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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
123747
|
Is a lightweight mortar suitable for cardamom?
I am looking for small size and lightweight mortar and pestle.
I checked online (amazon.in) and offline but all products are very heavy. I need a super lightweight mortar. Will that work well for cardamom pods?
If a light mortar is not suitable, what are the alternatives to crush cardamom?
Dear all, I now changed the focus of the question. There was some information in comments which indicated that there is some controversy about whether a light mortar is suitable at all, so I made the question about that - hopefully, it is more answerable now. Everybody is welcome to share their knowledge about the need (or lack of it) for weight in a mortar, and of course to post alternatives.
Cardamom (inner) seeds are fairly soft, and crush well in my olive wood mortar (the pestle is made of the same wood). Cracking the pods to get at the seeds is even easier.
Although olive is one of the hardest and densest woods, it's a lot lighter than ceramic or stone. Mine is similar to this one on Amazon UK (the pestle could be the same but the mortar is slightly different). Mango wood and beech are also used; they're only about half as hard as olive but should still be OK for cardamom. Unspecified wood is to be avoided as it could be very soft and not much use for spices.
The only thing I wouldn't use mine for is fenugreek, because the seeds are very hard indeed and tend to need impact rather than just pressure in a rocking/grinding motion. They might damage it but also the shape of the pestle isn't right for smacking the business end down onto them.
It's my spare as I avoid using utensils that will be damaged by the dishwasher, so it hasn't been heavily used. I sometimes cook properly when travelling with friends, and taking this one means a bit less weight in my already-heavy food crate, plus it's sure to be clean and dry when I pack. Typically when I'm cooking away from home I'll be crushing cardamom, coriander, and cumin, possibly mustard seeds for dhal or chilli. In the former I use a preground asafoetida/fenugreek mix which gets round the need to crush anything very hard. t's also fine for black pepper and allspice.
For small quantities of spices, I would recommend a Japanese suribachi. This is a small, lightweight, ceramic mortar and pestle designed for grinding sesame seeds and other small seeds, like cardamom. I have one, and I use it all the time if I just need to grind 1/2 tsp of spices.
Cardamom is not particularly difficult to grind, so almost any small mortar and pestle is going to work for you (provided that it works at all -- there are some non-functional ones sold as kitchen decorations).
Before hitting online stores, I'd suggest looking locally. If you have an Asian supermarket anywhere near you (any nationality of Asian), they are likely to sell several different mortars & pestles. For that matter, if you have local potters in your area some of them may make & sell ceramic ones.
Now you got me to wonder - are there "Asian supermarkets" in India? I suppose there must be some, at least in the big cities, but I doubt that "Asian" is used as the umbrella term.
Well, in India, all supermarkets are Asian supermarkets. I'd be surprised if OP couldn't find a small M&P locally. I know when Iived in Nepal that M&P of all sizes were readily available from pottery & cookware sellers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.449079
| 2023-03-27T06:01:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123747",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"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
}
|
114364
|
What was the original "Lea & Perrins" recipe from Bengal?
In the history of Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce it is claimed that
The story of Lea & Perrins famous Worcestershire Sauce begins in the early 1800s, in the county of Worcester. Returning home from his travels in Bengal, Lord Sandys, a nobleman of the area, was eager to duplicate a recipe he'd acquired.
Does anyone know what that original recipe from Bengal might have been? Are there any Bengali dishes that might have been the inspiration for Lea & Perrins?
The trouble with the Lea & Perrin's story & Lord Sandys' "original recipe" is that it is mainly myth/fable/advertising copy (I'd hate to outright call it a lie…)
Worcestershire Sauce originally was basically curry powder and water, with anchovy sauce. It didn't start from a Bengali sauce at all, it started from curry powder, which someone decided to mix with water.
The rest is kind of true; it was too strong when freshly-made but after having been abandoned in a cellar for some time, turned out more palatable.
It's never been impossible to copy, though perhaps difficult to get exactly the same. HP Sauce did a similar thing with a thick sauce - they went the fruit route; somebody was thinking of chutneys when they modified to arrive at that. Some companies make both, thick and thin. A million others make generic 'brown sauce' all tasting just about the same.
Interestingly, a later Lord Sandys himself later tried to cash in on the story - http://lordsandys.com/product-info/ though never really gained the worldwide reputation Lea & Perrin managed to solidify.
From the lovely, if rather dated in its HTML skills, Science of Cooking - Worcestershire Sauce
at the date of the legend, "Lord" Sandys was actually a Lady. No identifiable reference to her could possibly appear on a commercial bottled sauce without a serious breach of decorum. It is likely her heir who agreed to sell the recipe.
To abandon the unrevised legend and substitute a more accurate version that was published by Thomas Smith, Successful Advertising, (7th edition, 1885):
we quote the following history of the well-known Worcester Sauce, as given in the World. The label shows it is prepared "from the recipe of a nobleman in the country." The nobleman is Lord Sandys. Many years ago, Mrs. Grey, author of The Gambler's Wife and other novels, was on a visit at Ombersley Court, when Lady Sandys chanced to remark that she wished she could get some very good curry-powder, which elicited from Mrs. Grey that she had in her desk an excellent recipe, which her uncle, Sir Charles, Chief Justice of India, had brought thence, and given her. Lady Sandys said that there were some clever chemists in Worcester, who perhaps might be able to make up the powder. Messrs. Lea and Perrins looked at the recipe, doubted if they could procure all the ingredients, but said they would do their best, and in due time forwarded a packet of the powder. Subsequently the happy thought struck someone in the business that the powder might, in solution, make a good sauce. The profits now amount to thousands of pounds a year.
There's a second confirmation of this being the potentially "true story" at https://www.foodbeast.com/news/worcestershire-sauce-history/
There's also a BBC News story about a potential discovery of the original recipe - Recipes for secret sauce emerge which gives this as the ingredients list, but no detail on how they transformed that into the famous brown stuff…
Sauce ingredients:
water - 20 1/2 lbs
cloves - 2 lbs
salt - 10 lbs
sugar - 34 lbs
soy - 8 gallons
fish - 24 lbs
vinegar - 18 gallons
acetic acid - 2 gallons
essence of lemons - 8 oz
peppers - 5 lbs
tamoraide - 14 lbs
pickles - 40 lbs
I don't think there's really any doubt that Messrs Lea & Perrin took the beginnings of an idea and turned it into something rather spectacular, just that the 'origin story' is perhaps best left to the mists of time.
Interesting, but "...which elicited from Mrs. Grey that she had in her desk an excellent recipe, which her uncle, Sir Charles, Chief Justice of India, had brought thence..." Does imply that there was an original Indian recipe at one point.
Perhaps the 'Sir Charles' was Sir Charles Sargent (https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTMmcGFnZW5vPTE=)? The date seems to fit.
Or perhaps Sir Charles Arthur Turner? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Arthur_Turner)
That doesn't sound "left to the mists of time" it sounds like a solid, and plausible, origin story (the Elizabeth Grey one, that is) British sailors also brought back a taste for "katchup" back from SE Asia, which in the 19th century was a black sauce made from tamarind, spices, salt, and sometimes mushrooms (based on Malaysia's Kecap Manis). There was a lot of this sauce-making going on in the late 19th/early 20th century due to the British Raj.
Brown sauce and Worcestershire sauce really don't taste alike.
…yet they have a common origin.
@Tetsujin in your answer it sounds (to me, and presumably DrMcCleod) like you're saying generic brown sauce tastes the same as both HP sauce and lea & perrins, rather than that it tastes only like HP sauce (with generic worcestershire sauce tasting pretty similar to lea & perrins but not to HP sauce)
What is tamoraide? I assume it has something to do with tamarind, given the spelling and that L&P almost certainly contains tamarind, but I couldn't find any information about it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.449345
| 2021-02-17T18:07:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114364",
"authors": [
"Bloodgain",
"DrMcCleod",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"Tristan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114594
|
Capsaicin Measurements
I want to make a wicked spicy dish that involves Capsaicin, and regular chicken wings. I did the research to find two answers. "Capsaicin at the right amount can kill you" and "No amount of capsaicin can kill you but will result in massive pain".
My question is, for 20 decent wings, how much Capsaicin should I add to make it the equivalent to the taste and heat of a Carolina Reaper?
This sounds like an experiment destined to go badly wrong… why not just buy a bag of reapers, or put 6-10 habaneros or scotch bonnets in it instead (cost about $£€ 0.50)
because i dont want to go through the trouble of risking getting the juice in my eye but instead sprinkle some powder on the chicken.
What's the source of capsaicin going to be? Extracts don't behave the same way as peppers (or pepper pastes). They don't taste the same, either. You could theoretically produce wings using OC spray as an ingredient and measure it at the same SHUs as an actual Carolina Reaper wing sauce... but why would you do that? It would almost certainly be horrific.
The obvious best way for you to prepare hot wings with the spiciness and flavor of a Carolina Reaper sauce is to use Carolina Reaper peppers as an ingredient. And there's still a ton of room for variety in the sauce you get that way, so there's no clear goal for us to help you achieve.
If you're worried about handling the pepper then just buy jarred Carolina Reaper puree and use gloves and/or eye protection.
@Air I expect the results to be horrific, i just dont want the results to kill me or another person but instead inflict alot of heat and taste. I want to make the food so spicy it will do more than blow the socks off of someone.
Any powder or extract that spicy is going to present a serious hazard to you. Believe me, one reaper is going to destroy anyone eating it. If you want something ridiculously spicy there's plenty of bottled sauces on the market that you could just pour on.
Additionally, no powdered extract is going to taste like a chilli. It's going to be 'just heat'… which in itself isn't much fun. It just all sounds like some poor 'frat joke'. Why not pop round to the local Indian & get a phall? At least it will have some flavour & some of the more challenging places will give you it for free if you manage to eat it all.
Also, if you're worried about pepper juice: pure capsaicin crystals are WAY harder to handle. You're gonna need to wear gloves and eye protection to apply them.
So the start of this is pretty simple math.
Carolina Reaper flesh is around 2 million SHU.
Pure capsaicin is around 16 million SHU.
So reaper peppers are 1/8th the heat of pure capsaicin crystals.
But, the second part is more challenging. Do you want to suppliment the wings with 1/8 the volume, weight, or surface area of capsaicin powder? Weight is the easiest to figure; it would suggest that you want 13g of capsaicin per 102g average-sized wing.
However, what you bite into is the surface of the wing, and there's a good argument to be made that's where you're concerned with capsaicin density. This is harder to figure though, partly because there are no published stats on the average surface area of a chicken wing, nor the average dispersion of pure capsaicin crystals.
So the best approach is probably to handle this experimentally: start with half the weight calculation above, adding 6.5g of capsaicin per wing. Take a bite of chicken, wash your mouth out with two gallons of warm milk, and then take a bite of reaper pepper. Decide which is hotter, and adjust.
Oh, and probably talk to your doctor before attempting this.
I'm not sure where you came up with 13g of capsaicin, if you're saying it's 8X the power of reaper peppers then that's the equivalent of 104g of them per wing. Reapers average about 6 grams, so that's over 17 per wing, which is insane.
That's what the OP asked for. I agree it's insane.
Thank you, and yes, its insane, and i might regret it, but i also like experimenting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.449760
| 2021-03-04T17:08:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114594",
"authors": [
"Air",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joseph Casey",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91713"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115204
|
French culinary terminology for dicing vegetables
The French language has many specific words for cooking. What is the term used for food which is diced into tiny pieces?
The name depends on the sice of the dices. There are:
Brunoise as the smallest one with up to 1.5 mm
Jardiniere ~5 mm
Macédoine 5 to 7 mm
Parmentier 0.8 to 1 cm
Carré ~2cm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_culinary_knife_cuts
What the difference between Jardiniere and Mecédoine?
It seems Mecédoine can be slightly larger
Did you mean to type "8 to 1"? Seems like maybe that's a typo, but I couldn't find a reference in your link to confirm that.. If it's not a typo then please consider swapping the order of the numbers.
@Kat: The units were mixed up. It was 8mm to 1cm. Its fixed now.
From the French version of the aforementioned page, the techniques are:
en julienne : vegetables are cut in thin striped
en dés : this results in cube-like pieces
en allumettes : the result should be similar to matches (hence the name). While the julienne just means "stripes", en allumettes requires the pieces to be parallelipipedic.
Preparations are named according to their ingredients:
macedoine is a colorful preparation of with legumes cut en dés (approximately 0.5cm)
brunoise means vegetables or fruits are cut en dés of around 2cm each
mirepoix is a combination of carrots, onion and celeriac
I believe you mean celery rather than celeriac in your definition of mirepoix.
Also, some terms are quite illustrative: "dés" means dices, "allumettes" means "matches".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.450128
| 2021-04-10T20:09:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115204",
"authors": [
"J. Mueller",
"Jonathan",
"Kat",
"Lauloque",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96840"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46568
|
When do you hear the Ping sound of the lid sealing?
I am new to canning. I made applesauce this morning and I pulled them out of the water bath and put them on a towel on my counter to seal, but I never heard the "ping" sound of them sealing shut. When does that usually occur? In the water bath? After the water bath? And if so, how long after you pull it out does that usually take? 5 min or 2 hours?
The real goal is for the lid to turn concave. They're manufactured to be convex (sticking up in the middle). If they're concave on the jar, that means there's a difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the jar causing the lid to be sucked downward.
If the jar has cooled significantly, and the lid is still convex, you could try pushing down lightly on the lid. If it doesn't stay down, you don't have a good seal.
Better: even if it stays down, but you can pull it up with a single fingernail, then it isn't sealed. A properly sealed jar is sealed much too tight for you to gain leverage via your fingernail on that tiny lip. I myself need to use an appropriated beer–bottle opener.
There's no real exact time it happens (at least in my kitchen). I've had some jars that come out of the water with the lid depressed and others that take many hours. By the next morning, they should be cooled with the lids depressed. If they aren't, then they should be reprocessed or refrigerated to be eaten right away. :)
Some of the lids don't make much of a ping sound when they go concave.
I’ve had mine ping almost immediately up to an hour later, give or take. Press on the middle and if you hear or see any movement, it didn’t seal. If it’s flat/ slightly concave and doesn’t move, it’s sealed. Did you put the lids on and only finger tighten the rings? After you take them out, carefully (so not to get burned) tighten the rings. That’s important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.450309
| 2014-08-21T17:01:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46568",
"authors": [
"Aarti Sirpal",
"Alvin Cheng",
"Anthony Aquino",
"BHARADWAJ KALAICHELVI",
"Dawn Carlson",
"Mary Morgan",
"Nei Taa Takirua",
"Trinity Jones",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"can-ned_food",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"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
}
|
41282
|
Salty Chili and too spicy
I cooked chili with lime/chili pepper seasonings. It's too salty and too spicy. How do I fix it?
The seasonings were packaged by Whole Foods, called Tequila Lime Seasonings
What are the seasonings? Were they seasoning blends? If so, they may have contained additional salt. If you can, please edit your question to be more specific.
possible duplicate of How can you make a sauce less spicy/hot?
It's actually fairly difficult to fix directly; your best option is to try to add something sweet; you can try just tomatoes, but could also cook together some carrots (finely chopped), bell pepper and onions until well softened and the onions have browned some and then mix that into the chili. You may need quite a lot depending on how far past palletable the chili is. It may be easier to add sugar directly, but too much and it won't seem like chili anymore.
Serving it with something with fat in it will help to cut the spiciness of the chili (avocado, sour cream, cheese), and may help with the saltiness (if it isn't a really salty cheese).
For the saltiness problem, I'd be inclined to serve the chili over something else that's fairly bland, such as a baked potato, which will help with both problems. You could also go with cincinatti style, and serve it over pasta (possibly with beans, but if they're canned beans, make sure to rinse them well so you're not adding back in too much sauce).
Thank you, Joe. The seasonings were packaged by Whole Foods, called Tequila Lime Seasonings. I fixed it by adding ketchup, light brown sugar and Worcestershire Sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.450534
| 2014-01-20T00:15:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41282",
"authors": [
"Bindra",
"KatieK",
"Momofpixie",
"Phil_T",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96935"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45147
|
Is it possible to keep puff pastry dough in the fridge for future use?
I made puff pastry but there's extra dough in my kitchen that I don't want to make more Torte Milanese for which I needed puff pastry. The extra dough doesn't contain butter and is not the required dough yet. Where and how to keep it for future use?
We don't do recipe requests, but your question about keeping it in the fridge is acceptable :)
@Yamikuronue: As you've probably noticed, I said "name" it and didn't ask for a recipe.
So what you've got is just flour, salt and water, right?
Right @Jolenealaska
@gigili we also don't accept "suggest a dish which I can make with ingredient X" type of question, so Yamikuronue was correct in removing that part.
I would finish the butter folding, then freeze it.
The dough will keep 2-3 days only in the fridge. Freeze and defrost when you need it and it will keep for a month or more. Just wrap it well to prevent off flavors and freezer burn.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.450715
| 2014-06-26T15:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45147",
"authors": [
"24justice Dubai",
"DrRandy",
"Gigili",
"Horst Kruppa",
"John Burns",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ryan James",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"rumtscho",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7438
|
What is a substitute for going to culinary school? Is there?
We live in the information age. What can I do to learn everything that I would learn in culinary school, but use the available resources that are out there?
Watch the Food Network.
@roux: Mario Batali is hands down the best regular chef they have.
Start cooking with a grandma of the particular ethnic variety whos cooking you are interested in learning.
One resource I'm impressed with is Rouxbe.com, which is an "online cooking school" with truly excellent video content. (Disclosure: I'm an affiliate, though I haven't earned anything from it - I only signed up because I think it is great, I don't refer anything just to hope to make a buck). That link will give you a 14 day free trial. The thing I like is that it is broken down into really small, highly detailed sections, and the video is HD and shot extremely close up on the hands and pots so you can really see what is happening.
that's actually a pretty cool site/concept
I accepted the answer, but I want to say that a combination of learning the proper skills and practicing A LOT as some of the other answers have alluded to is probably the way to go.
Upvote for chris (I don't have the rep yet). Though I'm no longer in the culinary industry, I graduated from a cooking school (Scottsdale Culinary Institute) a number of years ago and worked in a couple of high-end kitchens (namely, Christopher Gross). If you want to cook at home, watch Food Network and read cooking books/magazines. However, if you think you want to cook professionally, an apprenticeship under a good chef is hard to beat. Cooking is hard work in any kitchen, but it's even harder when the standards of flavor, texture, and presentation approach perfection with every plate.
So if you fall into the latter category, my advice is to go work for the best chef you can find. Take a low wage if you have to, stay motivated, and do as many different things as you can, because you're there to learn, not fund a new television (that will come later with success).
Good luck!
Based on my reading, (Buford, Bourdain, etc.) The only way to really learn how to cook is to intern in a restaurant. It's not about recipes, it's about being forced to cut 50 pounds of onions in 2 hours, and about grilling 60 steaks in an evening. It's about being able to sense when something is done. There is no substitute for being thrown to the wolves.
I suppose you could volunteer at a soup kitchen, which would give you a near equivalent experience (although you wouldn't be exposed to the higher end of cuisine.)
The next thing you can do is eat at good restaurants. Deconstruct the dish, and try it or something similar at home.
