainer...delicious!! The bones are so soft, soft like the bones in canned sardines. It's a delicacy for us. Bones, marrow, cartilage (collagen), bits of meat etc. I use every part of the chicken now, nothing goes to waste! The bones are soft with a wonderful very soft crunch, melt in your mouth texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.445061
| 2019-05-29T19:03:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99223",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"kingledion",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112834
|
Weird air pockets/bubbles on bottom of cake
I've been baking this recipe for over a year now, flavour and texture are wonderful, the guests love it but half of the time I get these air pockets on the bottom of the cake.
The air pockets appear at the center of the bottom and also at the sides. Sometimes they're barely there, sometimes they're big enough that I'm unsure if i'll serve it to guests (for exemple when they're 3cm height).
Recipe is as follows:
150g cashew nuts (roasted, unsalted) chopped in a food processor
30g white flour
125g sugar
pinch of salt
4 egg whites, lightly beaten with a fork
150g butter, heated untill brown
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
Everything at room temperature.
Preparation is staightfoward: mix dry ingredients, add egg whites, add butter and vanilla. Cooks at 160~180C for 45~50m untill golden brown. Lower temperatures do not make the bubbles disappear.
What causes these air pockets? Has anyone faced a similar issue before?
How thick is the batter? If it’s pourable, this would be surprising. (I usually bang the cake pan a couple of times in case there are bubbles, but this won’t help if the batter is so thick it needs to be spread)
Pretty pourable! No need to spread. I also bang the cake pan before going to the oven.
Does this answer your question? How to avoid holes in Chiffon cake?
I had the same problem with my chiffon cake @maya, and asked the same question. The answer solved the issue.
@GdD The thing is that the holes aren't inside the cake. When i cut a slice, it's perfectly smooth in texture. The bubble is forming only on the bottom, on the outside of the cake. Despite that, I already tried to run the knife and also to bang the cake pan - to no effect, sadly...
Did you use parchment paper or similar in the bottom of the pan?
I didn't get that @maya, in that case this isn't a dupe. Is there a hot spot on the baking pan?
@DebbieM. No parchment, just butter and flour on an aluminium 18cm pan.
@GdD English isn't my native language, not sure I understand what you mean by "dupe". What you see at the pictures is the flipped cake, that air bubble is forming at the bottom. I tried different temperatures, running a knife through the batter, lining the pan with antiadherent plastic, baking at the gas oven, baking at an eletric oven, the bubble keeps showing up and I can't for the life of me figure out what's causing it ):
@maya, dupe is short for duplicate, apologies for confusing you. I am wondering if the same thing happens in a different pan. It could be part of the bottom of the pan has some sort of imperfection which transfers heat differently from the rest. The cake looks very nice anyway, makes me want a slice!
@GdD Oh I get it now! Well, I bake that cake often, sometimes twice a week. I have 3 pans, same size and material, but purchased along the years... I had my suspicions about a heat spot, but the many pans and 2 ovens do make that unlikely. The weirdest part is that half of the time the cake will turn out perfectly smooth on the bottom, out of the blue
As it’s a pourable batter, do you pour it in a ring, or just pour in the middle and let it spread? My only other idea is if it’s somehow cooking from the outside edge in and causing some sort of buckling that pushes up the middle, but I would think there would be a bit of a vacuum to hold it down unless there was air trapped down there. But if this is the case, you might try the recommendations at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13167/67
@Joe I pour it in the middle and let it spread (it does, quickly). The idea of buckling makes sense, but would it cause the bubbles at the edges also? You can notice at the right side of the right image that the bubbles are also forming at the corners. The link is very good, i'll look at it carefully. Thanks!
@maya : the 'buckling' idea is basically that if the batter expands slightly when forming a crust, and it cooks faster at the edges, there's no space for it to expand when it gets to the middle, and so it bows up. I don't think it would explain large bubbles around the edges. (I had assumed the picture was showing something like problems getting it to release from the pan)
@Joe The pictures show the air pocket that forms at the center and also the small pockets at the edges. After 10m at room temp if comes out of the pan with no struggle. The bubbles are underneath the cake, so only when unmolded can I see if I got them or not.
I'm planning to bake one at a pyrex dish and watch it cooking so I can hopefully see when and how they form.
That happened to me as well. Luckily it doesn't change the taste, but it is annoying! It comes from air pockets which formed because you whisked/mixed your cake batter too intensely, and/or for too long, which creates air bubbles. So first, it is best to mix your ingredients delicately, try to avoid incorporating too much air (easier said than done), and stop whisking once your batter reached the desired homogeneous consistency (overwhisking is a common mistake). Then, when you pour your cake batter in the pan, it's better to avoid pouring it all at once in the center, it will also create air bubbles. It's better to pour it delicately from one corner and let it spread by itself in the dish. Finally, before putting in the oven, tap (delicately) the bottom of your pan on the counter to free the remaining air bubbles and let them reach the surface before cooking.
I hope that will help, let me know!
At first I also thought I was overmixing. I reduced the mixing steps to 20 or 30s, just untill the ingredients are combined. But bubbles kept coming from time to time.
I always poured the batter at the center, I can't see how that would create bubble, but I always tap it before baking. I will try pouring from a corner!
From the date of my entry I've experimented with this recipe, baked 42 of them taking notes. No clear answers still. But I discovered this is a kind of "financier", a french cake.
Interesting, and very mysterious! Does it happen only with this specific recipe or with others as well? Have you tried baking it in smaller quantities? Normally financier is baked in a small pan, so maybe the batter doesn't react the same way in a bigger one?
The bubbles appear even in small cupcake format. But I like to make mine as a whole cake, following the recipe. The bubble persists with all nuts: pistachio, cashew nuts, almonds... My guess is that water from egg whites is the main leavener agent. Steam must be forming in big quantities at the start of heating, creating those big bubbles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.445303
| 2020-11-26T14:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112834",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sarah BDnO",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90615",
"maya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45248
|
traditional italian pasta: with or without eggs?
I read that in the north of Italy they would use eggs in their recipes (the recipe to make the pasta itself). Is it an actual tradition or is it just a recent trend? I always thought that the pasta was something simple, made with the heart, durum semolina and water.
Traditional in italian cooking differs from town to town and household to household, so I suspect there's no answer to this question.
In any case adding eggs to flour to make pasta is something almost as old as pasta itself (prehistoric to be precise)... ...I should look up for a precise reference though!
Semolina & water makes one kind. Flour & egg makes another kind. I have not tasted any difference.
@GdD I get your point alright but I am not really interested in knowing fancy local stuff, even though it is there since 100 years ago. Let's narrow it to the 2-3 'most' traditional types of pasta
@Optionparty I find a distinct difference between pasta made with eggs vs. water.
Although nowadays both are ubiquitous in Italy (and abroad), dried pasta and fresh egg pasta are traditionally associated with different regions of Italy.
Dried durum-wheat pasta originated in the old Kingdom of the two Sicilies, which encompassed the entire Southern Italy, including the island of Sicily, and had its capital city in Naples. Oldest historical records associate the production and consumption of dried pasta with Sicily, but one of the best renowned home of pastifici (artisanal pasta production places) from time immemorial is the town of Gragnano, in the province of Naples.
Still today, the humble spaghetti with tomatoes and basil is one of the iconic food of Naples.
Fresh egg pasta ("fresh" here is referred to pasta, not to eggs, as in "not essiccated") is linked to the historical region of Emilia, part of the River Po Valley.
It is worth mentioning that from a historical point of view this is the reason why spaghetti alla bolognese, one of the best known Italian dishes abroad, is actually a fake one: "bolognese" means "from the city of Bologna", which is the largest city of Emilia. For this reason it was always supposed, from its very own "design", to go well with tagliatelle, which is a classic fresh pasta format.
Is it correct to say Pasta doesn't have eggs, otherwise it is pasta all'uovo?
@Sebas Correct, in a colloquial context. Since dried durum-wheat pasta accounts for the vast majority of the Italian annual consumption of pasta, the word secca (dried) is typically omitted. Egg pasta in Italian is pasta all'uovo indeed. Fresh pasta (with or without eggs) is colloquially called by the specific format name (e.g. tagliatelle, ravioli...). Pastasciutta (literally "dried pasta") is a tricky word, because it actually indicated pasta (dried or fresh) boiled in water, strained and topped with a sauce; here asciutta (dried) actually refers to being the opposite of "in broth".