I think that cooking lots of the same things over and over is key. Practice makes perfect. You rarely get a chance to do that when cooking dinner for two.
http://ruhlman.com/2010/09/so-you-wanna-be-a-chef—-by-bourdain-2.html
Stackexchange ate your link. Here's a short one: http://tinyurl.com/2e6kswo
Great, great essay. (So You Wanna be a Chef) It should be required reading for anyone who thinks they want to be a "serious" chef.
This is not true there are many great chefs who never worked in a restaurant. How many of our mothers and grandmothers and aunts were and still are great cooks, even if they never worked at a restaurant before
As you're assessing your resources, remember that the one thing school always gives you, books can't give you, and the internet rarely gives you: feedback.
For casual learning, books and trial and error are fine. Since you specifically asked about the caliber of skill that comes from culinary school though, you'll want feedback from people who are more advanced than you are, not just information. (Sites like this one are certainly a start.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.450956
| 2010-09-19T14:06:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7438",
"authors": [
"AttilaNYC",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Gail West",
"Ganeshwara Herawan Hananda Put",
"John",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew",
"Neil Meyer",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"jjnguy",
"lostinthespiral",
"milesmeow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9507
|
What is the best way to clean an electric fryer?
I have a Rival RCF15 fryer. I lost the manual and can't find a copy online. It has a fixed metal reservoir for the oil. It has a removable basket. I remember the manual saying something about not exposing the heating element to water, so I've been cautious about cleaning it.
Fast forward a few years, the fryer is coated with a layer or brown oil...mostly on the inside, and some on the outside(which is made of plastic). What would you guys recommend for cleaning this?
Should I just throw this away and get a better model that's easier to clean?
Is the heating element removable and is the entire inside surface metal?
Restaurant supply stores carry degreaser, which will remove the brown baked on oil. However, that oil isn't hurting your cooking at all. It is the same thing that forms on cast iron skillets, but it isn't objectionable because you don't notice the color against the black of the cast iron. If it works I'd continue to use it.
If you are thinking of changing, you might want to consider the cast iron Dutch Oven route. They hold their heat better than consumer deep fryers and a Dutch oven can do more than just deep fry. And they are easier to clean.
I am not an expert with fryer, but I have a simple way of cleaning most of the kitchenwares.
For inside:
I would try to put in a mixture of water and dish washing powder. Leave the mixture inside the fryer for about 1 - 2 hours and you should see the grease start to come out. Then pour the water out and use a brush with clean water to try cleaning out the greasy bits.
For outside:
A small amount of detergent with warm water should clean outside should do the job.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.451315
| 2010-11-27T00:00:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9507",
"authors": [
"Ian McKellar",
"J. Alfred Prufrock",
"Kirsten",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"kevmus",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11758
|
Doubling a batch of soup
Straying from the printed recipe still makes me a little twitchy, so I ask you, gentle cooks (chefs?):
Can I safely double the cooking time? (In this case, it's a split pea soup, dried split peas - used 2 lbs instead of 1, and doubled everything else)
On a side note, the pot I picked is somewhat undersized for a double batch, as it turns out. The broth is nearly to the lip of the pot. Other than making sure it doesn't boil over during the simmer phase, is this a bad thing?
Re the pot size, as long as it doesn't boil over and make a mess, there is no problem with a soup like this going up to the rim.
Kara, you shouldn't need to adjust the cooking time at all. If the recipe says to bring to a simmer and then cook for 45 minutes, it will probably take longer to come to a simmer, but once it is there, you can leave it for 45 minutes.
The best recipes (in my opinion) will give you a time as a guideline, but the real instruction will be some target like "until 160 degrees" or "until peas begin to break down". If your recipe has that, you can look for those cues at roughly the same time the recipe suggests.
edit: I forgot to mention the pot size issue. It shouldn't be a problem. The two issues you could encounter would be:
boiling over
temperature variation
The former you're aware of already; the latter issue is that the soup at the top of the pot could be a bit colder than lower down. The two solutions are:
use a lid (this keeps the heat in)
stir periodically (this keeps both the heat and the peas better distributed)
Good advice, the only other thing I would add is to pay attention to the recipe if it calls for some particular reduction, or something like 'once it reduces X%'. This might also mean you may need to adjust the hardware/heat you're cooking with.
Quite right, cooking time and temperature are almost never scaled with a recipe, and if they are, it's generally only by a very small amount to compensate for having too small a vessel.
@mfg, very good point. It will certainly take longer if attempting to reduce.
@Aaronut, I agree as long as we're talking about soups. If you have a bigger roast, it will definitely take much longer, although the relationship is not linear. Soup is somewhat unique in this respect because (1) the size of pieces of food to be cooked are the same regardless of quantity (2) water conducts the heat quite well, so the soup can cook evenly.
Cuts of meat are a different beast altogether; in those cases you have to be able to understand which measurements are tied to volume and which are tied to surface area. But you really should be cooking meat with a thermometer anyway - cooking times are rough guidelines to begin with.
@Aaronut: indeed!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.451495
| 2011-02-02T15:10:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11758",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Capsicum Online",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ray",
"bitefright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"lambshaanxy",
"mfg",
"monkitman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9175
|
What to look for when choosing a dutch oven?
I've never had nor used a dutch oven, but I have a pile of recipes I want to try that require one. Are these all pretty similar? Or are there things I should look for in a good dutch oven? Or will it depend on what I plan to make? (just soups & stews so far)
(might be this should be CW, but I don't have the option here yet)
I'd say there are basically two material options. Plain (seasoned) cast iron or enameled cast iron. I prefer enameled, because you don't have to worry about keeping them seasoned--just wash as you would any other pot--and the enamel surface is easy to get clean. But they're also more expensive by a significant margin. A properly maintained plain cast iron one will be awesome too, and do everything enameled will do for less money, so don't rule it out.
What you should consider:
The foremost thing you want to look for is a heavy pot. Heavy bottom AND heavy sides and lid. You want something that holds a lot of heat when you need it to, and heavier often means more even heating and better searing (crucial for braises and pot roasts).
Consider the lid. It should fit well, without gaps or sliding around. Some have loop handles on the side or on the top, some have a knob on the top. All are fine, but keep in mind that a metal lid handle will be more durable with all the oven time your dutch oven will likely see. They say the plastic ones are OK (Le Creuset, a trusted brand, uses them so they can't be that bad) but I'm not 100% convinced. Whatever handle you get, think about how easy it'll be to grasp wearing an oven mitt.
Handles on the pot itself are a potential issue. Some plain cast iron pots will have a bucket-style bail handle, which I don't think is that great for the kitchen, especially the oven. These are really intended for campfires and camp stoves, so I'd avoid them. Sturdy, compact but easy-to-grip handles of any type are good. It'll be heavy, so make sure you feel secure holding on.
Size is another consideration, and it's a tough one because it's so individual. I think between 5.5 and 6.5 quarts is pretty standard and works for most cooks. A dutch oven isn't like a stock pot, where big is always good. You want one big enough to cook the things you want, but you don't want it to be too huge for what you have in there, or you'll give up a lot of cooking liquid to evaporation too fast. This is less crucial for soups and stews (I'd do soup in a regular stock pot), but for a braise it's kind of important. So I would resist going too small, but don't go too far, especially if you're always cooking for two people. Also, bigger = heavier, so don't let your eyes get bigger than your muscles!
Another option is shape, as they generally come in round or oval. Oval sometimes helps people who can't decide how big to go. With roasts being generally oblong, an oval pan can fit a proportionally larger roast without getting really huge. With a round pot, your whole pot needs to be at least as big around as your roast is long. Ovals are a little less common, however, and generally don't come as big as round ones. They're often more expensive too.
Finally, don't compromise too much on size or cost. Any halfway decent dutch oven, properly looked after, will last much longer than you will. Make sure you're getting what you want, because you'll be living with your decision a long time.
This is really fantastic, thank you! I ran out and picked one up today. Your input completely prepared me for the dizzying array of options.
I'm glad you found it helpful.
Le Crueset says, "Phenolic [plastic] knobs and handles are oven safe to 375°F / 190°C." So the plastic handles do limit temps that can be used versus metal. I've upgraded both my pots to stainless handles on top. (About $10 each, USD.) Agree that around 5 or 6 quarts is a good everyday size. I find having a second, bigger 7 quart, pot handy for entertaining, perparing food for potlucks etc. But it is a bit of a luxury item for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.451764
| 2010-11-16T14:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9175",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Donald.McLean",
"Kara Marfia",
"Matt Joiner",
"Rachel",
"Shannon Severance",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11321
|
Do oven door liners commonly need replacing?
The first time I used the "self clean" setting on this oven, the strip of padding around the oven door ... puffed out? Heat leaks out ever since, even to the point where the oven light will sometimes pop on with the door closed. I bought an oven thermometer, and if I wedge the door closed with a drawer, it seems to hold the correct temperature.
Is it simple & common to replace that liner? Or am I overreacting and there's nothing really wrong with the drawer method? I'll admit, it IS handy to be able to blame the gimpy oven door any time a baking project doesn't turn out quite right. ;)
That sure doesn't sound normal to me, especially if it happened the very first time. Is it still under warranty?
Definitely doesn't sound normal. I'd contact the manufacturer.
Sadly, this was a few years ago. Until my back went out, I think we used the oven 2-6 times per year, tops, and never really understood why we had to keep things in the oven so long... wups!
For quite a while, I used a bungee cord to hold the oven door shut in a crappy apartment. It stayed out of the way and never caught fire, but I wasn't terribly happy about it either...
I have never known anyone to replace them. Not me, not my mother (who used hers every other day almost). So no, that does not seem to be a normal thing. Contact the store!
The strip is called a 'gasket' or sometimes an 'oven door seal', and you can get replacements (even online), if you're willing to make the repair yourself.
I don't know how difficult it'd be, it likely depends on the manufacturer and model.
I'd personally not recommend wedging the door shut ... that just seems like a potential hazard to me ... even if it's just someone walking through the kitchen and running into it.
Thanks guys, I'll get hold of the manufacturer. Maybe they'll feel bad about it, if it's not a common problem & simple repair.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.452088
| 2011-01-21T14:11:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11321",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Charles London",
"Emanuele Raineri",
"Georgie",
"Kara Marfia",
"Shog9",
"Wei Xia",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36905
|
How to pack items that may leak liquids for lunch?
Today my husband packed me some shrimp burritos for lunch. They were very tasty, but unfortunately, a lot of liquid drained from them between morning and lunchtime, so the bottom burrito in the pile was too soggy to eat without a knife and fork. Is there a better way to pack foods of this type so that they retain their expected consistency?
Which burrito component leaked the liquid?
@KatieK I'm not sure. Possible the shrimp or the onions.
Pretty sure you didn't actually mean "leech" or even "leach" - I edited the title with my best guess...
For your situation I would recommend packing the burritos individually (or 2 at once) so this does not happen. You can achieve this by using foil, plastic wrap, or bags. Alternatively, you may try putting a sheet of wax paper (or foil/plastic wrap - but remove before microwaving) between each layer of burritos.
If this does not work for you, try the following:
Here are two methods that can be used to try to preserve expected consistency:
The easiest, and most sure to actually work:
Store the components that are wet and going to leak liquid in a different container. Unfortunately, this may involve you having to build your burrito when you want to eat it, yet this is sure to prevent a soggy burrito.
To do this you can use separate containers, bags, or however you normally package a burrito. One can also purchase plastic food containers with multiple compartments specifically made for this purpose (separation of different food items). For an example, here is a product listed on Amazon.
The second way:
This isn't a long-term fix nor is it as efficient as a multi-compartment food container. One can strategically build certain food items so that they are less likely to make bread or tortillas soggy. You have to place a food item, that will not let the bread absorb the liquid as quickly, next to the bread. The best example I can give you is that when I make a BLT sandwich that I am not going to eat immediately, I place the lettuce right next to the bread instead of putting the tomato right next to the bread. The lettuce provides a barrier between the two. Like I said though, it will not be as efficient as multi-compartment food containers.
In this case, only the burrito on the "bottom" of a "pile" was soggy, so I think that the factors were either the weight of the other burritos, or their "juice" moving down the pile and collecting on the bottom burrito. I would recommend wrapping each burrito individually, say in plastic wrap, foil or butcher paper.
@djmadscribbler This is true, I misread the OP. Edited to better answer question.
There were two large burritos in a tupperware and in the bottom was a decent amount of brownish liquid. The top burrito I could pick up, the bottom one I could not.
I often take burritos for lunch at work. It microwaves great and it's filling.
What I do is wrap the burrito in foil and put it in the freezer this way I can take it in a plastic bag with the container for the other ingredients of the meal (rice,salad,etc')
I found putting the burritos in the freezer overnight and then putting them in the fridge at work preserves them in nearly perfect condition since by the time I get to eat them they are 90% thawed.
I usually do this with chicken and beef but I suppose it won't hurt the shrimp too badly either.
Shrimp, especially pre-cooked ones you get from most supermarkets, are full of water so they are the most likely culprit. The only sure-fire way to avoid a soggy burrito is to avoid ingredients that may make them soggy, this limits the list of ingredients somewhat but there's still loads to chose from. Otherwise you will have to pack the ingredients separately and put it all together before eating, which is a bit of a pain if all you want is a grab and go meal.
Alternatively you could put in ingredients what will absorb moisture. Anything dried like fruits (tomatoes included), dessicated coconut, or freeze-dried anything will absorb a bit. Whether that's the flavor you want is another story.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.452285
| 2013-09-18T16:23:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36905",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"KatieK",
"Patrick Sebastien",
"Yamikuronue",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15231
|
Can I use a larger crockpot than the recipe calls for?
I have a recipe that calls for use of a 4 qt crockpot. However, I only have a 6 qt. Is it okay to use the 6 qt instead? The recipe is for a pudding cake.
@hobodave This question is the opposite of the duplicate you picked. I think "Can I use a larger crockpot than called for" is different from "Can I use a smaller crockpot than called for".
I also disagree with the closing. I think there are some good answers available here about not only scaling recipes, but also about how to deal with excessive evaporation, etc., when your recipe is significantly smaller than your crockpot.
I agree. I didn't spot the difference right away either, but it is in fact a different question. I would prefer to see one comprehensive answer about crockpot scaling in general, and then we can merge the two questions (they are honestly very hard to tell apart, despite not being exact duplicates).
If you keep the lid on, it shouldn't make much difference in practice.
The thing to watch is that the larger surface area and heat supply of the 6 qt pot might make the recipe cook a little quicker than it would in a 4 qt pot, and also make it dry out quicker than it should (which is why you need the lid on). Just take a look after about two thirds of the time and decide if you should add a little water, or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.452604
| 2011-06-04T12:04:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15231",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Lear",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"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
}
|
15401
|
Cookies called monte cows?
A family member recently inherited a recipe for some simple but delicious crumbly cookies from her grandmother. They consist of flour, sugar, and canola oil with cinnamon on top.
The grandmother in question calls them "monte cows". No one knows the correct pronunciation, meaning or origin of the name. Does something by a similar name exist? What is it really called and why?
can you post the full recipe.... the things you listed are basically the building blocks for quite a few thing.
@sarge_smith I still don't have all the details, but I have edited the ingredients to reflect new information. The thing I would most like to find out is the correct name of these cookies that is being approximated by the name in the title.
My guess would be the actual word is "Montague" which is a very common French name. In this case there are unfortunately a large number of possible origins: Based on a person or cookbook author by that name, based on a coffee-shop with that name, in honour of some famous person with that name, etc....
The way my French boyfriend and French roommate (both with Spanish grandmothers) pronounce the name, it does sound like "Monte Cows," or "monte cailloux." As far as I have been explained this cookie have resulted from a mix ofMuslim/Ottoman cuisine and Spanish cuisine; it's definitely not French. It is also affectionately referred to as a "poor person's cookie" because of its super-simple ingredients.
The recipe is a simple ratio of 3:2:1 -- 3 parts flour, two parts sugar, one part oil (we've used canola or peanut, both work well). We've used measuring cups or just regular mugs or even small bowls and it has worked every time. If they're a tiny bit dry and crumble too easily when you're shaping them, adding a tiny bit more oil helps keep everything together. Cinnamon sprinkled on top is great, and I tried adding a tiny half-teaspoon of almond extract once.
Mantecado (Montecado) maybe? Does this look like it?
A random recipe.
Google Search
Montecao or montecado are little crumbly cookies that originated in spain.
They are very appreciated through Europe and spain colonies.
In the ancient tradition montecao were made with pig fat to prevent muslim to eat them (a very very very long time ago...)
Now more popular with vegetable oil.
I make them quite often. They are delicious. One time I tried to replace the oil by butter and it was awful.
It's exciting to find this post. Our family also has a recipe called Montecows. This is how we spell it too. None of us know the real spelling. Our family is of Spanish origin from the areas around Ronda and Malaga. Our recipe must have been much enhanced through time by our family. By the time it got to my grandmother it included peanut butter, lemon rind, and solid shortening instead of oil. It is the one all of us remember and enjoy. The shortening works well for our cookie, which is dry and crumbly too.
My grandmother made them as well and brought the recipe over from Spain. They were made with anise and lard. Not healthy but they melted in your mouth. I actually had a request for them recently from my uncle, so I'm going to try finding the recipe. We pronounced it Monthecows but not sure how it is actually spelled.
My Grandmother was from Madrid, Spain. She use to make these cookies a lot for me. She too pronounced them Monte-Cows. She used all the same ingrediences, but insted of cinnamon she coated them with powdered sugar. She also used a bit of sherry and port wine to bind it together and add flavor. They all where cutouts of animals (cookie cutters) and they where mostly made for holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Birthdays. Yes, they where a poor persons way of baking and used as a gift as well in a basket. These items where cheap in the very early 1900s - my grandma was born in 1908.
My Grandmother made these and my family still makes them. Yes from Spain, northern region. We spell them Montecaos. Recipe is lard, sugar, flour, anise, and eggs. Save one egg white to wash on top and sprinkle with sugar. Mix with hands and roll out, we use cookie cutters of spade, heart, diamond and club.
Talon8's answer makes sense, since "Manteca" is the spanish word for "fat", as in some sort of cooking fat (e.g. oil, butter, margerine, shortening). "Matntecado" could be roughly translated as "Buttered". The pronunciation would be man-te-ca-do (soft "a" as in apple, soft "e" as in egg, strong "o" as in Oh!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.452744
| 2011-06-12T13:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15401",
"authors": [
"Beth Keitel",
"Brian Merkosky",
"Carolynn58",
"El L",
"Gordon",
"John Duffner",
"Neceros",
"The Dag",
"WAF",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85911",
"mbocek",
"ppvi",
"sarge_smith",
"user2215",
"user32597"
],
"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
}
|
15175
|
What's the difference between jam, jelly, and preserves?
I assume the difference in name is due to their cooking processes, but am unsure what exactly makes them different.
also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3027/67 (that specific answer, the question itself has a whole lot of unrelated definitions)
according to the Ball canning book (paraphrasing)...
JAM is made by cooking crushed or chopped fruits with sugar, and is made of one fruit or a combination of fruits, is spreadable, and is firm but will not hold the shape of the jar.
JELLY is made from juice strained from fruit, usually prepared in a way to keep it crystal clear, and is gelatinized enough to hold is shape when removed from the jar, yet is still spreadable.
PRESERVES are fruit preserved with sugar so it retains its shape, is transparent, shiny, tender and plump. the syrup generally has the consistency of honey, and a true preserve will not hold its shape when spooned from the jar.
to add to the confusion, i'll also add their descriptions of...
CONSERVES, which are jam-like and made of a combination of one or more fruits, nuts and raisins, cooked until it rounds up on the spoon.
MARMALADES are a soft jelly containing pieces of fruit and peel evenly suspended in a transparent jelly. similar in structure to jam.
:) nicely succinct and still informatively complete
thanks! but i give credit to Ball. i tried to come up with an answer relying only on my memory, and that didn't work, so i had to haul out my book and check. : )
Just to add even more to the confusion, you should probably include chutney too!
Just to stir the bucket and muddy the water even more - http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1404/red-onion-marmalade
An additional note: The cooking process is pretty much the same for jam, jelly, marmalade, preserves & conserves. It is the preparation of the fruit which makes the difference in the final product.
From Gregory McNamee's article VQR:
Jelly is mostly made up of gelatin, pectin, or some other gelling agent that is added to fruit that has been cooked until it is soft and its solids have been strained out, often to transparency.
Jam is cooked like jelly, but the fruit solids are pureed or mashed and kept in the mixture.
Preserves similarly contain cooked fruits, except that the fruit solids are left in chunks rather than pureed.
From a practical perspective jelly shouldn't have seeds while jam might. I object to the texture of raspberry jam and prefer jelly, but the the seeds in strawberry jam don't bother me.
WiseGeek has an excellent article about it that also addresses nutritional value and common uses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.453221
| 2011-06-01T02:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15175",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cynthia Douglas G",
"James Barrie",
"Joe",
"Michelle Sampson",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roderick van de Ven",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80961
|
Prevent gummi bears from drying out
I have tried making gummi bears but have the problem that they dry out very fast. I'd like to make gummi bears that could be eaten for a couple days. After five days they dried out so much it was impossible to chew them anymore.
Am I missing some other ingredient to prevent it from drying out after just a couple days? This is the recipe I used
0.5 liter water
20 g gelatine
1 teaspoon salt
325 g sugar (65%)
A dash of glucose syrup
Flavoring
Maybe it's more a matter of storing them than of the recipe?
I've looked at the ingredient lists of several commercial Gummy bears. They all seem to include an oil or wax that could be a mold release agent, or a moisture retention covering. It might also help to add a few ml of Glycerin, a humectant, to your recipe. Humectant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humectant
I am a bit surprised here, since freshly made gummy bears don't taste like store bought, so people usually complain of the opposite thing (texture not dry enough when eaten fresh). Do you want them to have a jello texture, or do you want them to be like storebought but find that they are even drier?
It takes a pretty thick plastic bag to keep water in gummis. I use 6 mil zip locks, kept in an airtight plastic box, and get a lifetime of about a month.
You need a recipe that includes significant glycerin.
As a humectant it'll help your gummis retain water, chewiness.
Ro store the things, you'll need thick 5-6mil ziplocks. Thinner than that and water leaches out pretty quickly.
If you get a bag that's gone dry, you can simply add enough water to bring it up to its fresh weight, reseal the bag, and wait 3-4 days for the water to sink in.
Your stale gummis should be good as new.
Try 50/50 sugar corn syrup. The corn syrup may help with retention
You can do the same thing as baked goods and seal them in with a piece of moist bread or orange peel just be warned it will change the aroma of whatever is sealed with it. I.E.bread is better with baked goods and orange peel would be better with the gummy bears.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.453474
| 2017-04-16T11:32:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80961",
"authors": [
"Robert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109544
|
Same spaghetti sauce recipe for over 30 years
I’ve been making the same spaghetti sauce for over 30 years and everybody loves it! But,the last 6+ times that I have made it it tastes acidic. I can’t figure out why. It’s a very Basic recipe using tomato sauce, a can of whole tomatoes, a can of tomato soup to cut the acidity ( I know that sounds weird but it works) onion garlic, etc I use a little chicken broth and red wine if I have it handy. I always use my Dutch oven to cook it. I add meat balls the last hour or so. Does anyone have any idea as to why the flavor is different now??
Welcome! It may sound trivial, but have you changed brands of one or multiple of your ingredients?
& what's covered by the "etc" ?
In addition to @Stephie 's comment - have you changed your lifestyle in some manner recently - e.g. given up smoking or drinking, taken up exercise, new medication? Those sorts of things can have a big impact on "taste" and smell perception.
I'm fairly certain that we had a similar question in the last year or so (about tomato sauce suddenly not coming out the way it had for years), but I'm not having luck finding it. But you might also want to see the 5th question ever asked on this site : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5/67
@bob1 : Is there anyone who hasn't changed their lifestyle in the past few months? (I'm a long-haired introvert with a well-stocked pantry who lives alone and works from home ... and even I had to make a couple of changes. But that was mostly because I was sick for all of February & most of March).
I'm assuming multiple people are tasting the acidity.
Different tinned tomatoes can have widely different acidity. These seem like a much more likely source for acid than any other ingredient, even the red wine. The soup is likely to be fairly neutral. The onion, garlic (and probably other soffrito) are somewhat alkaline. Can't imagine you've lacto-fermented your chicken broth or your meatballs.
OT but there's some great threads on balancing acidity already.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.453664
| 2020-07-08T18:27:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109544",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117797
|
Taiyaki not forming correctly
I've been practicing making Taiyaki and my recipe seems to work. But I recently changed it a bit to make the batter chocolate flavored.
Here's the recipe I used:
60g All purpose flour
55g Sweet rice flour
10g Cocoa powder
40g Sugar
8g Baking powder
3g Salt
1 Egg
200ml Milk
3ml Vanilla
I fill one side of the taiyaki mold with a thin layer of batter, add the filling, then cover it up with more batter. I close the mold, flip it and let it cook for a few minutes. When I open it, one of two things happen:
The mold isn't completely filled even though I put batter all the way to the top. I end up with 3/4 of the fish.
or
Both sides are filled but when I open the mold, the taiyaki is split in half - like it didn't seal or each side cooked on its own and now I end up with two halves of the fish.
Note that the technique I do works well with the plain batter (not chocolate flavored). Is there something wrong with the recipe or am I doing something else wrong?
What were the changes you made to recipe to make it chocolate? A change that affects pH could affect the amount of rise you get, or it could have been a moisture or textural change. It'll be hard to answer definitively without knowing what your exact change was to make the plain batter chocolatey
Hi. Did you replace some of the flour with the cocoa powder in your adjusted recipe?
I replaced 5g of flour with 10g cocoa powder. The plain batter had 65g flour.
Since you say that you replaced some of the wheat flour with cocoa powder, that might explain it.
My theory:
In comparison to wheat flour, cocoa powder contains no gluten. Gluten is the glue that helps hold baked products together, making them less crumbly/fragile. Also, cocoa powder contains less starch than wheat flour.
In addition to the reduction in gluten and starch, cocoa powder also generally contains much more fat than flour. Unfortunately fat acts as a shortening agent, making the finished product more cake-like and crumbly, and fat can also inhibit gluten development.
I fear you've basically changed the composition of the batter too much, making the finished product too fragile to remove from the mould in one piece.
A possible fix:
Use a wheat flour with a higher gluten content such as bread flour, in order to help compensate for the addition of cocoa powder. Maybe also let the mixture stand a little while longer before pouring it into your moulds. A little extra time can also help develop the gluten.
I have the feeling that this may require some trial and error. I make no promises that it will actually work. Maybe test using a small batch so you don't waste too much of your ingredients while experimenting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.453853
| 2021-11-09T02:07:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117797",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Ann",
"Billy Kerr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96374"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116004
|
Are heavy-bottom stock pots called something else?
I would quite like to get hold of a large stock pot with a thick base so I can make things like preserves as well, but whenever I look at kitchenware in my local shops (I'm in NZ if that makes a difference) the stock pots I see always have very thin bases, no thicker than the walls. Are the ones with heavier bases called something else, or am I just finding poor quality pots?
You don't need a thick base to make preserves.
Aluminium pots which are marketed as induction compatible have (perforated) iron disk attached to the bottom making it thicker than the walls.
Ask your local curry house where they get theirs
Try searching for "laminated base pot", alternatively 'sandwich' or 'encapsulated'.
Other terms tend to be more trade markey, multiclad etc.
You could always buy a cheap pot & an even cheaper simmer ring instead ;)
Also try "sandwich base" (seems to be generic rather than a brand-specific term) , and search on simple the size you'd like, e.g. "10 litre sandwich base pot" - some perfectly suitable ones don't have "stock" in the name
Yup. I dropped 'stock' from the answer. Added sandwich & encapsulated
I don’t know if the nomenclature is different in New Zealand, but you might consider an enameled ‘Dutch oven’. They’re typically cast iron, coated in enamel to make them easier to clean / less reactive. Unfortunately, they’re quite heavy, and they don’t tend to have the same proportions as a stock pot (they’re more squat versus the tall and skinny stock pots). And the ones from France tend to be quite expensive, but there are a lot of alternative brands these days
Another option is ‘tri-ply’ pans in which they look like stainless steel, but it’s actually stainless around a core of some more thermally conductive material, such as copper. ‘All clad’ is the original brand for this, but some more reasonable priced competitors have been available for the past 5 years or so
Then there are lots of brands that put a disk of copper or aluminum on the bottom of the pan. It’s usually pretty obvious on inspection— either a different color on the outside bottom, or a blatant disk that doesn’t smoothly transition to the sides of the pot
I would recommend going to a store, finding a sales person and specifically explaining what you want. It’s entirely possible that they won’t have any true ‘stock pots’ like you’re looking for, but they likely have pots in slightly different form factors that match your need. And you might want to add a spatter screen.
Also known as marmite, yes, really, try searching for that.
Expect to spend a lot of money, maybe try an upmarket store. Those orange cast-iron ones from France are excellent.
They are, but they're not that big, and wouldn't be liftable if they were (my stock pots are stainless with sandwich bases, from ikea, and are 5 and 10 litres. My bigger Le Creuset is about 4l, and much larger sizes are rare and shockingly expensive.
My big Le Creuset must be about 5l. But I've had it a few decades... For very big jobs I use the pressure cooker, which is huge and heavy, just without all the inside bits. Since we got an induction hob I had to give away all my really big pans. :-(
5l is the biggest I've handled. Looking at their website, their biggest oval cast iron pan is bigger (at 13.9l) than their biggest stainless stock pot (10.4l). But it's 12kg empty and £475. I'm still on gas for the foreseeable future. If I do go electric I'll find a way to get a mixture of induction and halogen/resistive, for versatility. Ikea used to do 2-ring half-size hobs to allow mixing and matching; maybe they still do
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.454091
| 2021-06-10T08:10:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116004",
"authors": [
"AJN",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Pat Sommer",
"RedSonja",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101237
|
How does cooking food changes its content of carbohydrates and sugar?
When cooking for diabetics it is important to keep the amount of carbohydrates and sugar low. So I am wondering how cooking food - particularly vegetables - changes the amount of carbohydrates and sugar.
For example when simmering tomatoes slowly for a long time they gain a lovely sweet taste - but does really the amount of sugar increases? And if so, does the amount of other carbohydrates decrease proportionally? Or do slow cooked tomatos become through cooking more dangerous to diabetics?
How to calculate it? Are there lists somewhere available showing carbohydrate and sugar content for vegetables in raw an cooked state?
ps: I did find a similar question about onions - From the answer I deduct that in the case of onions the sweeter taste is a perception effect not a real change in sugar or carbs.
I would like to point out that we have a strict policy where questions about health are off topic. This question is on topic, but to answerers: please do not write answers which go beyond the literal discussion of chemical changes and start discussing what is dangerous for diabetics and what isn't. Also, halloleo: you may want to try finding more information elsewhere, as there are aspects which are relevant, but we cannot cover them here.
Besides what was mentioned in the onions question, heat can change the composition of sugars in food, so you might end up with sweeter tasting compounds ... or less sweet, depending on what you're cooking, and how far you cook it. The real question for diabetics is if the changed sugars have a different absorption rate into the bloodstream. Although health questions are generally frowned upon here, I would think that asking how the glycemic index of foods changes with cooking is still cooking.
@rumtscho I didn't want to give the question a particular health angle; I'm just interested in the nurtitional changes through cooking (which of course in turn might inform health-related cooking decisions...).
@Joe To reply to the health-related part of your comment: %-) I am loosely aware of the GI index, but I do think the absolute carbohydrate/sugar intake is important too.
This is a rather general question, and I will try to answer it in a general manner.
First, the total amount of carbohydrates will not change, or maybe there will be a neglible reduction due to things like burning tiny bits of surface carbohydrates to carbon, or cleaning the vegetables.
Second, the ratio of all carbohydrates to everything else can easily change, due to evaporation. So if you start with a vegetable that is 10% carbohydrates and 90% water, you can end up with one that is 30% carbohydrates and 70% water, rounded (the numbers I am using are pretty arbitrary, the real range is very large). It is easy to find out the direction of change yourself (the carbohydrate density will go up if you evaporate water, and down if you add water), but calculating the actual amount can be a pain. You'd have to know the initial density to start with, and then monitor the initial and final weight of the food.
Third, the ratio of sugar to nonsugar carbohydrates can change. It will always go from more complex to less complex carbohydrates - from polysaccharides to oligosaccharides to monosaccharides. So you can sometimes produce conditions under which starch turns into glucose, or sucrose turns into glucose+fructose, although this won't happen every time you cook. I cannot think of any cooking process that will convert sugars in the other direction. The magnitude of that conversion will vary wildly in practice, depending on the very specific chemical conditions in your cooking pot.
Fourth, there is another effect, but it is likely to be very small in magnitude. The browning of food happens during the Maillard reaction, which is a family of reactions between a carbohydrate and an amino acid. While it is best known from meat, where I think it involves mostly glycoproteins from the animal cells themselves, vegetables brown too, and I suppose some carbohydrates from the vegetables "disappear" in this kind of reaction. It is a thing that happens mostly on the surface of roasted food, and in a specific temperature range, so while it contributes a lot to the aroma, I don't think it actually converts much carbohydrates away.
Wow, this makes all total sense. Thank you! It still would be nice to have a table with some indication how much carbs are in 1kg uncooked tomatoes and to how many grams they condense to after, say, 1 hour of cooking - assuming all/most carbs/sugar stay in the tomatoes.
@halloleo you can of course go with standard nutrition data, the usda has a database of it. It will have values for the raw vegetables for sure, and then you can try comparing to values for canned vegetables. But they don't publish actual ranges (e.g. they may have 5-6 samples of X having from 3 to 28 g carbohydrates, but just publish the arithmetic mean, which can be, say, 7 g) and you cannot be sure how well your cooked food approximates the canned food they measure.
I think 'you can easily have starch turn into glucose' is not really correct. It depends on the presence of suitable enzymes, in particular amylase. A related question was answered (by you!) here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95592/can-i-make-potatoes-sweet-by-cooking-them/95597#95597.
@MarkWildon thank you for catching that - indeed, it is not all that common, so it was very misleading wording. Does it read better now?
Yes, it's now much more accurate. (+1).
@rumtscho Thanks for the pointer to the USDA search. Great tool.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.454389
| 2019-09-09T07:41:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101237",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"halloleo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118008
|
How to make a keto-vegan pancake or cake based on almond flour?
My partner is keto for health reasons, and I am vegan for moral reasons. We both want to eat the same meal, and not have me spend yet another hour and a half in the kitchen. But it is near impossible to get keto recipes that aren't hideous, never mind keto and vegan recipes at all.
I've baked with almond flour before, trying all sorts of brands, mixing with coconut flour, adding xanthan gum, adding vital wheat gluten, you name it. And nothing has come out right. The closest I've come with it, is a pancake that was nice and brown on the outside. It even held up after flipping. But the inside was like eating porridge.
Coconut flour, on the other hand? I tried a recipe for a keto coconut flour & butter cake, which turned out fabulously. I tried a bite while my partner ate the rest, it was good stuff. I even subbed the butter for Flora, with no averse results.
Question How do you actually cook the inside of an almond flour cake or pancake? It always ends up as hot porridge. Wheat (pan)cakes? Coconut flour cakes? They've turned out just fine, but almond flour is always hideous, even with extra fine flour.
My vegan pancakes are delicious. Subbing one large egg for one flaxseed meal "egg" is just fine. Even sugar-free, by replacing the 1tbsp golden syrup with 2tbsp erythritol. But subbing the wheat flour for almond flour and coconut flour? I would only use those pancakes for making compost.
Hi, welcome to Seasoned Advice. We work differently from, say, a discussion forum, and are quite strict about the type of question we take. For example, we have a rule that there should be only one question posted, so I reduced your post to only one of the three questions you had. If you want more than one thing, you are free to post more than one question in different posts (and will gather reputation for all of them separately). Your substitute question for eggs might be considered a duplicate though - see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21427.
Almond flour brownies are a thing, even vegan ones. They're gluten free rather than keto, but that's got a lot to do with the sugar. Maybe they'd suggest a starting point, or maybe the sugar has too much of a binding effect, forming a sort of thickened chocoolate fudge
To try to clarify or narrow your question a bit: you're looking for a keto pancake recipe that's also vegan? Does it have to include almond flour or coconut flour or can it could it be a mixture of different ingredients as long as they're vegan and low-enough in carbs? While I've developed several keto pancake recipes, I haven't done a vegan one yet, but my gut tells me it's entirely possible. Probably using lupin flour, vital wheat gluten, and resistant corn starch among other ingredients.
Rather than cooking one meal after the other, cook them side by side, two sets of ingredients and two pans.
Almond flour still has carbs, and coconut flour is high in carbs, plus I think you'd still need some kind of binder, likely more carbs or egg or some starchy gloop that sets when cooked, to stop it from becoming a porridge.
An alternative might* be chickpea flour (aka garbanzo, gram, or besan flour). It still has carbs, but is relatively high in protein and fibre. Also no binder is required to make a batter with it.
Nutritional data for chickpea/gram flour per 100g
Carbohydrates 57g
Protein 22g
Sugars 10g
Dietary fibre 10g
Fat 6g
This flour is commonly used in Indian cuisine to make fritters such as pakoras (aka pakodas). The texture is somewhat cake-like when fried as a batter. The flavour is nutty, and it works well in either savoury or sweet dishes. It's also used in various Indian confectionery such as jalebi, and besan barfi.
You'd probably need to experiment a bit, but I can see nothing to stop you from using it as a higher protein flour substitute for pancakes. All they'd need is a little bit of rising agent such as baking powder. Also make sure the pancakes are cooked thoroughly, because any raw chickpea batter will taste overwhelmingly of peas.
*note: I say "might" because it ultimately depends on how many carbs are allowed in your partners diet. And so my answer is a bit subjective.
Another name is "gram flour", also "besan" but from conversations with keto and near-keto dieters I think it will be too high in starch. It would need to be a major component to work, but I've made very tasty chapatis from it so it can hold together fairly well
@ChrisH - yeah I forgot. I'll add to the answer. Thanks!
Chickpea flour is simply too high in net carbs. Coconut flour has differing amounts depending on the site, highest I've seen is 24g net carbs per 100g, while chickpea flour has 43.2g net carbs. Almond flour is ideal, but that stuff is just nasty.
The net carbs per day for keto should be 20g per day, so it's very low. Luckily, not much coconut flour is needed to make a proper cake with it.
IMHO, This is not going to happen. There are simply not enough carb-free ingredients in the plant world, and not enough vegetarian ingredients in the protein world.