It's not recent at all, for example lasagne are documented in ancient times. Also dried pasta as spaghetti is very antique.
The term lasagne, or, rarely, the singular lasagna (from Old Greek àganon, λάγανον) generally denotes egg noodles cut into large squares or rectangles. They are typically used for casserole dishes. It is a dish of antique origin, appearing for the first time in writing in Re coquinario by Apicio.
(From the Italian Wikipedia article on lasagne).
One is not a variation of the other, they are just different preparations... if you really want to see the history ( rather than tradition) then you should also consider all the wheat derivates as bread, pizza, focaccia, quiches....
There are many kinds of pasta. Some are made from flour and water. Some are made from flour and eggs. Sometimes there is oil in the recipe. Some have other ingredients such as spinach or chilli, for colour and flavour.
Pasta made with egg is somewhat richer tasting, and of course the yolk adds colour.
None of these is more "traditional" than any other. Different towns and regions have different traditions.
" Different towns and regions have different traditions." Some examples could be a nice addon
I doubt the chilli being as traditional as durum + water. I am interested to know the 50+% most common type of traditional pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.445890
| 2014-07-02T04:16:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45248",
"authors": [
"Aaron Hill",
"Carey Gregory",
"Dr. belisarius",
"GEN81465",
"GdD",
"Giovanni De Gaetano",
"JenserCube",
"Justpassingby",
"Kim Thomas Fjellin",
"Marcie Dawn King Reece",
"Moxie13",
"Optionparty",
"Pino Pinto",
"Sebas",
"alex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13573
|
A great book with recipes for Tapas
Spanish Tapas is some of the best food I know. I've been to a lot of great restaurants all over Europe. I've bought some books, and tried different recipes for making this food. It should not be very hard to make it as good as in the restaurants, but the recipes I have found in the few books I've tried has all failed. They are indeed horrible!
Is there a great book with really good recipes for this kind of food?
Penelope Casas is the queso grande of Spanish cookbook authors. Her seminal 1982 book 'The Foods and Wines of Spain' is still a treasure trove of authentic, well-researched dishes from the many distinct culinary regions of Spain. She's done many other books on Spanish cooking since then, including the newly revised edition of 'Tapas: The Little Dishes of Spain', available on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Tapas-Revised-Little-Dishes-Spain/dp/0307265528/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303850450&sr=1-3). In addition to her depth and breadth of knowledge, Ms. Casas is also a transporting writer who'll fill your imagination with the tastes and aromas she so engagingly describes.
My friend has one called 'A passion for Tapas' http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Passion-for-Tapas/dp/1407502700 It has lots of nice and straightforward ideas.
http://www.amazon.com/MoVida-Rustica-Spanish-Traditions-Recipes/dp/1741964695/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301676957&sr=1-1
Movida is Australia's top tapas restaurant, they have two cookbooks.I think you will really enjoy, I have used heaps of the recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.446369
| 2011-03-29T20:55:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13573",
"authors": [],
"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
}
|
5460
|
Are MSG and Accent (Seasoning) the same thing?
Can the seasoning Accent be substituted for MSG, for example in General Tso's Chicken?
MSG is the primary ingredient in Accent. The full ingredient list for Accent "original flavor" is as follows:
Monosodium Glutamate, Salt, Chili Pepper, Tricalcium Phosphate (As Anticaking Agent), Spice (Cumin, Oregano), Paprika Extractives(color), Garlic Extractives, Onion Extractives, Yellow No.6 Lake, Yellow No.5 Lake.
As of late 2020, the product itself currently lists MSG as the only ingredient, and it appears likely to be correct, given that it looks similar in color and texture to table salt and has no detectable fragrance. However, the Accent website currently lists as ingredients: "Monosodium Glutamate, Dehydrated Garlic, Spices, Salt, Paprika (as color), Dehydrated Onion, Red Pepper." There appear to be no named variations of the product. I contacted them on their site to try to get to the bottom of this.
Sources say: yes!
Spice Seasoning, Accent Seasoning, MSG
Accent Seasoning and its benefits
This PDF also shows what you can look for on a label to indicate MSG's presence.
"Accent" is simply a brand name. MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is the generic name of the compound.