In that recipe, eggs have been used to provide the binding power which would ordinarily come from flour. But ordinary vegan egg substitutes (silken tofu, applesauce) assume that the eggs aren't needed for binding, because there are so many vegan binders out there; and the few that do provide binding (aquafaba, maybe banana) provide it through starches. The one cohesion-providing, gel-supporting ingredient I could think of would be xanthan gum, which is a carbohydrate but powerful in small amounts. The fact that I'm leaping straight to "industrially cultured bacterial slime" should give you an impression of what sorts of things you'll end up eating if you try to satisfy both of your diets simultaneously.
As for almond flour: yeah, it provides taste and bulking and nothing else. The starch in other flours (including coconut flour) are responsible for hydrating into a gel and trapping gas, making porridge into pancakes. You need something to do that... and the things we normally use for that are either carbs or egg albumen.
If you want to not spend extra time in the kitchen preparing a second dinner, cook extra and freeze leftovers.
From the top of my head, the only desserts I think you could make both vegan and keto without too much trouble are flour-free desserts. Mousse or ice cream or pannacotta (with vegan cream substitutes). Baked things are pretty much DOA.
@user141592 Yep, the "two ingredient chocolate mousse" comes to mind. Things that set and chill are going to be more practical than things that cook.
Aquafaba actually has very little in it, including carbs. Quick google search yielded 2.5g of carbs per 100g of aquafaba. So for making baked goods, that gloopy gel is needed. I'll try experimenting with aquafaba then. Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.
I've developed a keto pancake recipe using a ratio of 20% flaxseed meal, 40% vital wheat gluten, 20% oat fiber, and 20% resistant corn/wheat starch as the flour ingredients. Granted, that recipe uses an egg and buttermilk as liquids, but it should be possible to convert it to vegan by using a "drying" form of protein flour in the form of lupin flour and almond milk or something similar.
I've used Aquafaba mouse while vegan keto and it's about as good as you can do.
You can consider potato starch/flour turning the pancake into a latke with a fine texture. I don't know if you get sweet Latkes but a potato-based pancake is certainly possible.
Potatoes are typically not considered keto-friendly. Too much carbs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.455154
| 2021-11-26T02:25:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118008",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris H",
"FiftyTifty",
"Joe",
"NSGod",
"Sneftel",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96625",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120166
|
How to avoid airy, thin whipped cream
I've always made my whipped cream with a 'stick hand blender, which creates the most amazing thick rich whipped cream!
I never liked the airy, oily w/c from Starbucks but I wanted to get a dispenser for convenience therefor I bought the Isi pro red... which I hated! It was airy, thin, and melted into 'oil/fat' floating at the top of my Latte. I know I'm using it right because it comes out looking perfect, but the thin, airy consistency is what I hate.
Is there a dispenser out there that can dispenser thick, rich w/c that holds its form much longer rather than melting quickly in hot drinks?
I returned the Isi Pro dispenser and went back to using my immersion blender
As you already noticed yourself, a siphon and a mixer create different textures of the whipping cream. These textures are a fundamental property of the technique used for whipping, and you cannot do anything to change them.
If you want to have mechanically whipped cream, then you have to whip it mechanically. You cannot turn a siphon into a mixer.
This is not to say that siphons cannot be used to produce stable foams, but then this is a chemical property of the foam and its ingredients (especially the stabilizers used). If all you are making is whipped cream, it will have the whipped-cream-from-siphon consistency.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.455802
| 2022-03-27T14:42:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120166",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120456
|
What is the role of oil in baked cheesecake with raisins
I have mislaid my recipe for a baked cheesecake With raisins. When I search for other recipes, all of them add vegetable oil. I can’t remember ever adding oil to the quark mixture.
Is it necessary to add oil? What is the role of adding oil to the filling in this type of cheesecake?
Hi Inge, welcome to our site! I edited your question somewhat. This is because I think a few people were misled what it is about, and voted to close it (we are restrictive about the type of question we have, and we don't take recipe requests). I hope my edit preserves your original meaning, if not, you can re-edit yourself. Also, if this is a German-style cheesecake made with quark, this information would be relevant to the question, because American-style cheesecakes (with cream cheese) are different in texture and could theoretically have a different interaction with the oil.
I had a (Dr. Oetker I think) cake mixture for cheesecake that called for (melted) butter in the quark filling but had a note saying "to get a lighter cake just leave out the butter". So I am guessing it is to add taste and "richness" but is not necessary.
Thank you for your message. Well said & will try it without the melted butter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.455945
| 2022-04-28T10:15:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120456",
"authors": [
"Inge",
"erc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98949",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107990
|
How to know if I am stopping sharpening too early?
I'm having trouble sharpening my knives, and I'm wondering if it's just that I haven't put in enough time. I've tried spending ~5 minutes per knife at one stroke per ~3 seconds, following all the advice I could find online, but no one seems to give any estimate of how long it normally takes to get moderate sharpness.
When I am sharpening a knife by hand with a (dry, high grit) sharpening stone, how do I decide when to stop? When I see unsatisfactory results, how do I know if it will get better if I continue, or if the problem is elsewhere?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. So, this is your first time and you did not succeed within the first five minutes? You probably waste the first knife you are trying to sharpen. It takes time, patience and experience to learn how to sharpen a knife using a stone. Especially dry. And only one stone.
It partly depends on how blunt the knife is you are trying to sharpen.
what "high grit" 1k or 10k. And why dry? almost all sharpening advices advice to use water or mineral oil. I would use dry only to straight the blade not sharpen
This is a bit of a "How long is a piece of string?" question. The answer depends on the bluntness of the knife & the accuracy & skill of the person doing the work. Speaking as someone who has been trying various stones on & off for 20 years, I'd say "at least 20 years". I ended up buying an electric sharpener. Now the answer is 10 minutes from scratch or 15 seconds to to keep the edge up.
It takes as long as necessary but no longer than that.
I reworded the original question to make it more answerable, even though the answer will likely still sound disappointing.
So I had to reword the question from "how long does it take to sharpen a knife" to something more answerable, but I am afraid the answer will still be disappointing for you.
It takes as long as it takes - we cannot give you a length of time after which it should be ready. You have to recognize by yourself if the knife is ready or not.
The ability to tell whether your bad results are caused by not spending enough time, or by something else, comes somewhat slower than the ability to sharpen a knife properly. So you cannot use "time spent" to control your learning process.
I hope that the reactions you saw to the question (including my own answer) will not discourage you. It is great that 1) you are picking up a new skill, and 2) trying to actively troubleshoot it by making a hypothesis about what is going wrong, and then acquiring more information about whether this could be the right reason, and 3) looking for that information somewhere (for example here on the site) instead of trying to figure everything out by yourself. I will try to explain why it is so difficult, so at least you can better what you are facing, even though I can't offer you a viable solution.
Sharpening a knife is a skill. It is not learned in the sense we learn stuff in school using declarative memory ("Charles the Great lived in the 7th century CE"), it is learned by training. And unlike a skill which requires you to only interact with information (such as being able to multiply two numbers) it is a skill that requires you to interact with physical objects, and because of that, anything you can learn from information-only channels such as websites will only be of limited information.
The best way to learn how to sharpen a knife is to observe how somebody sharpens it, and then try to repeat it - basically, apprenticeship. The second best is if you only try by yourself, but have somebody who can evaluate your results, and recognize what you are doing wrong. You chose a third way - read the theory, then try it for yourself. This is a viable way of learning, but it is very time consuming, especially at the beginning, when you get almost no successful attempts. (And in my experience, knife sharpening is a skill with an especially high rate of botched early attempts). And while you are so early in the process, you don't know what is the right way to do it. Then will come the phase in which you have some successful attempts and some unsuccessful ones, but you will not have yet built the experience of what causes your good attempts to be good and the bad ones to be bad. And only later will you be able to recognize this, but that comes after you have a great rate of good attempts. So don't expect to be able to correct yourself at tbe beginning, trial and error involves a big deal of random variation and boneheaded persistence.
To address your exact troubleshooting idea again - you are quite right that there are times which are way too short for sharpening. Even the best world expert will not be able to sharpen a blunt knife with two strokes, nor be able to do the necessary number of strokes in two seconds. But this just means that there is some lower limit for the time necessary. Where this limit lies exactly (and exactness is actually impossible here, because there are tons of factors we are not holding constant) is rather immaterial for your case, because at the beginning, you will be doing many more wrong strokes than right strokes, so your first successful attempt (and "success" is also not a binary thing here!) will take a lot longer than the theoretically possible limit. So you should be going at it for a long time at first, and the shortest possible time doesn't affect what your shortest time you should train per knife. At the other end, it does not help you decide on the longest time per knife either - to oversimplify it, if you are doing 100 wrong strokes per 100 right ones, you will never get ready and should stop, but if you are doing 99 wrong strokes per 100 right ones, you will get a successs eventually (taking you about 100 times longer than it would take an expert stroking at your rate) and should continue. And since you cannot recognize if you are doing wrong or right strokes, you cannot recognize if you are caught in the endless situation or in the slow-advance situation.
Summary: forget thinking about time. Just invest all the effort this kind of training requires, or take the working shortcut of working with an experienced trainer.
Sharpen one side of your knife. Stop when you create a burr on the edge; that is, when the edge curls over. It is difficult to see, but you can feel it if you carefully slide your finger against the blade. Flip the knife and sharpen the other side to remove the burr. Then hone. There is no way to tell you how long this will take, given the variables pointed out in the comments.
In terms of time, it depends on many factors:
the stone
the steel
the angle
the pressure
the degree of existing
'bluntness' etc
So we can't give you an exact answer.
However, the answer is when there is a burr.
Its haRd to feel a burr even with finger tips, so you can use the fingernail test. Here is a good guide.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.456071
| 2020-04-29T04:01:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107990",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Johannes_B",
"Rob",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125113
|
Is a garlic bulb which is coloured brown on the outside safe to eat?
The outside of the bulb is brown at the top, but the cloves look and feel normal when peeled.
Is this safe to eat? What is the reason for the brown colour?
I'd say: Look at it, smell, carefully taste: If all seems OK, it's probably OK.
Your garlic is fine, some discoloration of the outside layers is normal. When garlic is lifted out of the ground it's covered in dirt and the outer layers are brown. Garlic is then cured (it's just letting it dry for a few weeks, there's no salt or chemicals involved) which prepares it for long term storage, during this process the garlic skin dries. Often the outer layers are peeled off to make the garlic look nicer, and depending on the variety these are usually white or white with purple.
The more layers you peel off the less protection garlic has for long-term storage, at some point you have to stop peeling or it won't last. In the case of your garlic they stopped peeling when there was still a bit of brown, which was the right thing to do. It's just appearance.
Garlic can look all brown and gnarly and still be absolutely fine, it's the condition of the cloves once peeled which matters. If the cloves themselves are discolored, soft or look rotten then they aren't good to eat.
Garlic is cured? As in salted and smoked?!
@JanusBahsJacquet from a quick google it appears that in the context of garlic processing, curing just refers to drying out the outer layers, rather than using chemical preservatives (like salts and nitrates) as it typically does. I will note that smoking is normally considered an additional process that may be done in parallel with curing, but is certainly not required (e.g. parma ham is a simple salt-cured ham that is unsmoked)
@JanusBahsJacquet I grew garlic this year in the garden, you just need to let them dry several days in the sun so that it doesn't rot once stored
@Kaddath, a few days isn't enough, full curing takes at least 3 weeks, often longer depending on temperature and humidity. A few days is enough to get it started, then you can braid it and it will fully cure hanging up in your kitchen.
Sorry for the confusion @JanusBahsJacquet, as Tristan says curing just means drying. I don't know why it's called curing, it just is. I've edited the answer to make that clear.
Excellent video on All-Things Garlic, including the curing process and more. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgES_Oj6-tQ
@GdD you don't leave them 3 weeks under the sun, no, they would become garlic mummies (here in the south west of France it's really hot and dry when you harvest them), you put them in a shadow and dry place once braid
Indeed, moving them into the shade as soon as possible after harvest (to the point that real farmers tend to use wagons with shade covers while in the field) is the norm. Note that braiding only applies to soft-neck garlics. Hard-necks don't braid.
That's not true @Ecnerwal, I've braided hardneck varieties for years, they braid absolutely fine. The trick is to braid them before they dry out too much or they get too stiff.
I never said you leave them in the sun for 3 weeks @Kaddath, I said you cure them for at least 3 weeks.
Dirt, or oxidation would explain the brown color (dirt if it's always been this way, oxidation if it's changed. Garlic grows in the dirt, and if it's not harvested early enough to have plenty of dirty leaves to strip off the bulb while clean leaves remain below them, it may well be stained with dirt. Or if it simply wasn't stripped of the outer leaves after harvest for that purpose.)
There's nothing wrong with that garlic from this picture. It should be perfectly safe to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.456598
| 2023-08-31T10:31:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125113",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Kaddath",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tristan",
"U. Windl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91836"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40987
|
Mathris broke as soon as I added it into medium hot oil
Why did my Mathris break apart (they didn't bind together) while frying?
I was making Methi Mathris-Kasuri using 1 tsp methi, peppercorns, ajwain, salt, cumin seeds, 1 tsp besan
I added quite a lot of oil while kneading the dough
This dough sounds similar to a pir crust (with besan). Did you get enough water into it? http://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/punjabi-mathri-fried-mathri-baked-mathri-recipe/
reduce the amount of oil
You may have added too much oil. Reduce the amount of oil, or try adding butter instead. Butter usally tastes better and binds better too
Mathri dough should be made with proper proportions. In olden days Transfat was used but nowadays we make it with oil. The proper proportion is: 4:1 for refined flour to oil.
For example:
1 Kg refined flour
250 mils of cooking oil eg; groundnut, canola etc. Do not use flavoured oils.
First mix dry ingredients well and taste a bit for salt etc.
Then sprinkle room temp water and try to bring the dough into lumps. Do not knead too much as we need to have short crust pastry like dough not like chaapati's or roti's. Just try to gather the dough together. It looks fairly scaly,crumbly and rough.
Make small balls and either press by hand or use rolling pin. Or you can make a 2 inches wide diameter and about 10" long rope and cut slices and then flatten each slice.
These will make really flaky mathri's. If you like them a bit crisper and harder reduce the qty. of oil and very slightly increase the water. Besan is normally not used in traditional mathri's. Fry in medium hot oil and drain on paper towels. Save in an airtight box between layers of paper towels.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.456925
| 2014-01-09T00:57:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40987",
"authors": [
"Bannatyne84",
"Chad",
"John Reese",
"Nilkamal PrintMarkPack",
"Sayray13",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"fakhrur pedia spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95462",
"kpmoore",
"seo charleston spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42047
|
The Warm Oven Temp. for Cakes
My Mom is making a cake. Its an old recipe, 50 - 70 yrs old (or older). All it says is to use a warm oven. No temperature range, just a warm oven. What temperature would this be?
Do you have any more information about the recipe? What are the ingredients?
Without any details on the recipe, it is hard to offer any firm recommendations. That said, I have had success using a convection oven on 180 degrees Celsius (356 degrees Fahrenheit), and checking for doneness with a bamboo skewer.
I think any recipe old enough to only mention "warm oven" will not anticipate convection.
+1, I have yet to see a standard cake for which 180 convection is a bad temperature (there are pastries which need it hotter, but they are not usually called "cake").
For some cakes, I bake longer at 300F, and the result is quite delicate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.457097
| 2014-02-16T05:14:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42047",
"authors": [
"A. Lavoie",
"Daniel Mejia",
"Lesley",
"Muhammad hamza",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Wade Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98228",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59097
|
Toffee that is soft?
I have deep grooves in my back teeth, and regular toffee would get stuck in there easily, so I am looking to cook toffee that would turn out soft rather than hard.
Explanation; about ten years ago my mother cooked up such toffee by mistake. While I do not know for certain, I believe it was the following recipe the was botched:
1 cup sugar
1/2 cup butter
1/4 cup water
1/2 tsp. salt
Heat to boiling, until 285°F
My mother and I figured that perhaps everything was doubled except sugar (by mistake), so I attempted to recreate it like so. After letting it settle, the butter was starting to separate a little bit (it wasn't that bad). While the toffee was at room temperature or above, it was really hard and sticky, like caramel, and it was melting into the other pieces of toffee. After cooling it in the fridge it was surprisingly softer but not quite what I was hoping for. The texture of the original toffee from a decade ago was compared to peanut brittle by several people, however I don't remember it vividly enough to confirm.
I don't want to vainly waste ingredients so I'd appreciate any ideas on how to get my toffee as described.
Can you describe a bit more what you're trying to make? Peanut brittle isn't really soft at all. Are you looking for something more like taffy? Or when you say soft are you talking about the fact that brittle isn't as solid? Brittle actually sticks less to your teeth because it's harder, not because it's soft - is that what you mean?
What you need is fudge rather than toffee. That basically means much more fat (butter and condensed milk, usually), but the results are much softer and easier on the teeth (in terms of stickability, not decay!)
What about cooking it to a lower temperature? Shouldn't that translate to a softer toffee?
I've never had peanut brittle myself so I have no idea. It's hardness is kind of how a cracker is (thicker of course). With a not-so-forceful crunch you'd easily break it into fragments, and it'd dissolve very easily, unlike regular toffee. The color of the toffee was much lighter and robust color (probably why it was compared to peanut brittle). It certainly wasn't fudge, and must be able to be made without milk, however I do believe that more butter is crucial, however it wasn't making it how I had hoped in my last batch.
I will try cooking it at a lower temperature and see if that does any justice. I know my current stove is electric, I have no idea what the last one was, so maybe that'd make a difference.
I can't make an edit for some reason so: It didn't quite "break into fragments" like I said, it just kind of lost it's form and mashed into a completely soft form instead. Also I did find out that stove the original toffee was cooked on was gasoline.
Would toffee fudge do the Job?
Basically the hotter you get the sugar, the harder it sets.
One thing you should take note of is the color, the darker the color, the hotter you got it.
Go slowly when melting the sugar, get it to the temperature you want, and then add the rest of the ingredients in. Melting the sugar slower, makes sure that the edges don't get overcooked and burnt.
The more liquids and fats you add, the softer it will set.
I'll give it a shot. You recommend using the same ingredients the recipe calls for? Now, I'm suppose to cook it at the same temperature, heat it to boiling, but stop cooking it at a lower temperature? If so, what temperature would you recommend stopping it at? In addition, I am currently putting all the ingredients in at once and melting them together, you're recommending I start melting the sugar first with the water? The water may evaporate too much.
Try somewhere between 240-245 that's the general temperature range for caramel candy.
You can drop a bit of the hot sugar mixture into cold water to test the consistency. The cold water quickly cools the sugar and let's you manipulate it. If it doesn't set hard enough, go hotter.
Check temperature chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_making
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.457227
| 2015-07-15T20:59:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59097",
"authors": [
"Bernadine McDonald",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Krus",
"Dina Hernandez",
"Dolores Pruitt",
"Dominic",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Joseph Mccorkel Gearshifter",
"Julie Hall",
"Popup",
"Preston",
"Robin Bland",
"TFD",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23697
|
Is curry ketchup just ketchup with curry powder?
We use both tomato ketchup and curry ketchup as condiments in Belgium. On the curry ketchup label, amongst other ingredients is "curry (1%)".
So I tried adding curry powder to regular ketchup to see whether I could end up with curry ketchup, but I think the taste was off. The colour was close though.
I know "curry powder" is a spice mix that can differ, but is curry ketchup really just ketchup with curry powder added? Or do they mean a bit of a real curry (the dish)? Or are there other differences? Is it possible to make curry ketchup with regular ketchup?