Edit: Hobodave is also correct, and this answer might seem misleading alongside it, so I want to clarify. You rarely see pure generic MSG outside of labs and specialty stores. Normally when you see a recipe call for MSG, it is referring to one of the various brands of "MSG flavor enhancers", and Accent is the most popular one.
So, they aren't precisely the same thing, but I wouldn't even call it a substitution; Accent is what almost everyone uses when they need MSG (at least in Canada and the USA) and you can definitely use it here.
I've always used pure generically bottled MSG.
@hobodave: Where do you even find that? Surely not a typical grocery store?
Yep, a typical grocery store. It comes in a 1L container and is usually next to other generic branded "seasoning mixes". I'll take a pic next time I go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.446514
| 2010-08-18T14:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5460",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dipali",
"Happy",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"NlightNFotis",
"Shibumi",
"andypaxo",
"bee.catt",
"bitfed",
"gomad",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"royvandewater"
],
"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
}
|
18663
|
Which part of blue fish is not edible?
I bought a blue fish caught in Maryland. Can I eat the entire fish, or are there some parts of it which are not edible?
From Fishing Tips: How to Catch, Prepare, and Cook Bluefish:
When you clean the fish, remove the skin and any dark-colored flesh. This part of the fish is especially strong tasting and somewhat oily.
Check out these fish recipes to learn to cook bluefish.
Also see How Can You Cook Bluefish To Make It Taste Good for advices on improving the flavor (e.g. soak it in milk).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.446719
| 2011-10-30T12:56:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18663",
"authors": [
"Ali Yousuf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40460",
"huda",
"stefs",
"tytruck16",
"user40432"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18662
|
References on food safety?
I'm looking for good, authoritative references on food safety topics. In particular I'd like to learn more about the different parts of various meats and fish, which parts are safe to eat, and what preparation steps are necessary for each to guarantee safety.
What would be a good place to look for this information?
I'm not sure what to make of this question... if there's actually a subject area for this (butchering? anatomy?) it's definitely not called "food processing". That term either refers to food processor appliances or commercial food processing (i.e. manufacture of packaged food products in massive quantities). I'm going to treat this as a question about food safety in general; feel free to clarify if I'm missing the point.
This is a very broad question. My recommendation is to look up your specific product at
the US FDA Food Safety page.
Some of the topics treated are:
Product-Specific Information
Acidified and Low-Acid Canned Foods
Bottled Water & Carbonated Soft Drinks
Cheese Safety
Egg Safety
Fruits, Vegetables & Juices
Infant Formula
Medical Foods
Milk Safety
Seafood
Food Allergens
Consumer Information
Food Allergens Labeling
Foodborne Illness
Consumer Information
Foodborne Illness, Foodborne Pathogens & Natural Toxins
Interagency Coordination
Food Contaminants & Adulteration
Chemical Contaminants
Metals
Natural Toxins
Pesticides
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.446803
| 2011-10-30T12:54:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18662",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cindy Beaulé",
"Debra Cassinelli",
"Jim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"marck"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7524
|
What are other techniques to make garlic bread?
I've usually made garlic bread by pouring over the bread with special garlic bread powder over spread butter. This works, but is there any way to make the garlic sauce/powder on your own?
Hi @JFW, this appears to be looking for a recipe, or just a list of X (garlic bread). Please note in the FAQ that this site isn't for swapping recipes; however, if you are having trouble with a recipe I am sure that you could clarify your question and maybe ask for how to fix whatever is specifically going wrong.
@mfg - given the title edit that reflects the question itself (how do you make garlic sauce or powder on your own), I'd consider it one of our typical list-of-X questions.
Even though it's list-y I'm not converting it to CW since the list of techniques is finite and quite small.
@hobo finite and yet the hair splitting so infinite.
I find garlic powder to be kind of meh when making garlic bread. I suggest using fresh garlic that is finely minced that has been mixed with softened butter. You simply spread it on, cook, and enjoy.
Here is a recipe demonstrating this technique (I have not used the recipe):
http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/garlic_bread/
For quick & easy garlic bread, I'll toast the bread first, and then scrub a clove of garlic over it, finishing with butter or oil.
Very little prep or cleanup, and a bright, intense flavor... Be careful not to rub off too much garlic on each slice (unless of course you're very fond of garlic).
if you have roasted garlic on hand (i make it in bulk and always have some in the fridge) this is a great application for it - very easily spreadable on something like this!
This is probably relatively unconventional and a completely different technique than you described altogether, but it answers the question in the title :)
When I'm making a stovetop dinner and don't feel like heating the oven/toaster oven/grill/broiler, I'll often melt some butter into a pan, throw some (fresh) garlic and spices in, give it a minute, throw the bread in, and crisp the bread up right in the pan in the butter. Quick and easy!
This would be a good application for a compound butter. Start by roasting a head of garlic. Mix the garlic mush with softened butter (and any other spices you want, such as salt and finely chopped parsley) and re-chill. Use as a finishing butter as well as for the bread.
That's what I've been doing too.
A few different techniques that I use, depending on what I have on hand, how many I'm cooking for, and what sort of time constraints I'm dealing with.
Slice bread, grill under the broiler 'til toasted, then rub with a whole garlic clove.
Slice bread, grill the bread under the broiler 'til toasted, then spread with roasted garlic.
Slice bread, grill the bread under the broiler 'til toasted, then drizzle with olive oil (okay, I use a pump sprayer), and lightly sprinkle with garlic powder. (I've done this one I've done with sandwich bread, too ... you typically need a firmer bread for the first two, though)
split the loaf, spread with pesto (may need to thin first with extra olive oil), close back up, wrap in foil, and bake.
Raw garlic can be over powering and have a odd after taste and although I have just minced garlic and butter together for garlic bread I've found the garlic doesn't cook.
Instead if you have time I'd recommend roasting the garlic first and add the cooked content to the butter, or gently frying the garlic.
Finely chopped parsley is good to add at the end too!
Broiling (top-radiant-heat) garlic-topped bread is nice...
As is grilled wrapped in foil - somehow I can never get the same thing in the oven to turn out well, but the grill seems to actually cook the garlic.
You have a few other options than your specialty powder:
Look at the ingredients on your garlic bread powder. They probably include at least garlic powder and salt. You can make your own "garlic bread powder" by mixing these spices and then sprinkling them over your dish. Garlic powder is going to be more versatile then a special purpose mix. For example, garlic powder is a key component in many spice rubs for meat.
Instead of using powder, finely mince some garlic itself. Heat oil until just warm and add minced garlic. Let sit for a while to infuse. Strain out garlic, pour over toasted bread.
Add a small amount of finely minced garlic to melted butter. Spread over toasted bread. Less garlic is definitely more here.
You asked if you can make your own garlic powder. The answer is yes. Completely dehydrate some garlic (a dehydrator would be useful here) and crush it with a mortal and pestle or in a food processor.
You can use crushed garlic instead. Mince a clove or two of garlic and then crush it with either the flat of your knife or the back of a spoon.
This is unrelated to replicating garlic powder, but topping the bread with mozzarella cheese and various Italian spices is also delicious :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.446956
| 2010-09-22T14:56:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7524",
"authors": [
"Benny Jobigan",
"Brian",
"Christopher Chipps",
"Greg",
"Nicola",
"Shog9",
"atomAltera",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"peter.swallow",
"qwertl",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user1423893",
"user15455",
"user15463",
"user15465",
"wow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8608
|
What are the uses for a roasting pan? Do I really need a roasting pan?
We registered for a roasting pan and it has been sitting around taking up a lot of space. Do I really need this or is this a "one-tasker" as Alton Brown would say?
I understand that the roasting rack allows the juices to drip down. I've had lots of success roasting chickens just in a baking pan with 2" high sides.
I use my roasting pan (either with or without a rack) at least once a week to roast vegetables - either for salads, for sides, or (for instance with pumpkin for soup) to get a slightly different and more concentrated flavour before blending the veges. I find the vegetables cook more evenly in a roasting pan than a baking pan - perhaps the higher sides help to create a kind of microclimate around the veges?? Not sure about that one.
When making roast vege salads, you can take the pan straight out of the oven and take advantage of the high sides to mix your other ingredients in (pasta, greens, dressing etc) then serve from there if no one is looking at your serving dish!
I also use it as a water bath when cooking souffles, puddings etc.
The one advantage to a roasting pan is that you can cover it easily with foil (or a lid), which is handy for dishes with a long steamed component. Tough roasts, for example, can be cooked low-and-slow in a roasting pan, tightly covered in foil.