If you want to win books, enter our competition! See http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1296/its-condiments-week-ask-great-questions-enter-to-win-a-prize for more information.
The dish called "curry" has many different meanings, depending on your region. "Curry" in a Thai restaurant is completely different than "curry" found in an Indian restaurant. I have no idea what Belgian curry would be like. :)
I found a thread on Food.com talking about trying to re-create curry ketchup ... most of the recipes have black pepper and onions in them. Also, there's a mention that letting it sit for the flavors meld may be significant (or heating the ketchup to speed the process).
I suppose the Belgian "curry ketchup" is similar to the German varieties and no, they are usually not only seasoned with curry powder, but also other spices. There is no standard seasoning mix for curry ketchup, but common additional spices are ginger, black pepper, paprika, cayenne or other chili powders. I also think that some brands contain onions.
The brownisher colour of curry ketchup is mostly because of the turmeric in the curry powder, so just adding the powder to regular ketchup will get you a colour match even without the additional spices or ingredients.
I remember quite a clove cardamom flavor in curry ketchup. I'd try a curry paste too in place of powder. A nice Biryani perhaps.
Curry Ketchup is made with a Ketchup base, but then adds Curry, vinegar, a small amount of spices like pepprika, and two little known ingredients... apples and soy sauce... if you make it to this recipe then you can get close. See the following from Hienz
Water, sugar, tomato paste (17%), vinegar, apples, modified starch, curry (2.2%) (contains mustard and celery), salt, soy sauce (water, soy beans, wheat, salt), spices, thickener (guar kernel flour, xanthan) herb extracts.
Ps make sure that the apple juice/sauce and soy sauce are minimal (as they are near the end of the ingredient list its the least used but the apple does make the difference in the sauce and the small amount of soyu brings it back from tasting too much like candy :)
What is "curry" then? The Indian dish? A spice mix?
Not likely.
Standard curry powders are really not good if they are added to anything and left raw (some brands might not even be safe!), they tend to taste raw, unharmonic, floury, bitter then ...
Adding them while MAKING the ketchup, or adding it to the ketchup then cooking the resulting sauce, or blooming it in hot oil THEN adding it to ketchup, could all work reasonably well.
This article seems to suggest that this is the case.
http://www.thekitchn.com/ketchup-with-a-kick-add-curry-87686
Can yo summarize the contents of the article in your answer to make the answer more complete?
Certainly: curry powder + ketchup = yummy
'Curry ketchup' is a specific condiment found in Belgium & the Netherlands. I'd describe it as closer to shashlik sauce than to American ketchup.
Brooklyn Delhi says their very popular Curry ketchup is 50/50 regular ketchup and tomato achaar. https://www.instagram.com/brooklyndelhi/p/C2QN8YGPZit/
As someone who grew up with USA ketchup, I should give a little perspective, every time I tried German curry ketchup, the taste and texture made it seem to me like breakfast syrup and cloves were also ingredients, so I don't think you can replicate that just by adding curry powder to regular ketchup.
"Breakfast syrup" is likely fenugreek.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.457594
| 2012-05-10T18:26:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23697",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Ellen",
"Fazle",
"Flimzy",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"Trina Marriott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jkf",
"rossy mole",
"user53697",
"user53710"
],
"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
}
|
18379
|
Best substitute wine glass
I occasionally find myself opening a bottle of wine at a friend's ill-equipped house, and don't have any wine glasses handy.
What type of serving cup/glass can I substitute for a proper wine glass in these situations? Specifically for red wine, but answers for other wines would be helpful, too.
I understand the reason for a long stem is to keep body heat away from the wine, so this makes me think may be a coffee cup (where body heat is kept away via the handle) might be a reasonable substitute... but then the shape of the glass I understand is also important, no?
Trying to keep your body heat from the wine is only necessary for chilled wines (whites, for the most part). For those served at room temperature (most reds), you actually want your body heat to warm the wine.
I've been to plenty of places that use 'stemless wine glasses' (about the size of a red wine glass, maybe a little larger, but no stem underneath) for reds. I've also been to places that just use mason jars.
For whites, if you're at a dinner table, it's not going to matter as much, as you can put your glass down. The problem comes when you're standing around with your glass. You can get around the problems by making sure that the wine is well chilled, and don't serve as much per glass (so they don't hold it so long that it warms up). Handled glasses can help, but I wouldn't go for a large beer mug like Cos recommended -- I'd use a smaller mug for coffee or tea.
One exception would be your bubbly wines. You want something tall and narrow for those.
None of these have the characteristic wine glass shape, with the smaller opening at the top, which is going to help concentrate the aromas, so if you have any glasses that are shaped like that, consider using those. And you don't want to fill any glass of wine more than half full, so that you have space for the vapors to collect.
+1 - But "don't serve as much per glass (so they don't hold it so long that it warms up)" - that's probably somewhat offset by the fact that there's a lower thermal mass then.
I went to a wine tasting led by the ceo of Riedel US, and he maintained that a wide bodied chardonnay glass was ideal for bubbly wines with better nose developing with the appropriate size pour and airspace vs a traditional flute.
The alcohol soluble compounds that have built up on most 'well used' coffee mugs/cups are likely to pollute your wine with Chateau du Folgers. The glass of the Beer Mug is going to allow you to 'cleanly' enjoy the flavors of your wine.
@Cos : good point ... some people actually drink coffee.
In addition to the answer provided by @Angelo to Why do drinks drunk from a glass instead of a bottle taste differently? an additional value of stem ware is that allows the drinker to hold a glass of wine without convecting their body heat to the wine.
With these points in mind for Red Wine (and yes, this will "look" funny) serving it in small portions (3-5 oz) in a 10-12 oz BEER MUG will provide the surface area and insulation to enjoy flavors of the wine... well, if you can resist the urge to "Chug" from the mug anyway.
As for Whites, a collins glass (tall thin) glass, again in smaller portions, will allow the drinker to hold the glass near the rim as the wine rests safely in the bottom of the glass.
Um ... you want the reds to warm up. You actually hold a red wine glass from the bowl, not the stem, so that your body heat warms it.
Um...NO.. you want reds (most reds) to be at room temp rather than warm. If you look at ANY wine tasters guide you will find the taster holding the glass by the stem. You should allow reds to breath during which they achieve room temp. http://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/WineTasting.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.458048
| 2011-10-15T17:45:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18379",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Karen N.",
"Kevin",
"Sammy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rfusca",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24766
|
How can I add yogurt to a quickbread recipe?
I stumbled upon a recipe for Yogurt-Zucchini bread, and I like the idea of adding yogurt to other quickbread recipes for the texture and flavor, especially whole-wheat ones.
What guidelines should I follow when adding yogurt?
I am guessing that yogurt won't significantly alter the liquid/solid ratio in a quickbread recipe, as the bread batter is usually pretty runny already.
Is it safe, therefore, to simply add roughly ½ cup of yogurt to a loaf of bread? Or should I alter the recipe in other ways to compensate?
The recipe calls for Greek yogurt, which is strained yogurt; I'd be wary of using regular yogurt in its place (at least on the first attempt).
Unstrained yogurt has the exact same ratio of water/protein/fat as the milk that it was made from. The amount of sugar will be different as some of the sugar was converted to acid during the fermentation.
This means that yogurt can be substituted 1 to 1 for milk, and sometimes other liquids, in baking. Know that the pH of the batter will be lower and if that will be a problem then add a little more baking soda to compensate for it. The lost sugar won't usually adversely affect a recipe because they usually have plenty of sugar added.
Quickbreads don't usually have a lot of added liquid and adding a significant amount of yogurt would throw off the batter. It could still be good but it wouldn't be the same thing.
To mitigate that problem your recipe uses Greek yogurt. Greek yogurt has been strained which simply means that the yogurt was stirred to break up the protein mesh and some of the whey was allowed to drain off. The whey will be mostly water but will also contain some sugar, lactic acid, and riboflavin. Even with the whey drained off Greek yogurt is still mostly water. This water, however, is locked up in the protein mesh. Where normal yogurt will weep whey when cut, Greek yogurt will not (at least not so easily).
The yogurt will regardless add some liquid, a fair bit of protein and potentially fat, and some acid. The acid and fat will add some wonderful flavor while the protein and fat will interfere with gluten development. In quickbreads you don't need gluten so this is a good thing.
To compensate for the additional acid your recipe includes a little extra soda along with its baking powder.
In summary:
Yes you can add strained yogurt to a quickbread for flavor. Be careful not to add so much that the added water will throw things off and remember to add the extra soda to compensate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.458364
| 2012-06-30T21:06:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24766",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"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
}
|
68829
|
Unambiguously referring to "spiciness"
Anyone who likes (or hates) spicy food has been in the situation: You're at a restaurant, your mother-in-law is preparing dinner, or you're preparing dinner for your best friend, and the question comes up:
How spicy do you want it?
But how can one answer (or ask) this question unambiguously?
I'm aware of the Scoville scale, but that applies to a specific (dry) ingredient in a recipe, and not the finished dish (which will typically dilute even the spiciest of peppers).
Restaurants often rank dishes from 1-5 "stars", "peppers", or other units of spiciness, but even this rating system varies greatly by country, region, or even the specific restaurant. What is "5 star spicy" in the Netherlands, might be "2 star spicy" in the midwest USA, for instance.
Is there any unambiguous way to discuss the spiciness of a dish?
I don't mind if I need to take 5 minutes to explain this method to my mother next time I cook for her, or to the waitress next time I order a Phad Thai. The key is that it must be (mostly) unambiguous in communicating one's preferred level of spice/hotness in a dish.
Does such a thing exist?
As an analogy, one might describe a beverage's or dessert's sweetness in relation to a commonly-known item, such as table sugar, honey, or even a Coca-Cola. "I want a sweetened iced tea, but only half as sweet as a Coke." While not precise, this is (basically) an unambiguous request. A similar, common point of reference to use when discussing spiciness would satisfy me.
The waitress would probably mind you taking 5 minutes to explain a spice-rating system to her. Basically: no, there isn't any method because peoples' experience of spice is highly subjective and varies according to exposure. A dish that you find "medium" spicy may seem quite mild a year later after you've eaten an abundance of chilies, so this isn't even consistent within individuals.
@logophobe: The objective spiciness of the dish does not change over the course of a year. Which is the point of my question. I'm happy to adjust my preferred "objective spiciness" rating as my taste changes. But my taste should not change such an unambiguous/objective rating system.
The Scoville scale would still technically apply; it's a perceptual measure of the amount of sugar water needed to counteract the perceived "burn" of a food, so you could use it to measure a finished dish, in theory. But good luck getting a restaurant to do that.
I've never heard someone ask for a sweetened iced tea with "half as sweet as coke". I've heard lightly sweetened or people getting unsweetened and having syrup or sweetener brought to them. And even then, I'm not sure thats objective -- I have friends who can't drink one sip of coke without complaining its insanely spicey whereas others don't notice its sweet.
@Batman: Spicy coke?
@logophobe Actually, the Scoville scale is nor really about sugar water counteracting the "burn", but more about how much you need to dilute something before the capsaicin in it falls below a detectable threshold. - But your point stands that you can technically give a Scoville rating to a finished dish.
@Batman "people getting unsweetened and having syrup or sweetener brought to them." That's...just...no.
I do have to laugh at your Netherlands vs US analogy - the midwest is stereotypically bland, and certainly has nothing like the Indonesian cuisine found throughout the Netherlands. After living in Amsterdam for 3 years, I find the green chili in New Mexico usually is not hot enough. Oh well.But, the point is well taken - you have to know the restaurant before you can really understand their spicy scale, and I have seen hilarity ensue when (say) Texans claim to know what spicy food is and get something wickedly hot served to them.
@JonCuster There are Indonesian restaurants in the Midwest US too :) To the main point though, spiciness of a dish can change throughout the year. The spiciness of peppers is different depending on harvesting time, growing conditions, etc, which can all have an effect on the dish.
@SourDoh - I have yet to eat at an Indonesian restaurant in the US that comes close to the Amsterdam - they are toned down to the regional norms, and Midwest is not spicy!
@JonCuster: I suppose I was referring to the "Mexican" food in the Netherlands. I don't know about the Indonesian cuisine. Certainly the mustard in the Netherlands is spicier than in the US!
Oh dear - the Mexican was horrible!
Unambiguous is not a reasonable expectation. Final dish is going to be subjective and different people are going to have different taste. You are going to get some general agreement but still a lot of variance.
The problem is referring to spice level is not only ambiguous because spice levels are, but also because people are. For myself, I always ask for a truly objective level of spice - specifically zero, plain, no spice at all. That amount actually can be measured, not much wiggle room in "none". But levels I've actually gotten can be ridiculously off, chilis all over the dish, spice enough to burn tongues in my family (who love spiciness), because there are people who believe that "for the flavor" is a magical incantation that will make the chili "not count". People are not unambiguous.
The best choice, in my opinion, is not to try to communicate - but to ask for a taste! Places that use spicy sauces will likely be willing to give you a small taste of the sauce (as spicy sauces are usually made in advance, and even if not, they likely prepare the dish for another person at some point).
And even if you're asking about something that isn't really tasteable ("How spicy are your spicy tuna maki") etc., you could ask for a taste of a sauce that is spicy, and then use that to calibrate.
While short on technical description, this is the most pragmatically helpful answer, so I'm accepting it. I have upvoted other answers, where appropriate, too. Thanks to everyone who provided an answer.
Spiciness is a taste perception, and as such, it is simply subjective. There is no way to create an objective scale for rating it.
I read your comment about "objective spiciness", but it is not something that can exist. It is based on the erroneous assumption that the spiciness you perceive is a 1:1 measurement of some quality of the food. This is not true. Even foods with the same amount of capsaicin will taste differently spicy to the same person, or the same food can taste differently spicy to the same person in two separate meals. So no, all scales will be subjective, with all the usual consequences of subjective rating scales.
The only way to improve this answer would be links to efforts to identify the range of human responses to capsaicin.
@DerrellDurrett I don't have such links. But Stack Exchange sites don't have a requirement that all the relevant information is contained in a single answer. On the contrary, partial answers are considered answers and are encouraged! If you (or somebody else) have this information, please post another answer, it will deserve readers and upvotes.
This list looks to contain relevant studies: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:M2Fh0z0K8-MJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6&as_ylo=2012&as_vis=1
I wasn't impugning your answer, only suggesting a way to improve your response, given that it's a topic of current research.
I don't think there is an unambiguous system -- for example, the Thai places in my town alone have vastly different systems for rating how hot their dishes are (so an extra hot at one place is a medium at another, for example; this may be partially due to location and thus their clientele). It isn't like restaurants do some sort of analytical measurement on their food's spicyness, since it varies depending on ingredients (sometimes your peppers are mild while others are blazing hot), so it will likely be calibrated to what the local population tolerates. Plus, even if there was a system more complex than "no spice, mild, medium, medium hot, hot, extra hot" or equivalent in number of chili's, its not like the wait staff or chefs would be able to keep up with it in a reasonable fashion.
In some cases, you can order food without heat (or on a lower heat level which you believe will be acceptable to you) and get the spicy stuff on the side (e.g. in the form of some chili sauce). Then, you can add it to some appropriate level for you after trying the food. It might not be as flavorful as if it was cooked in the dish, but by setting the bar appropriately, you should be able to reach something tolerable.
No, there is no objective way, other than the Scoville scale or measuring the moles of capsaicin per gram, because people lose sensitivity to spiciness as they get used to it. I would describe how spicy you want something by the type of pepper you are used to. If you can eat a habañero, then tell them you want it habañero spicy.
click to expand
The problem with using a pepper as a gauge is that peppers aren't all created equal. The spiciness of the pepper can vary from pepper to pepper, from the same plant. And it can vary even more greatly by regio where they were grown. I've had jalapeños too hot to eat straight in Mexico at times. In Europe, I can barely taste a locally grown jalapeño.
As Rumtscho has pointed out, the perception of spiciness is strictly subjective. But if you were to have a standard, how would you standardize it? How would the chef comply with the standard? And then, when you get what objectively conforms with the standard you requested, how would you know you've got it? Above all, would you like the taste?
First, standardizing it: you take some scale. This would reduce to an objective measurement of capsaicin, and whatever other compounds contribute to a spicy taste. Well and good. Who standardizes each pepper? Two peppers identical in appearance and type might have widely different concentrations of capsaicin. Ground spices will be even worse. Where I live, one of the problems of buying spice in the market is knowing which are adulterated with salt or corn meal to bulk them up.
Good chefs go by the taste of the food as they prepare it. This applies particularly to spicy cooking -- the idea of measuring spices out in milligrams would not occur to a good chef, because the final result would be all that counts.
When you finally get your standard, calibrated, weighed and measured spicy, the taste will vary according to what's cooked with it, what you've eaten before, what you're eating after, whether you're having alcohol with it -- any number of factors. Then what does your standard count for?
What you really want is to enjoy your food. If you're cooking for yourself, take it seriously, listen to the food, taste from time to time to make sure you're heading in the right direction. If you're eating in restaurants, find one that does things the way you like, and be prepared to be delighted sometimes and, rarely, a little disappointed. And if you're eating at your mother-in-law's, always thank her with a smile and a little flattery, but not too much, so you all enjoy the meal!
There is no way to have this conversation on a consistent basis without ambiguity. You may find you could at certain restaurants who understand you well, but you'll never find a one size fits all way of communicating affinity for spice usage.
It's because the two variables have tremendous variance in the population:
the diner's individual tolerance and labeling for spice level varies tremendously
the cook's labeling of his/her own spice use will vary as well
Example: I can eat very spicy food and not even notice it. My dad would sample from the same dish and would revolt at the spice level. But we both would have said I like it medium spicy.
And you are correct, Scoville does not address your Q. Scoville addresses pungent heat. I consider heat (or pepperiness) to be a subterm of spicy. There are other attributes of spicy that are not pungent heat, like some curry's, level of garlic and onion, and use of herbs.
I tried to think of a way to communicate spice tolerance and altering this chart from the medical world came to mind:
But as I said before, my Dad and I would self label as a 5, but he clearly has lower tolerance than I.
While 'hotness' is somewhat subjective, most people who cook with spices understand the concept of adjusting the heat level according to the palate of others. Simply saying "mild", medium, spicy, or slap your mama my face is on fire! The other thing to do is to just take the ride and eat it the way it is prepared. One proven way to cool the heat is with dairy try so have some milk on hand if you know you're going to be eating spicy food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.458583
| 2016-05-06T10:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68829",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Derrell Durrett",
"Flimzy",
"Jon Custer",
"Kevin",
"Megha",
"R.M.",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"logophobe",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18474
|
How do I "evaporate" milk?
I have a recipe that calls for evaporated milk. How can I make "Evaporated Milk" (from raw milk), or a reasonable substitute for the canned evaporated milk found at the supermarket?
Very easy. All you want to do is to remove the water through heating. As you are not going to can it, you don't have to sterilize it afterwards.
The only concern when evaporating milk is to not end with a layer of scorched milk solids on the bottom. First, start with homogenized milk (you don't want to risk undissolved fat swimming on top of it). If you want the pure milk flavor, heat it to 70°C and wait until you are left with half the initial volume. This takes several hours, depending on the quantity of the milk. My great-grandma usually did it overnight.