Note that most restaurants do not use roasting pans. Instead, they use standard 4 and 6 inch deep rectangular stainless pans, which can also be used for marinating, storage, and so on. The key is the depth of the pan, which is useful if a dish needs to be covered when cooking.
I use mine, but I'm known for 20+ pound hunks of meat...In that case it's pretty much a requirement, both for the dripping, etc and for just being big and sturdy enough to handle the weight.
If you're not cooking anything that big, I wouldn't worry about it. Throw some starch in the pan to soak up the grease, and move on, or go old school, and cook it right on the rack with a Yorkshire pudding underneath to catch the drippings.
A roasting pan is one of the definitive methods to make oven-roasted bbq, such as kansas city ribs. Most recipes involve a period of foil covered roasting on a rack (so the meat does not sit in its own oil) and covered with foil. It is almost a form of steaming, but different.
I do not know any other method to achieve truly splendid results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.447368
| 2010-10-28T04:08:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8608",
"authors": [
"Anton Babushkin",
"Joshua Nurczyk",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17705",
"philg",
"shayne"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8375
|
Why is the dishwasher not recommended for my All-Clad MC2 line of pot and pans?
I just looked on the All-Clad website (faq 7 and faq 13). It says that because the MC2 has a brushed aluminum alloy exterior, it mush be hand washed. Why is the dishwasher bad for it?
It's just soap and water (and sometimes rinse aid) right? Is it the rinse aid that does something to the pot/pan? Is it because the jets of the dishwasher too strong for the pot?
I’ve put my 2 qt saucier in the dishwasher. I did notice the discoloration but on my pan it’s actually pretty. It’s an even champagne gold tone. I’m wondering if putting it in the dishwasher will have a long term negative affect though.
The usual reason given is that Aluminum will react with the alkalis in dishwasher detergent and discolour.
Automatic dishwasher detergent has a lot of stuff in it.
I can answer you with first hand experience and a picture. Your lovely dark gray finish will become light gray, streaked, and hideous. I'll never buy this style of pot again, it is just too useful to be able to dishwash them sometimes.
Ouch. I don't even want to imagine what it must have been like opening up the dishwasher door and seeing that.
Really hard to argue with that picture. Ouch.
Damn. I would hardly believe that's an All-Clad pot if not for the stamped handle.
Yeah; to be clear that is probably 5 times through the dishwasher. Once it was ugly the first time, I sorta figured, what the heck.
Wow. I've washed it a couple of times and so far it doesn't look that bad...but I'm not going to do it anymore! Yikes.
Dishwashing fluid isn't a simple soap; it's much more aggressive. A good portion of it is sodium hydroxide (lye) and sodium carbonate (washing soda) which will dissolve the protective anodized layer on aluminum surfaces (aluminum oxide), which is what holds the color.
Anodizing is a process that grows a layer of aluminum oxide on aluminum surfaces that can be dyed to form an attractive finish. The dissolution of the anodization is why Mike's pots look so bad now.
Sodium hydroxide and other bases can attack aluminum (metal), but it's not as apparent, especially when the concentration is fairly low. Remove a very thin layer of silver-colored aluminum and there's more silver-colored aluminum under it. Remove some of the anodization layer, and the dye can come out.
Like all aluminium they will discolour in the dishwasher, but will still be safe to use. One site I saw stated that the discolouration can be avoided by removing before the rinse cycle, which suggests to me it's the softeners rather than the detergent that does the damage.
It's worth noting that very acidic foods or prolonged cooking can also stain aluminium. Ours has a dark stain where the water came up to while steaming a Christmas pudding and I've seen some ruined by jam making.
NB in the past some people thought aluminium released into food during cooking was hazardous but this has since been disproven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.447597
| 2010-10-21T03:37:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8375",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amy Bruckman",
"Chris",
"Chris A",
"Kyle Lowry",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sironsse",
"Stronzo",
"adi",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62475",
"milesmeow",
"user17231",
"user62475"
],
"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
}
|
99805
|
Creating an eggwash with water vs. milk
In the context of breading meats, is there a difference in how things adhere to one another? What about in regards to the crispiness in the final outcome?
are you asking about using the milk or water as alternatives to the egg, or mixing them with the egg?
I'm referring to with eggs.
Okay ... just wondering as I've heard of using cultured buttermilk as a replacement for the eggs, but not regular milk. The more important bit for adherence is that you don't want too much of any particular dredge. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/44128/67 . (no idea on the crispness, though)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.447877
| 2019-06-27T20:43:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99805",
"authors": [
"Carl Edwards",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82293
|
Would adding more egg help crumbling cookies?
As this is a controversial subject I cannot just ask it to the majority of the women I know that bake. I make cookies for my father who has cancer and was losing weight at an alarming rate until I suggested pot cookies. I have been using Betty Crocker peanut butter cookie mix. The recipe calls for only one egg, I have been having a crumbling issue. It's too expensive to trial and error in this situation. Would adding another egg help?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18732/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10743/67; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/32677/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43698/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18358/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/74760/67 ; and the opposite of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22999/67
Try adding a teaspoon or two of water, if just sounds like the dough's a bit dry. It would help if we had a recipe though.
... why only women? Why not "people"?
Sometimes I believe nit picking is just that nit picking. If I had said the men I know that bake you wouldn't have nit picked. Relax not every thing that is written is meant to deny anyone who bakes.
Adding a whole egg would help, but you might start with adding just one egg yolk. The additional fat will address the dryness which leads to the crumbling.
You may also try other fats like butter, cream cheese, or vegetable oil.
If even one egg yolk is 'too much' for your desired outcome, you might try a small amount of half&half.
Adding more eggs will make your cookie soft and not crispy.You can add some butter but I think it will not be suitable for the disease.You add some roasted oats soaked in milk.It will make your cookies crispy and not crumble
I have a oats cookies recipe on my website which has butter in it you can look up
oats cookies
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.447967
| 2017-06-10T00:33:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82293",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"L.C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58463",
"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
}
|
83527
|
Cannabis Grapeseed Oil Infusion from Non-Decarboxylated Plant Matter - When is infusion done?
So I live in a legal state and I'm allowed to grow up to 6 plants of varying maturity and also produce my own grapeseed oil infusions. So legality is not an issue for me. I'm stating that right off the bat. I'm not asking about legality. I'm asking about the chemistry behind it.
Now first off, which is the correct term? Infusion or Extraction? Whats the difference?
For now however I'm going to use the word infusion for the rest of the question.
When making the infusion I'm using a ratio of 2 oz of dried but NOT decarboxylated plant matter to 1 quart of grapeseed oil (Any brand will do). Mainly the plant matter is the Buds/Cola's. These bud's have gone through the curing phase already and are dry.
I put the plant material in the oil inside of a small 1.5 qt crockpot. The last time I did this, I let the crockpot sit on high for 8 hours before switching to low for 3 days (72 hours).
A lot of tutorials/online videos will say leave it sit for 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours... all the way up to 72 hours and more.
My Main question is this... At what point is the infusion done? When are all the cannabinoids infused into the oil? The time I'm asking for is when the plant matter has little to no cannabinoids left and all/a large majority of the cannabinoids are now in the oil... Thus making the infusion done.
I'm assuming that there is a breaking point where the plant matter is done decarboxylating, and the oil has extracted all of the cannabinoids.
I'm worried however that the oil at some breaking point will stop infusing the cannabinoids (because they're already infused into the oil), and will start infusing things such as the chlorophyll, and unwanted plant matter into the oil (non-cannabinoid molecules and structures).
I've done this exact infusion using Coconut oil and I didn't get the same potency as when I did the infusion with grapeseed oil. Is there a difference molecularly that allows grapeseed oil to infuse cannabinoids more easily? There is a lot of heated debate about this (coconut vs grapeseed oil infusions) within the cannabis industry/community, however i'm looking at this from more of a chemistry stand point. Which is 'better' to use?
If this is the wrong Stack Community to ask this, please refer me the the correct one. Thanks.
(Question posted on both Chemistry and Cooking Stack Exchanges as this question does pertain to both areas. Since these are different communities, I hope this is ok to ask both communities)
I am cleaning up the discussion. There was a cross-posting on Chemistry, but the question is being closed there, since the OP cannot describe the system precisely enough to get an answer from them. Cooking with cannabis is in principle on topic here, see relevant Meta question: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1227. The question doesn't hinge on us predicting what physiological effects the cannabis will have. From there on, the community has to interpret how the existing rules apply to this specific question.