If you don't mind a "scorched" taste, you can do it much quicker. Take a very big pot. It should be at least 6-7 times higher than the milk depth, because the boiling milk will foam up a lot. The width is up to you, but the wider the pot, the quicker it will go. Bring the milk to a vigorous boil. Use a setting which is just hot enough to sustain boiling, too much heat will increase the scorching. Stir all the time. You need maybe 10 minutes of stirring, again depending on quantity of the milk and pot width. You are aiming for the same rate of evaporation - you should be left with half the original volume, or somewhat less.
You don't have to add sugar to evaporated milk, the sweet taste is caused by the heating. Especially the boiling-evaporated milk is quite sweet, because you get some caramelization.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I don't have access to raw homogenized milk... Is there any way I can reduce the risk of "undissolved fat swimming on top of it?" If not, what is the risk here? Just an uneven consistency when I'm done?
The milk doesn't have to be raw, it can be pasteurized or ESL. I don't know if UHT will work. Practically all milk in the regular supermarket is homogenized. If you buy milk from an organic market, it can be non-homogenized. The risk is indeed bad consistency. If you have a cow and want to use its raw milk, you have to do it with very fresh milk, before the fat has separated. You can also skim the separated fat off the milk before you heat it, but you will end up with milk with a lower fat content, and for an application where you need evaporated milk, it is preferable to have higher fat.
I realize it doesn't have to be raw, but I'm trying to use a large quantity of raw milk I have available. If I was going to buy pasteurized milk for this, I'd probably just buy canned evaporated milk anyway. Thanks for the additional clarification. :)
You can also do this with soy milke, and I assume other non-dairy milks. I have done it to make pareve pumpkin pies, and it turned out perfect with soymilk.
Keep in mind that in Canada, we use the term Homogenized to mean whole milk. In common parlance, there is Skim, 2% and Homo. (although they are all homogenized in the technical sense), and yes, milk comes in bags.
I just did the fast method, and afterwards noticed a white film had formed on the pan. Do you know what that is? Is that the milk fat or something else? I ask because I wonder how much of the non-water content gets lost to the pan in that; it could turn out to be rather counter-productive.
@Fimpellizieri it is milk proteins, they tend to form this layer on the bottom when boiled. It is what will scorch. As the answer says, if you don't want that to happen, you have to use the slow method.
@rumtscho I don't think I really mind the scorch-y taste; it didn't burn and a hint of caramel actually sounds nice. I was just wondering if the flavor profile turns out to be less milk-y because of the content lost stuck to the pan. I might try the slow method some other time for comparison purposes.
I've heard that some people simply put milk on a large pan or container and leave it there for some hours to naturally evaporate without heating it up or anything. Did anyone here try that before?
This will most likely get closed, as you didn't use the ask question. And there's a good chance that people who have tried it wouldn't be around to answer the question, as room temperature milk for hours is a major risk for bacterial growth (and not necessarily the good kind if you didn't heat to sterilize, and then inoculate it with the one you want, like in cheese or yogurt making)
On second thought ... I guess you did answer it by second-hand knowledge ... but I'm still going to say this would be a very, very risky idea.
Did anyone here try that before? -- Yes. The result is usually called farmer cheese or simply "sour milk", depending on the bacteria present during the process.
I'm very sorry. The video I watched mentioned this so quietly and quickly I couldn't hear and didn't realize that they said that. Anyway, I tried simmering the milk, but the milk turned into odd, spongy solids, and I left it out too long. Whoops!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.459512
| 2011-10-20T03:08:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18474",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Fimpellizzeri",
"Flimzy",
"Grace",
"Jaye N.",
"Joe",
"Manako",
"Remko Popma",
"Shekhar Tipnis",
"Wendy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75247",
"i_am_grell",
"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
}
|
18600
|
How to minimise sugar in meringue
My wife just complained that she can't eat my meringue because they have too much sugar in them. She suggested I cook them with less sugar. However, without sugar the meringue won't work right. What is the minimum ratio of egg white to sugar required to get a stable meringue.
What do you mean, "won't work right"? You can create a stiff foam out of eggwhites without using any sugar at all. What's the specific problem with that?
The sugar in a meringue caramelise when cooked and make a sort of toffee. Without any sugar you would just have dried out egg.
My wife and I diverge the opposite way, though we each will eat the other's meringues - they are just quite different. She uses about 6 times the sugar I usually do (I vary a bit) and gets a much harder meringue as a result. There's also a huge variaton in results (separate from sugar content, though affected by it) depending on cooking method - hot and fast, low and slow, somewhere in the middle...they are all good in their own way, unless you manage to burn them (that's just not good...)
@Ecnerwal - do you have a method I could follow? I'm still learning meringue but you sound quite experienced!
Technically, the minimum ratio of sugar is zero. You can definitely create a stable meringue without any sugar at all, although you'll have to mind your conditions and preparation - use a spotlessly-clean bowl, room-temperature egg whites (separated when chilled), initially foamed up on low speed with an acid such as vinegar or cream of tartar, superfine sugar (if you're using any at all) added very slowly after the soft peak stage, and a starch (e.g. corn starch or icing sugar) at the end for added stability.
The main problem, of course, is that as you allude to, when you bake it you'll basically end up with dried-out egg. It won't have any flavour at all. If you're just reducing the sugar then maybe this isn't a problem. If you're trying to eliminate the sugar entirely or almost entirely then you need to replace it with something - generally, a savory bomb, like very old cheese (for example Reggiano and chives), or very dark chocolate if it must be a dessert.
To do that, just grate or finely chop the strong/savory elements, whip the eggs up to the shiny peak stage, and fold in the shavings at the very end. The meringue will hold up.
But again, and I'm going to repeat myself here - you don't need a lot of sugar for stability. You can easily halve the sugar measurement for a traditional meringue recipe and still have it come out OK (albeit less tasty) - especially if you make one of the more stable meringue types, such as an Italian meringue where the sugar is combined as boiling sugar syrup. But you don't have to do that; simply reducing the sugar is fine if you're careful.
I have found this method to achieve a decent meringue with less sugar:
Set a pan of water to simmer.
Using a metal bowl or the top of the double boiler, place your egg whites over the simmering water.Add about half the usual amount of granulated or superfine sugar and stir until the sugar is dissolved. I don't use a thermometer.
Take the egg white sugar mix back to the mixer bowl , add a small amount of something acid like cream of tartar or lemon juice and start whipping. Continue whipping until the bottom of the bowl is cool even if the peaks look good.
You can add additional sugar, but if you do so, use confectioner's sugar (powdered sugar, or sugar which has a bit of corn starch/corn flour) in it. That avoids graininess. However, confectioner's sugar tastes sweeter to me.
I add flavor such as vanilla once the peaks have formed.
This meringue also can form the basis for a butter cream frosting by adding room temperature but sill cool butter in one tablspoon increments after the stiff peaks form.
What is a 'small amount' here?
I found that by adding some vanilla extract at the end that it added flavor to compensate for less sugar.
It's also possible to replace some (or all) of the sugar with Isomalt. It behaves a lot like sugar, but isn't sweet.
You could always use brown sugar. Just dump everything in and whip it up. Make sure the equipment is spotlessly clean though. Brown sugar generally gives the meringue a caramel/toffee like flavour but it's richer and far less sweeter than a normal meringue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.459937
| 2011-10-27T10:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18600",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Coop",
"Ecnerwal",
"Heather Kizer",
"Matt W",
"R George",
"Rincewind42",
"dotMavriQ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"ps0604",
"risto",
"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
}
|
16421
|
How many times is it safe to reheat chicken?
I thought I remembered hearing the food agency Evira say that you should never reheat chicken meat after the initial cooking. However, I cannot find the statement of it anymore. Now I'm starting to suspect my memory.
Could this statement be true? Is it unsafe to reheat chicken?
Taken out of context, that doesn't make much sense, but I can think of several similar claims you might have heard - all of which are true and most can be found on the USDA fact sheet and the sites of most other agencies:
Perishable food should not be left in the "danger zone" (4.4° C - 60° C or 40° F to 140° F) (room temperature) for more than a total of 2 hours; 1 hour if the temperature is above 32° C / 90° F (mouth/gut temperature).
Freezing does not reset this countdown, it only stops it temporarily. Thus, it is not a safe practice to thaw and refreeze food several times (especially if it's being brought above refrigerator temperatures).
Cooking does reset the countdown, but unless you are in a completely sterile environment (hint: you aren't), you still have to keep food out of the danger zone after cooking, which is why guidelines say to refrigerate within 2 hours.
Most people reheat their food to "warm" or even "hot" but not cooking temperature. Unless you reheat to an internal temperature of 74° C / 165° F, then all that time in the danger zone after cooking is cumulative. So if you do what most people do and reheat food to 40°-50° C, a nice comfortable eating temperature, then you'd better either (a) only reheat the portion you plan to eat, and/or (b) throw out any uneaten portion instead of putting it back in the fridge.
Really it's all about the cumulative amount of time, since being fully cooked, that the food has spent in the danger zone. Theoretically, if you boiled the same piece of chicken every 12 hours and quick-froze it immediately afterward, it would stay safe indefinitely. It would also have no flavour or texture left, so I don't recommend it.
Since most people don't carefully measure the internal temperature of food when they reheat it, we have the "best practice" of only reheating perishable food once after it's been cooked, because otherwise it gets really hard to estimate how much time is left on that metaphorical clock. And, obviously, don't leave it in the fridge for more than a few days, because it can still spoil in there, just slower.
So reheating an internal temperature of 74C at least increases ther lifetime of the food and keeps it saftier than heated up below 74C. - Which tool do you use to measure the internal temperature? Is there any pocket -version of the tool?**
@Masi: A thermometer.
Yes, but what type of thermometer? Plastic or metallic? - I have seen metallic ones but they have been too large. Is there any metallic thermometer that you can always carry with you in your belt such that it is so small?
@Masi: Just a regular instant-read thermometer as you'd find in a kitchen store. I've never tried to fit it in my pocket but it's about the same size as a plastic fork, maybe a little longer.
An excellent answer, as always. I predict it will be linked to frequently in future food safety questions.
@Masi: They look like http://www.amazon.com/T/dp/B00009WE45 or http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003P601S2 — they are often called a "meat thermometer". There are analog versions as well, but really the digital ones are far better for what you're doing.
@Aaronut where on that fact sheet does it mention your third point? I'm not seeing it but I could be misreading something.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.460393
| 2011-07-26T19:09:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16421",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"MLow",
"codeslinger",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"rfusca",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16804
|
Can I substitute agar-agar for gelatin in pudding?
Can china grass (agar-agar) be substituted in place of gelatin when making pudding?
Or is there any other ingredient i could use as a substitute that could give me better results?
Better results than what?
than using china grass..
There are several gelling agents, and I'm sure we have discussed them all somewhere around. But putting China grass in food? If you mean the same plant as Wikipedia (ramie), then this is a plant used for weaving canvas sold in eco-conscious cloth shops. Which part would you use, and why?
"China Grass or Agar Agar is nothing but a Vegetable ‘gelatine’ derived from a number of seaweeds (Gelidium amansii) which are processed by boiling and drying. Agar-agar is used as a quick-setting base for many sweets and desserts in Asia."
basically china grass is like veg gelatin.
yes there have been discussions of other gelling agents but those are not available where i live.
and thus a search on Google for gelatin substitution stated china grass as an option.
If it is agar you are referring to then see these questions: Is there a vegetarian gelatin substitute that is as strong as gelatin? and What are alternative gelling agents to gelatine? And what are their properties? Agar-agar (or just agar) produces firm, stable gels much unlike gelatin, and would probably make a fairly horrible pudding.
yehh i did refer to those questions before posting this one. I even Googled for substitutes and from the list the only one available where i live is china grass aka agar agar.
so basically.. agar agar not good lol thank you =)
Agar is not a good choice for pudding because it makes a brittle gel and it won't melt in your mouth at body temperature. What you want for pudding is a starch based thickener. What we call pudding in the US at least is typically thickened with cornstarch. Modified starches like Ultra-Tex 3 can also work well. Are you thinking of something more along the lines of panna cotta, which does normally have gelatin in it? If so, you might try carageenan instead of agar. Here's a recipe that looks promising: http://irishherault.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/vegetarian-panna-cotta/
I've made carrageenan panna cottas, they're great because of the synergy of carrageenan and milk. The only thing is, they tend to develop a "crust" at the top, and they don't immediately melt in your mouth - rather, they "melt" as they move around in your mouth due to the shear-thinning property.
i do use cornstarch to make pudding lol but i wanted to try this particular Chocolate pudding pie recipe-- http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ellie-krieger/double-chocolate-pudding-pie-recipe/index.html
Well i guess can't use china grass.. lol thanks for the help =)
As a replacement for gelatine I would use Arrowroot or Tapioca, it is similarily clear, but it has a lower viscosity in my experience.
What do you mean by pudding? Custard? Then I would use cornflour or wheatstarch.
Arrowroot... tapioca.. not available here lol
this is the pudding recipe http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ellie-krieger/double-chocolate-pudding-pie-recipe/index.html
@Rabab, I've read the recipe and think, that Agar would be a good option. I have to agree with Michael, that you have a different mouth-melting-sensation, but I think, as there is a lot of cornstarch in there as well, which thickens, but leaves the pudding viscous, it does not make too much of a different for the final product. Just don't use too much Agar.
I agree to go with using agar agar for pudding but use it very little.. and pudding come so delicous..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.460721
| 2011-08-11T03:42:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16804",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Lear",
"Allison Lupica",
"Amelse Etomer",
"Connie Lutz Keller",
"John Newman",
"Rabab",
"ardee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6966",
"rumtscho",
"supertonsky",
"watbywbarif"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8905
|
How can I stop roast beef drying out?
I've bought a beef joint for roasting but it doesn't have much fat around it.
How can I stop it drying out?
Depending on your cooking method you shouldn't have any problem with the joint drying out. By it's very nature, a joint contains a lot of connective tissue. That connective tissue will gelatinize under a slow roast and make the meat come out extremely juicy. The best way to do this is going to be a lot of low dry heat (like the kind you get in your oven thats set to about 200-250*F). You could also slow cook it, as in a crock pot, but only if you don't want slices. BTW, if you want a crust on that bad boy, just kick your oven up to five hundred when the roast gets to about ten degrees from where you want it, and it should crust up nicely.
Finally, don't forget that all large pieces of meat are going to keep cooking even after you remove them from the heat so make sure that you take that into consideration when deciding what temp to yank it out at.
One thing that is relevant when roasting meat is that you should let it rest for about 20-30 minutes after taking it out of the oven. If you take it out and carve it immediately, it will lose all of the juices and will be dryer than if you can wait a little while.
Don't forget to let your meat warm up to room temperature before you cook it. Imagine it's just like a tense muscle when cold. Then simply brown it, about 30s each side and I always opt for slow cooking, like 130°C for >3 hours.
If it's a lean cut, such as silverside, I wrap it in foil and add about 1cm of water in the containing pan, with the lid on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.461029
| 2010-11-06T17:52:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8905",
"authors": [
"HaiTiCompanys212398",
"Linda",
"Mikey T.",
"Simon Godard",
"dcherian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18240"
],
"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
}
|
8951
|
How can I avoid from turning mushrooms brown while freezing it?
When you freeze mushrooms they will turn brown. You can't keep them for long time in the fridge though. On the other hand I can't buy it everyday! I love mushrooms in anything and I want to have some always ready to cook. Any suggestions? Is the only way to buy it everyday? I don't like canned mushrooms or similar preservation methods.
If you bake them, you won't have to worry, because they are already brown!
One suggestion is to buy dried mushrooms and rehydrate them when you need them.
As for freezing, as you probably know if you freeze them and thaw directly without any intervention you will probably get brown, mushy mushrooms. There are a few ways to avoid this.
If you blanch the mushrooms first in some boiling water, then put them in an ice bath, that should stop the enzymes that cause the browning and also help with the texture some. This method should also retain the most flavor of any of the preservation methods.
As a side note, I highly recommend going from freezer to cooking directly without thawing - this should reduce the amount of mushiness you will get.
I find that slicing and sauteing the mushrooms first in some oil or butter, then freezing them, works great for most uses, since sauteed is how I usually prefer my mushrooms anyway. I just take them out of the freezer and throw them directly into the meal.
In my house the most common method is as I first mentioned, we buy dried portabellos etc and just rehydrate them into our meals. However blanching and then freezing is often better for texture and taste, it just takes a little more time.
There are some great mushroom preservation methods available on this site.
How about boiling them with water and a little lemon juice?
I have read that you need to cook them prior to freezing.
Summary of instructions:
Wash mushrooms (don't soak them, you don't want to take on extra water)
Pat Dry
Quickly sautee them with a bit of oil over medium high heat.
Allow to cool then transfer to a freezer container, removing as much air as possible
Like with freezing most things, excess air/moisture will speed up freezer burn.
As another alternative, to simply not buying fresh mushrooms daily is to keep dried mushrooms on hand.
There's a step missing or something: allow to cool from what? Washing? Patting dry?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.461443
| 2010-11-08T19:53:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8951",
"authors": [
"Baker2224",
"Carmen horner",
"Daniel B.",
"Hajar",
"Ivo Flipse",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/512",
"user4167"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36142
|
What is the "grain" in 45 grain brown rice vinegar?
I'm completely lost as to the meaning of "grain" in 45 grain brown rice vinegar. What does the grain number mean?
Grain is a measurement of the acidity of the vinegar. It is the acidity percentage multiplied by 10, so 45 grain vinegar would be 4.5% acidity.
So what does the word "grain" have to do with "acidity"?
It's just a unit of measurement. Every 10 "grain" is 1% acidity, similar to "proof" measurements of alcohol, where each "proof" is 2% alcohol.
@sourd'oh I'm still curious about the connection - was there a process for making vinegar that had something to do with grain that gave rise to this name?
@Jefromi, it's possibly coming from Malt Vinegar which was traditionally made in England from barley (the grain). The 'grain' number likely referred to amount of grain in the vat of work (water plus grain) which resulted in higher acidity.
@Jefromi That I'm not sure of. It can be a measure of weight (about .06 grams). Wikipedia says that the hardness of water can be measured in grains of calcium per gallon, but that would be going in the opposite direction of vinegar. Perhaps vinegar grain measurements were grains of acetic acid per gallon?
@MandoMando While that's possible, it seems that the acidity would have more to do with length of fermentation than the amount of grain you started with.
@sourd'oh acetic acid is produced by fermentation of ethanol which is produced by fermentation of starch/sugars which is your starting point of the process. The maximum acidity is predetermined by the starting amount of sugar/starch in the grain. That part is known ;) I'll turn this into a answer for longevity.
@MandoMando I would think the maximum acidity would be determined more by the tolerances of the organisms producing the ethanol and then the acetic acid. No yeast is going to be able to live in a wort where all of the sugar has been converted to ethanol, and I'd assume that the acid producing bacteria would have similar limits.
@sourd'oh that would be case if the amount of sugars->ethanol, is greater than the tolerance of the yeast and AAB (acetic acid bacteria). At 45 grain, you'd likely convert all the sugars to achieve that acidity (if you wait till equilibrium). Therefore the amount of grain in the beginning can directly translate to the acidity in the end. If you don't wait to the end, you can end up with other products I guess (sweeter vinegar if the yeast was stopped).
Just an addition with some boring math ...
Grain is also a weight unit (64.8mg) based on the average weight of a barley grain. If you add 10 grains (.648g) of barley to a fluid ounce (28.4g) of water and assume that the barley contains 2/3 of fermentable starch (at least close enough for a rough estimate), you will end up with 0.286g of acetic acid dissolved in 28.4g of water if the ethanol and vinegar fermentation completes. This is very close to a 1% solution.