My Main question is this... At what point is the infusion done?
This would largely depend on your definition of the word "Done". Your own research reveals a number of opinions on how long it takes for this process to reach completion. In any kind of infusion process the results are not linear. You likely get (something like) 70% infusion in 4 hours. Another 4 hours will get you to 80% the next 4 hours to 85%... It's a condition of diminishing returns, that will probably never reach 100% (or 'done'). How much of the cannabinoids are you willing to just throw away because you don't want to wait for them to infuse? At what point is the infused oil "good enough" for you.
Is there a difference molecularly that allows grapeseed oil to infuse
cannabinoids more easily? ... Which is 'better' to use?
What is the 100% saturation point for various oils given various herbs is far to general of question for us to address with any specificity. Even given the herb the variety of oils still leaves us too much to really address. Lastly, when asking for whether A is 'better' than B it helps for you to provide some tangible criteria. I propose that if you want to use it as a salve coconut oil would be better (solid at room temperature) where if you want to cook with it, grapeseed oil may be the 'better' choice (higher smoke point, cleaner flavor).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.448112
| 2017-08-05T17:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83527",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91965
|
Are the terms self-rising flour and baking powder different in the US and UK?
I made Mary Berry’s Cherry cake, which called for 275 g of self-rising flour and 2 tsp of baking powder, in an 8-inch pan. Went all over the oven. Are these ingredients different in the US?
The answer to your question is nope. The UK and USA are in agreement on this one. Self-rising flour and baking powder are the same on both sides of the pond. See also Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ
Note: I thought that two tsp of baking powder was an odd thing to see in a recipe that uses self-rising flour so I looked up a Mary Berry cherry cake recipe. The BBC published a recipe on their website and it doesn't call for baking powder. Are you sure your recipe didn't say "OR"?
There is one difference: we call it "self-raising"! +1
There are two differences - there is no salt in UK self-raising flour.
The cherry cake in More Fast Cakes (1985) has 175g SR flour and 1tsp baking powder, and the "English cherry cake" in Mary Berry's Ultimate Cake Book (1994 reprinted 2003) has 275g and 2tsp. Recipes with both aren't unknown but this seems like a lot of extra baking powder. It must be meant to rise a lot
Apart from children's books most of the cakes I make are from her recipes and they seems reliable.
I assume you used the deep cake tin specified. I can't instantly lay my hands on mine but it's about 4" deep.
How accurate is your oven temperature? A recipe like this would rise fast, and may be prone to over rising then dropping if cooked too fast. The later recipe cooks rather cool at 160C/325F,and that's without a fan.
Wow, a 4" deep tin, I don't think I have ever seen one that size, except for gugelhupf. This is a very important point you are making, and deserves attention.
No, the pan was the problem. Didn’t realize deep would mean DEEP. Do you think an angel food pan would work for this?
It might work. I've never had one (they're not common here) but the ones on amazon look good and deep. I reckon a normal 8" tin would be about 2.5" deep, so specifying "deep" says quite a bit more than that, to me. But with the angel food pan you lose a bit of volume in the middle
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.448783
| 2018-08-29T21:40:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91965",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Kaa",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68966",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113798
|
My cake is moist but crumbly
I have always used this recipe and this turns out really soft and moist, but also crumbly. How can I fix it?
Here are the ingredients:
1 1/2 cups (3 sticks) unsalted butter, room temperature, plus more for pans
3/4 cup Dutch-process cocoa powder, sifted, plus more for pans
3/4 cup hot water
3/4 cup sour cream
3 cups cake flour, (not self-rising), sifted
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 1/4 cups sugar
4 large eggs
1 tablespoon pure vanilla extract
I haven't used up all the batter yet, so I can do changes if required. Please help!
how did you bake it? what temperature? what type of oven / pan? Can you [edit] the question to add more details?
Welcome to the site. Method is important, how do you make the batter? Please edit with details.
Replacing part of the water and/or cream with more egg should do the trick, as when eggs are headed, they firm up and act as a binding element, fixing the crumblyness of your cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.448975
| 2021-01-18T08:41:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113798",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.