-- converted from the comments regarding the origin of grain: --
It's possible the term 'grain' comes from Malt Vinegar which was traditionally made in England from barley (the grain). The 'grain' number likely referred to amount of grain in the vat of work (water plus grain) which resulted in higher acidity.
Acetic acid (main acid in vinegar) is produced by fermentation of ethanol which is produced by fermentation of starch/sugars which is the starting point of the process.
Therefore the maximum acidity of a given batch is predetermined by the starting amount of sugar/starch in the grain. And if the grain is uniform, it can be used as a unit.
Yeast, which does the conversion of sugar to ethanol, dies at around 15% alcohol concentration, regardless of how much grain you start with. Starting out with more grain is just going to leave more unfermented sugar in your final product without raising the alcohol concentration beyond that limit.
@sourd'oh yes. and up until that point, you can get a somewhat linear mapping of grain->acidity which likely is what they used back then. Particularly with Barley, it is difficult to get more than 5% alcohol (hence the beer), to hit 15% you really do something special. The last batch of beer we made at a local brewery had the vat nearly full of malt and still only made 4.5% alcohol. To be clear, by maximum acidity, I mean achievable within the bioprocess limits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.461670
| 2013-08-19T20:06:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36142",
"authors": [
"AlphaF20",
"Amber B.",
"Cascabel",
"Dee",
"MandoMando",
"Molly",
"Rodrigo S. Teixeira",
"SourDoh",
"Wyatt Galster",
"bobobobo",
"drivegg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9271
|
Can Escallion be replaced by onion?
Green onions are said to be milder than onions, which would suggest that if one do not mind the more powerful onion flavour in a particular dish then onions could be used in place of green onions.
My assumption could be wrong here; I am not a chef but a poor father trying to cook. I want to substitute green onion for Escallion in some Caribbean recipes, and several internet sites say that Escallion is green onion - but, confusingly, some Caribbean cooking websites are saying that Escallion is not green onion.
Could someone clear this up for me? Is Escallion the same as scallions (green onions)? And can Escallion be replaced by onion in a recipe?
Escallion = scallion = green onion.
I think it's possible to substitute regular onions in some situations, but there are a lot of variables.
First off, scallions have a sharper, more grassy flavor than onions, though they're not as strong.
Then there's the question of which kind of onion you want to substitute. White onions have some of that same sharp flavor, and are quite strong. Yellow onions are much milder and sweeter, and might not be such a close flavor match. Red onions are somewhere in between, in my experience. I would probably try white onion, but in much smaller quantity than called for of scallions.
It's also important to consider how the scallions are being used. If they're being cooked into the recipe, that's very different than if they're being added right at the end, or even as a garnish. I think the substitution is less of an issue if the scallions are to be cooked. If they're to be more or less raw, I'd suggest white onion, not too much of it, and sliced very very thinly, as a raw white onion is really strong.
Whatever you try, bear in mind that it won't be exactly the same. But that certainly doesn't mean it'll be bad--just different.
Thanks a million for the excellent answer, now if only I could give you a million up votes for this one. :)
A little research seems to suggest that escallion is not scallion :
Escallion - The escallion (Allium ascalonicum L.) is a culinary herb. Grown in Jamaica, it is similar in appearance to the British spring onion, American green onion, Welsh onion and leek, though said by Jamaicans to be more flavourful. Like these others, it is a (relatively) mild onion that does not form a large bulb.
(from Jamaica Cooking Dictionary )
Now ... 'Allium ascalonicum' is not what most countries consider 'scallions' (that'd be the 'Allium fistulosum'); ascalonicum is what we normally call 'shallots' ... so it's possible that they have a variety of shallot (aka 'multipier onion') that's bred for the green tops.
A little further digging suggests that the Allium ascalonicum L. is specifically 'wild onion', which I know I have growing in my lawn (but only really harvestable in the spring, before I start mowing for the season). It's possible that there are regional variations, but I'd say that wild onion tops are closer to chives, but that might also come from my harvesting them before they've fully matured.
...
All that being said, I substitute things all the time. I'd probably cut down the amount of onion (or use a milder red or yellow sweet onion), go with chives or shallots, or as @belisarius mentioned, go with leeks.
update: and in walking through my yard today, I noticed that the wild onions are back up above the grass, so at this time of year, you might have a free (and closer) substitute -- if your yard has areas where it looks like densely packed chives, and if you cut some, it'll have an onion-y smell, then you most likely have wild onions.
You may "almost" replace scallions by a mix of onion and leeks. Half and half is usually ok if your onions are strong flavoured.
You can replace escallion with green onion, but the flavor won't be identical. If you're concerned with cost over reproduction, green onions are cheaper and suitable.
Since the top answer says that escallion is the same as green onion, can you provide any evidence that this is the case? What is the difference between the two?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.462004
| 2010-11-19T16:30:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9271",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Christel Webb",
"Rawkcy",
"Simmerdown",
"asheeshr",
"bgillette",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"user18979"
],
"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
}
|
123381
|
What is this type of cookware called used for roasting and baking?
I'm looking for the English name for this cooking utensil:
It can be used for roasting on top of the stove, or it can be put in the oven for slow cooking.
I've stumbled upon 'roasting dish', or 'baking dish'. But when I search for these terms, I get results that differ from what I'm actually looking for:
Source: Google image search
I'm reading that dutch oven are more versatile than casserole dish, because the former can be put in the oven or on the stove, whilst the latter can mostly be put on the stove (you could use it as a dutch oven too, but apparently it's not as good). I'm not a cook though, so I can't say how true that is. The picture you showed most likely resembles a casserole dish, but your description fits a dutch oven.
To me, that's a Dutch (*) oven. You could also call it a "heavy braising pot." Often, they are enameled, so you could call it "enameled pot" also.
In general, a dish doesn't have a lid, and a pot does, so a roasting or baking dish will generally be that open thing in your lower pictures. (The exception that proves the rules will be casserole dishes, some of which do have lids, but may not be ok for the stove.)
(*) - not because it's from the Netherlands, but because it lets you do baking-like things without an oven. Same as Dutch treat, Dutch courage, and Dutch uncle - in the US, it means not-really. (The UK does something similar with French.) In an outdoor cooking situation, a cast iron dutch oven that sits on a fire and has a small twiggy fire actually set burning on its lid will give you quite oven-like results for some foods.
Le Creuset, probably the most famous brand of the enameled version, calls them French Ovens and Dutch Ovens interchangeably on their Canadian website. I have no connection with the firm.
Thanks for the detailed information. This brief digression was also very interesting.
Nit: the Dutch oven actually IS named after the Netherlands. https://bushcooking.com/history-dutch-ovens/ , not the origin you give here.
@FuzzyChef not sure I agree with that article, I have read elsewhere it's more not-an-oven, but I don't have links handy to prove it
There are a lot of sources that cite Abraham Darby, who is both known to have sold some of the first commercial cast iron pots in England, as well as having spent a lot of time working with Dutchmen. Supposedly the Darby cast iron patent even mentions the term Dutch Oven, but it hasn't been scanned and put online, so I can't verify that.
If you search on "Darby dutch oven", you'll get dozens of hits from reputable publications, plus Wikipedia.
The uk had a long war with the dutch iver the spice islands, dutch-something is also an insult.
Much like calling all disposable facial tissues "Kleenex", I and many people in my life call an enameled Dutch oven a "Le Creuset". As in, "can you get the Le Creuset out of the cabinet?"
But it’s not a prototypical Dutch Oven. Those are deeper than what’s pictured. It might be a Le Creuset “Shallow Round Oven”, but it might be even shorter than that. If the bottom edge was more rounded, I’d have considered it to be a braiser or sauteuse.
For what is worth, Etymonline seems unsure of the origin: Dutch oven is from 1769; OED lists it among the words describing things from Holland, but perhaps it is here used in the slighting sense.
Sometimes "Dutch Oven" refers to a particular type of dish with a raised lip on the lid to put coals for cooking on a campfire.
Sometimes you see it said that the enameled ones are French ovens and the plain cast-iron ones are Dutch ovens. But as an American I've only ever head them called Dutch ovens, even the stainless steel ones!
I call mine a cast iron casserole dish. And google agrees with me in the uk.
lecreuset in their uk shop calls them casseroles.
https://www.lecreuset.co.uk/en_GB/c/cooking-and-baking/cooking/casseroles
Same here. We have one of these https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8906175 "Argos Home 5.3 Litre Cast Iron Casserole Dish"
yeah i got mine from sainsburys
A "casserole". From Cambridge dictionary (my emphasis):
a dish made by cooking meat, vegetables, or other foods in liquid inside a heavy container at low heat, or the heavy, deep container with a lid used in cooking such dishes:
While "casserole" is more often used for the type of food, the original meaning is still in use.
The dish is named after the cooking pot. Casseroles can be iron or ceramic.
+1, I find this a better fit than "Dutch oven". For Dutch ovens, I always think of cast iron, never of other materials, and it is frequently taller than a casserole dish, so not really as good for oven use.
Not to be confused with French casserole
mais dérivé de cela
Just wondering - would you ever say: "go get the casserole out of the cupboard"? That doesn't sound right (to me). You'd always call it a "casserole dish"
Yes, I'd say that...
Unfortunately if you search for "casserole" your first hits will be food recipes, your second will be ceramic pots, and cast iron pots will be far down the list.
@MarkRansom Actually, when I search for "casserole", this is what I find, first hit: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/711b85PkbrL.AC_SL1500.jpg (it's French for "saucepan"). Edit: I do see your point though
It looks like Wikipedia agrees with you: Casserole pots (for making casseroles) resemble roasters and Dutch ovens, and many recipes can be used interchangeably between them. Depending on their material, casseroles can be used in ovens or on stovetops. Casseroles are often made of metal, but are popular in glazed ceramic or other vitreous material as well.
Dutch oven if you are in America.
Cocotte if you are in Europe.
+1 for supplying the (a?) non-English name.
Casserole if you are in English-speaking Europe.
A quick look at Le Creuset's French, English and Canadian websites shows that they list the same item as a Cocotte ovale en fonte émaillée on the French site and as a Cast Iron Oval Casserole on the English site; and a similar-looking item (but only in two sizes for some reason) on their Canadian site as an Oval Dutch Oven.
So a literal answer to your question is "cast iron oval casserole".
I suspect that the issue is that there isn’t a typical English name for it. At least, not one that’s universal across English dialects.
First, we have to ask what characteristics you most care about:
The material is enameled cast iron, so holds a lot of heat, and has what looks to be a relatively flat lid.
Some people would say ‘Dutch Oven’, but usually the sides are higher, as they’re used for stewing and larger roasts. If it’s a Dutch Oven, it’s specifically the Le Creuset Short Dutch Oven.
It might be a braiser (for braising) or sauteuse, but braisers usually have more domed lids, and both have a fairly large radius curve at the bottom edge.
I’ve also seen similar items that are slightly shorter sold as an ‘everyday pan’ but there are companies that sell a ‘deep everyday pan’
I'm looking for a cast iron 'pan' that I can use for roasting and slow cooking. And it should also be possible to prepare whine-based (acidic) sauces in it. I've never owned cast iron cookware, so I'm still trying to figure out what exactly fulfills my need.
@Velvel enameled cast iron can stand up to acids so long as the enamel isn’t cracked. You don’t want seasoned cast iron for that. As for shape/size, it’s mostly an issue of what you’re going to be cooking in it. If you’re not doing deep frying or large pots of stew, a shorter vessel is often easier to get into when you’re cooking on the stovetop. Also remember that iron is heavy, and a large Dutch oven filled with food can get very heavy, so make sure it has decent sized handles to grab onto with pot holders.
Top picture is a Dutch oven. Specifically it looks like a enameled cast iron Dutch oven
https://www.google.com/search?q=enamel+dutch+oven&sxsrf=lnms&tbm=isch&sa
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=enamel+dustch+oven
https://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/le-creuset-signature-round-wide-dutch-oven/?group=1&sku=2189990&pkey=cdutch-ovens-braisers
Middle picture is a "Casserole dish".
Last picture is a "Roasting Pan with Rack"
middle picture is a "baking dish" :)
On lecreuset.co.uk it's a "Cast Iron Oval Casserole".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.462368
| 2023-02-13T18:37:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123381",
"authors": [
"Clockwork",
"Daron",
"Davidmh",
"FuzzyChef",
"James K",
"Joe",
"JonathanZ",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mark Ransom",
"OrangeDog",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Velvet",
"WendyG",
"Will Crawford",
"fdomn-m",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96974",
"johncip",
"rumtscho",
"spikey_richie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119506
|
Beating eggs for brownie
This brownie recipe (from this book) calls for eggs, beaten. I'm not entirely familiar with US recipes. What does it mean that the eggs have to be beaten? Is it sufficient to do this lightly with a fork or maybe they'd be better beaten using food processor?
And do you mind if I ask where you’re from? Obviously not the US, but if you’re from an English speaking country, I should add this to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67
Oops. Thought I had another comment — beaten eggs are like the mixing you would do in making ‘scrambled eggs’. ‘Lightly beaten’ does not need to be homogenous (just yolks broken and a few seconds with a fork), and some recipes that need to denature proteins will instruct you to ‘beat until lemony yellow’ (which doesn’t work so well for eggs from Japan where the yolks might start that color)
@Joe thanks for your comments, I am actually from non-English-speaking European country. The one about degrees of egg-beating will probably be useful in future recipes.
The eggs should be beaten until roughly homogeneous; that is, there should be no "pieces" of unmixed egg white left. (If left in, those pieces would cook and harden, leaving you with, essentially, pieces of boiled egg in your brownies.) With some eggs there will be small strings of connective tissue from the egg that tend to float to the surface and appear as (slightly lumpy) bits of the white; these may be picked out with a fork, but they're unlikely to be noticeable in brownies.
Assuming you're adept with a fork, beating an egg or two shouldn't take more than 60 seconds.
BTW: In this recipe, there's no fundamental reason to beat the eggs before you add them to anything else. As long as they're thoroughly mixed in before you add the flour and other dry ingredients, you'll be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.463117
| 2022-01-14T10:10:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119506",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lukeg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85717
|
Imported Italian canned tomatoes vs. American tomatoes
Why are imported Italian canned tomatoes more tender than the same American product?
Unfortunately, it's a known problem. Much of the produce in the US has been bred for profit: size, color, amount produced per acre, and ability to survive handling (mechanized pickers, shipping long distances, etc).
It's that last one that tends to be the problem with tenderness -- a tomato that's tender when ripe will get squished when it's being picked in the field and transported to the canning facility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhu21aNUlxQ
(summary of the video : vines are cut and stripped, then tomatoes are flung into a large container where tons are collected at once, then they're washed, sorted, stripped of their skins, and possibly diced or crushed, sorted again, then canned and sterilized)
Now, canned tomatoes are better than the ones you get in the grocery store -- they don't have to be shipped cross-country (or even from South America), they only have to make it from the fields to the canning plant ... which are typically built in areas where there's lots of tomato production. But they're still shipped in large containers, so the bottom ones need to be able to survive the weight of the ones above them, and they need to be sturdy enough to survive the dicing process.
And so there's one other trick that North American companies do -- they'll often add calcium chloride to the tomatoes to keep them firm. But this also makes it more difficult for them to break down when cooking.
Cook's Illustrated did a review of canned diced tomatoes years ago, and they mention that different brands use different varieties of tomatoes ... but you'd have to get a subscription to see what they preferred. They also mention different levels of citric acid used, and acidity can slow the breakdown of some vegetables (onion, potatoes, etc.).
Your best bet is to get tomatoes from a local, small farm but then you'll have to peel them yourself. If you're making sauce, you can ask them for 'seconds' which might not be as pretty or blemish-free like the ones they put out at farmer's markets.
If it's not the right season and you need to used canned, check out the labels and look for one that doesn't mention calcium chloride.
San Marzano Tomatoes are grown in Italy. On one particular piece of real estate and on one side of the mountain which give you the best quality in all of Italy and the World. Tomatoes that grow close to this real estate have much of same quality but can not be called San Marzano. Remember, the tomato is a fruit. Italy is also responsible for incredible wines made from it's amazing grapes grown in unique soil in which volcanic ash of Italy's past may play a role in its produce quality. Sometimes tenderness depends on when a tomato is picked or the way they are processed when it comes to American Brands.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.463291
| 2017-11-18T01:38:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85717",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86069
|
How to correct egg nog that is too sweet?
I have a large carton of Producers “All-Natural” Egg Nog. The actual taste itself is only slightly too sweet but the main issue is that it leaves a SUPER sweet after-taste that tastes like flavored lip gloss. Is there anything I can do to fix it?
1) Too sweet, you could dilute it with some rum or other alcohol. That might mask the sweet aftertaste with an alcoholic aftertaste....
2) Grate some nutmeg on top: fresh nutmeg has such a bite, your tastebuds will forget about the sweetness.
3) While you're at it you could further dilute it with a little half and half, or just plain milk.
Eggnog is primarily made using egg yolks, cream, milk, spices, and a sweetener. If it's too sweet, you can mix in heavy whipping cream and/or any kind of milk to dilute it. As often done in traditional eggnogs, you could beat egg whites until foamy and stir that in. It'll add a frothier texture and more volume to the drink so that it's not as sweet. You could also add more spices and flavorings to mask the sweetness, such as nutmeg, cinnamon, or vanilla extract.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.463526
| 2017-12-02T03:45:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86069",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93688
|
Fried rice vs pulav vs biryani
How can we differentiate between fried rice, pulav and biryani? As these three rice dishes look similar, are there any differences between three of them?
The difference is in the preparation, which may not be as obvious when the food's served. I'm not an expert on the variations of pilaf & biryani, but here's what I understand:
Pulav / Pilaf / Pilau / Plov / Pulao / etc. are dishes where the rice is cooked in a seasoned broth. Some variants include cooking the rice in oil before adding the broth. It may contain meat, seafood, vegetables, eggs, etc. When it's finished, there's very little liquid left.
Biryani is a type of pilaf, but you cook the meat and rice separately. The rice is cooked to ~70% in a pot, optionally with very mild spices. Then a layer of meat goes at the bottom of a separate pot & the semi-cooked rice goes on top of it in layers, each layer seasoned with distinct aromatic spices. And the entire set-up is cooked on a low heat. They also tend to be more heavily spiced than Pilafs, with most of the spice generally at the bottom of the pot. They may be a bit saucy, not entirely dry. The bottom-most layer of spice mix often contains yogurt, but may include dairy or coconut milk, not just a broth. Traditionally, the giant pots are sealed with dough & the lid loaded with weight to simulate pressure cooking and while serving, they split the mix vertically to ensure every one gets a generous portion of each layer. If they're cooked in the clay pots, they aren't opened until serving, so everyone at the table gets the aroma that's released.
Fried rice uses cooked rice (some ay freshly cooked so it's fluffy, others insist you have to use day-old rice so the starche change first). You cook whatever meat or vegetables you're using in oil (typically stir-fried in a wok), and add the rice and continue to stir-fry. It tends to be saltier than the others, due to the addition of soy sauce. It might be a little bit greasy, as the last step is frying, not the first step. It also doesn't contain saffron which are frequently in the other two.
A few others that I'll add :
Nasi Goreng (Indoneasean / Malasian / Dutch) are varients of fried rice, but it's made with kejap manis (a spiced, sweetened soy sauce), more heavily spiced then Chinese-style fried rice, and often contains shrimp paste, eggs, sambal, and fried shallots or onions. There's still a bit of variety, as some say there should only be a paste for flavoring (no chunks of things) and accompaniments on the side, while others have ribbons of eggs, fried onions, and shredded (uncooked) lettuce.
Paella (Spanish) is a type of pilaf, but it's medium grained cooked over high heat in an uncovered, very shallow pan. A good paella should have a crusty layer of well-cooked rice at the bottom because it's not stirred towards end of the cooking. If you're adding meat or vegetables, they're typically cooked first, then placed on top of the rice while it finishes cooking.
Risotto (Italian) is similar to the others, but the unwashed medium grain rice is cooked with aromatics (eg, onion) first until it's toasted (lightly fried), then liquid is slowly added with lots of stirring to scrape off the starch on the outside so it thickens the sauce until it's creamy. It often includes wine as the first addition of liquid.
Jambalaya (American Cajun) is a pilaf with browned vegetables and/or meat, then the addition of tomato paste, tomato juice, or crushed tomatoes (and no saffron). It's often served wetter than a standard pilaf.
... and dirty rice, arroz con pollo, jambalaia, spanish rice, yellow rice, etc.
I'll add that there are pilafs that are called bryani and vice-versa. For those two names, it seems to matter more where the dish is from (Persia vs. India) than what's in it.
@FuzzyChef : When I was trying to verify that I wasn't misstating the descriptions of the dishes, I found a number that had both in their name. And a few people complaining about restaurants serving pilafs when they menu said biriyani, or vegetarian biriyani (complaining that it should be called tahri)
... and you haven't even touched the half-dozen ways the Afgans prepare rice ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.463627
| 2018-11-07T15:03:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93688",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129897
|
Correct term for "doneness" window?
When talking about cooking, what is the term used to refer to the window of time between undercooked, and overcooked? I've tried googling around and haven't found the correct one. I know some foods have a longer window than others, e.g., for roasting chicken breast, 1 minute, for thighs, longer, and for browned butter, the exact amount of time I look away from the saucepan.
The only thing that I can think of where someone MIGHT have given it a name was an episode of Good Eats about eggs, and Alton Brown had an RC car to talk about how slower cooking lowered the temperature for 'perfectly cooked' and made it less likely to overshoot. (because although people say it's a temperature not a time... it's actually a state of being, and more about how you've altered the food with heat or chemicals)
First, the words "underdone" and "overdone" don't refer to time, rather they refer to temperature (or, perhaps more precisely time and temperature). The phase between the two could be "done", "properly cooked", "safely cooked", "cooked to your liking"...there are perhaps more descriptors.
You will have to clarify what this has to do with roasting a chicken breast for 1 minute, which would likely place it in the "underdone" category.
Response to your update: I am not sure your clarification helps. In many cases (take chicken thighs, which are very forgiving) one minute (or 5...or more) either way might not make a difference...in browning butter, it could be the difference between perfect and burnt.
To reiterate, it is about time + temperature. I could prepare for you a chicken breast using a very low temperature water bath, and held over a long time that would be perfectly safe to eat ("done" could mean safe from pathogens), but that is not a product that people usually enjoy eating.
In the end, "done", or your window, is quite variable. It is really about understanding ingredients, cooking methods, and the desired final outcome.
I think the OP thinks that there is a precise tipping point between "underdone" and "properly cooked", and another between "properly cooked" and "overdone" and thinks that, for a given meat, it always takes an exact amount of time between these two points.
Thank you, I'll update my question to be more accurate!
Most dishes have a target temperature range. For a chicken breast this could be 145F to 150F (depending on your preferences and risk profile). That means below 145 you would deem it undercooked and if its above 150F you would consider it overcooked.
So the "window" is the time it takes the temp to rise (in this example) from 145F to 150F. This time depends a lot on the thing you cook, the method and the target temperature.
If you throw a thin steak on a 600F+ grille, things will be moving very fast and your window is probably 20s or less. If you slow cook a huge chunk of roast beef at 210F in the oven, you have 10s of minutes.
Obviously the best choice for meats is a food thermometer. Keep an eye on it and pull it when you are at target (factoring in resting and post-cooking temperature rise). There are now good wireless thermometers where you can monitor the temperature on your phone and even set an alarm for the target temp.
One trick to determine the rise time is to look at the temp early in the process twice with one minute in between. Let's say you measure 70F and 80F, that means that you gained 10F in one minute and if your target is 130F you have around 5 minutes more to go. This is off course not exact, but it will be in the ballpark and give you a hint when to really start paying attention.
For things that you cannot easily stick a thermometer in, you just need to use your eyes, ears and nose. Again, If you are cooking on high heat, you need to stay close. If you are cooking with low or medium heat, you have more slack.
So if I got chicken up to 165, and then kept it there, it wouldn’t overcook?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.463972
| 2024-12-30T23:36:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129897",
"authors": [
"Daniel B",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
111018
|
Is a pizza like this unheard of in the USA?
My idea of a pizza, bought from a pizzeria in Sweden (at least growing up and when I last did, which was a few years ago now), is as follows:
A standard pizza dough is grabbed and turned into a flat circle. It's very thin.
Some tomato sauce is put in the middle and circled around to just cover the dough.
Small shreds (or flat, thin squares) of ham are sprinkled over this, in a reasonable amount which doesn't add significant height.
Cut pieces of standard "champion" (Agaricus) mushrooms are added, complementing the ham pieces but not "taking over" them in quantity nor taste.
Standard pizza cheese shreds are added on top, causing the entire thing to still look very thin and absolutely not anywhere near a "pan" pizza.
It's put into the pizza oven for a few minutes. (I don't remember exactly how long.)
The finished pizza has some oregano sprinkled on top from a jar.
It could also be that the cheese is put on before the other "toppings". I'm foggy on that detail.
The pizza described above is called "Capricciosa". If you remove step 4, it instead becomes what is known as a "Vesuvio". These two pizzas are what I consider "real pizzas". I have tried many other versions, but (almost) none of them taste good at all to me; it seems like this is the "gold standard" for what a pizza is.
However, Americans (and probably Italians) seem to have a completely different idea of what makes a pizza. At least judging by countless movies, TV series, live streams, videos, cartoons and photos I've seen. Most notably, the USA pizzas seem to be much thicker, what I'd call a "pan" pizza, with both way more bread part and fillings/toppings, and seem to never, ever contain the ingredients I mentioned above. It seems like "Pepperoni" is by far the most common. That is, little round slices of Pepperoni sausage. While that can be good for sure, it really gives the pizza a very different taste compared to the ham or ham + mushroom kind which I like.
I tried to locate a good photo, but sadly didn't find any. These two pizzas (which don't look very appealing on these photos) at least give an idea of what I'm talking about, I suppose:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Pizza_bella_vista.jpg (also includes pineapple and shrimps, so please ignore that)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Italian_pizza_from_stockholm.jpg (Vesuvio)
Is this "thin" kind of pizza, with specifically ham and mushrooms (or ham only), entirely nonexistent in the USA? Is that just something that nobody makes over there? Would perhaps nobody even want such a pizza? The typical American pizzas do look tasty, but it seems like they would be just "too much" with such enormous amounts of toppings.
I’m voting to close this question because it is not about cooking.
I'm American, and I haven't personally eaten a pepperoni pizza in decades :) I know a lot of places that I could go to get a good thin crust pizza with whatever topping assortment I prefer, even a couple of the major chains. Using popular media to judge "typical food" is probably always going to be misleading.
@Johanna : it's about cooking terminology. It's just as much about cooking as any of the other questions about what we call things: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/110954/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/109430/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/108830/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/99631/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/95016/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/91691/67
Seems on topic to me, we have plenty of questions of this type.
This sounds from description like a Neapolitan (Naples-style) pizza. Whether or not you have a place near you that does this style varies a lot - we're lucky to have a few in our region which are fabulous, but it's not ubiquitous. As noted, there's a TON of pizza styles both domestic and global that you can find in the US.
The place where this veers away from terminology is in the emphasis on personal preference for an extremely specific type of pizza, down to the specific toppings. I get asking whether there are thin pizzas with smaller quantities of toppings. I think the question could be improved if it were edited to ask more directly about simply whether that type of pizza could be found in the US, with less of the implication that other kinds of pizza aren't as good or even aren't pizza. If the goal is information rather than debating what "real" pizza is, best not to invite the latter.
I disagree that the question should be closed. It's not a great question, but it is on-topic.
Welcome to SA, Pizza Lover! One note: American styles of pizza are very distinct from Italian. There's overlap, sure, but there's tons of differences. The "Swedish" pizza you describe, Capriccosia, is actually a traditional Italian recipe.
Any American would recognize this as "pizza". I'm not sure that most American's tastes would make this a popular choice though.
There is a fantastically wide range of pizza styles available in the US. The traditional American "fast food" pizza, such as one would get from Domino's or Pizza Hut, has a fairly thick, doughy crust, but thin-crust pizzas are nearly as widely available, and have become more common over the past two decades.
In the US, it's less common for pizzas to be ordered by a particular well-known "standard" name like "capricciosa" or "pugliese". A pizzeria will often have its own menu of topping combinations with their own names. Depending on the pizzeria, people might tend to order one of those, or they might be more likely to specify the full set of toppings directly, e.g. "ham and mushroom" (definitely not an uncommon combination, and one that would be available from virtually any pizzeria).
I've only had pizza in Sweden once, but what I had would not have been at all unique or remarkable in the US.
Even Pizza Hut and Domino's now sell thin crust pizza.
Just note, to get "quality" pizza like OP is describing, they'll be better off trying boutique or higher-end pizzerias that use wood fired brick ovens, etc - not Dominos. While Dominos makes a good pizza, it's not the same as wood fired brick oven thin crust pizza with premium toppings.
The pizze on your photos look to me quite near to what is known as New York style in the US, rather flat, but leavened and with some toppings. NY style is also also the US style that comes closest to the Italian original.
If you are interested in an even flatter pizza St. Louis style might be for you.
St. Louis style pizza's are by far one of the best pizza's. The provolone and that oregano on that crips crust is just perfect.
In the USA the definition of pizza is wide. Different regions in the US have different styles of pizza. As a result, Americans have pioneered an entire lexicon to help them navigate the churning sea that is popular pizza culture. Looking at your pictures, I would describe your pizzas as thin-crust pizza with ham and cheese.
I wish I knew more about you so I could tailor my answer better. I'm going to assume you want to find a pizza like you remember. My instinct is that you will want to go to a place that does a wood-fired pizza. If you can find a restaurant that specializes in "Neapolitan" pizza, you will find a pizza that is more balanced, less filling.
American pizzas as a whole are designed to be a stand-alone meals with sides being more of an add-on or afterthought. That is part of the reason the pizza you see is so thick and heavy. However, health conscious consumers and people who grew up with different ideas of pizza do influence the market in cities. It may however, be impossible to find pizza like this in a small town.
Good luck! Maybe you will find something new that pleases you!
To answer the main question in the title:
No, it is not unknown:
New York(PDF)
More New York
Portland Maine
Portland Oregon
Los Angeles
Greenport NY, a pizzaria called La Capriccosa
Capriccosa is a "standard" Italian pizza recipe, so many places in the US that serve thin-crust "Italian" style pizza will have it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.464308
| 2020-10-05T10:41:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111018",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"Justin Ohms",
"SnakeDoc",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79061",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58177
|
How Did I Explode A Saucepan?
I am a complete amateur when it comes to the world of cooking.
My recent attempts to teach myself have unfortunately lead to me needing to ask:
How did I explode my saucepan?
I'd put some garlic/onion/olive oil in the saucepan and left it on low heat to soften on my electric hob. After about five there was a loud bang and I turned to find the saucepan falling through the air (which I just caught by the handle). The base of the saucepan had come away from the body. Cue jokes about taste explosions from my flat mate
I am fairly sure this wasn't supposed to happen.
The same thing happened when I was cooking meatballs with some onion on the side - though to a much lesser degree.
Did I just have a duff saucepan, or is there some explosive quality to onions I missed!?
On the plus side, the meal came out okay in the end.
I've never heard of this happening before. Now, despite being a beginner, you have a cool story to tell which will surprise and amuse more experienced cooks. To me, this alone would be worth having to replace the pan with the freak malfunction. Although I can understand that it probably didn't feel amusing when it happened and you were afraid you'd done something wrong, looking back you can laugh at it.
This is a regular conventional electric or ceramic element, right? Induction hobs can heat a pan vigorously, and certain pans are much more appropriate for induction elements. I've never heard of this, though, either! Was the pan or base warped, and did they come completely apart? Any other noteworthy markings? Picture?? :)
Also, nice catch, although it would have really sucked if the pan had been hot enough to burn your hand.
Don't suppose you have a picture to go with this story?
I've heard of flying saucers but flying saucepans is a new one!
Following on from @KyleStrand's comment, do not attempt to catch things in the kitchen. If it's a hot saucepan, you risk burning yourself; if it's a knife that you've dropped, you risk losing fingers. Get out of its way and let it fall to the floor.
Aside from the aforementioned thermal shock, I also once had a pan where dishwater would seep in between the bottom of the pan and the actual pan, creating audible pops - I guess I was lucky my pan was in such a bad state that there could be no pressure build-up that would result in your little explosion.
I'm a chef. You had a crap saucepan. And as David said, NEVER TRY TO CATCH THINGS IN THE KITCHEN! I was on a cooking course in Ireland. A girl dropped her knife, and tried to catch it because it was pretty expensive. She severed all the tendons in her forearm, almost bled to death, and needed reconstructive surgery.
What was the pan made of?
Thanks folks, I did realise I'd been an idiot seconds after I'd caught it!
Trapped water as @Sanchises suggests is probably the most likely explanation. Or maybe it is an intentionally hollow or liquid cored design (such cookware exists)?
I work in a commercial kitchen and I've seen this happen before, which is why we do not use copper-plated cookware. This can happen whenever you have two different alloys welded together and apply heat to one side or non-uniformly; An effect known as 'thermal shock'. What happens is one metal expands faster than the other, causing a deformation or fracture. Think of it as one side trying to 'pull' the other at the edges. The pop you heard was undoubtedly this delineation occurring, followed by the kinetic reaction of the pot jumping.
I find your claim that the pot leaped through the air difficult to believe, but I have observed audible pops and visible movement when they fail. If you have a flat top (like an electric stove), it could skid for up to a foot from this due to the lack of friction and possible presence of condensate (water) on the surface which can at certain temperatures act like a nearly friction-less cushion. Oil doesn't do this, only water.
If you've ever been in a commercial kitchen you'll notice every cookware item is made of a single cast of metal (most usually stainless steel) because of this. Welded alloy pots and pans just don't last very long -- the effect observed so violently happens at a smaller scale with every heating cycle, eventually resulting in ruined cookware. Also, being a line cook means being exposed to things exploding, dying, catching fire, etc., on a near-daily basis, not to mention an assortment of knives that would make most Hollywood bad-asses blush, so obviously we try to limit the number of things that can go wrong.
Do yourself a favor -- if you stick with the copper-bottomed pots and pans, make sure to put plenty of water or oil in them. Heat with nowhere to go will cause failure quickly.
When I say it was falling through the air, it'd come off the oven. Can't say I saw how it came to that state!
Appreciate the explanation and confirmation it's not my terrible skills or exploding onions. Looking at the pan that this happened with on a smaller scale the copper has come partially away on the bottom from that incident!
Stainless clad to carbon steel can tolerate many cycles of 800 F to room temp water ( testing for pressure vessels) . I expect copper cladding could do the same.
You can get "bimetal disks" in some science museums. They're two metals laminated together, but with different thermal expansion properties. They were concave, and as you heat them up, the expansion differential would cause them to pop and go concave the other way. As they cooled off, they would pop again, and go back to original shape ... but the force was enough that it would leap into the air if it was set on a table. It's possible that this is what's happening.
And some video of a bimetal disk jumping : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhv9W5B3ITc
If your electric hob is anything like the one I had when I was younger, it has small rings in the metal of the hob top.
If the pan was wet, the water can pool there and become superheated, until the weight of the pan isn't enough to contain the force of the expanding steam.
At this point, the pan jumps, pushed upwards by the steam. If the pan is cheap or old, the force of the jolt might be enough to break it.
My pans used to dance on the hob when wet, as the steam let off in small amounts all around the hob. After a few minutes, the water would be gone and the pan would sit normally.
I've never seen these in the US - other than the expensive ceramic ones, all our electric stoves use coil elements. Are they common in the UK?
@Random832: In older properties, yes.
@Random832 Just to confirm this was a common feature of older cookers in the UK. I can remember my family having one as a boy, and at least one student flat I lived in had one. That said, I've never heard of leaping pans being a possible result.
(if I understand correctly)
You probably used a cheap and very thin saucepan, and on the heat the metal expanded and had stressed to the point of failure, it buckled and acted as a spring.
Some electric stoves have 2 states, on or off, ie full power and no power. A low heat setting means you have less frequent pulses to full heat. This means that pans are getting heated at full blast even on low. I would suggest getting some thicker pans.
I see this often with cheap baking sheets, also. The loud clang from the oven still freaks my dog out from time to time.
@Geobits That scared the crap out of me the first time it happened with baking sheets. Quite a bang with larger sheets!
I've seen similar things happen with the flat kind of electric hob with the little hollow in (this kind: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_stove.jpg )
This can happen when the stove is wet. If there is water in the hollow when you put your pot on it, and the flat bottom of the pot closes the cavity, the water underneath will start to boil. If the stove/bottom of the pan is also oily, it can stick to the stove.
When the water in the cavity starts to boil, it will rapidly expand. With nowhere to go, it's possible for a pot to go flying when that happens. This is not, as you already had a gut feeling about, supposed to happen.
If it does happen though: Don't catch it. The best thing that comes from that is that you can say "hey, did you see that, I caught it". More likely scenarios involve burning yourself or cutting off fingers (for knives).
When things fly through the air, it's likely you're going to have to clean the floor even if you catch it.
Not so much "plate tectonics" but "pot and pan tectonics". This is likely a manufacturing defect. The thermal expansion answers are correct, a sudden shock occurred when a "critical point" was reached and the base has sprung back into its "relieved" state.
(I do not think there would have been enough heat for annealing to be a factor.)
As for super-heating, water will "knock" if superheated and detergent is added (or any surface active agent). But normally ceramics or stoneware is involved (something with vertices).
There are many companies which produce glassware that is safe for the oven. Although many of these products resemble sauce pans or skillets, they really are casseroles for use in the oven. If you place them on an electric eye or a gas flame, within a minute they will explode into tiny fragments, usually leaving the handle behind.
I had purchased a rather expensive version of these some years back and my roommate did this, not once, but at least 3 times, ignoring the large embossed letters on the pan: "NOT FOR STOVETOP USE"
"The base of the saucepan had come away from the body" suggests it wasn't glassware of any kind that failed...
yes this can happen,
its caused from the saucepan being placed into cold water over time,
the sudden temperature change from very hot to cold causes decontamination (the saucepan to heat sink / copper base ) partially separating allowing water to enter,
once the saucepan is heated again the trapped water turns into steam increasing its volume by 1000 and going off like a bomb.
"decontamination" --> maybe "delamination" ?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.464928
| 2015-06-12T12:34:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58177",
"authors": [
"Aman Abdallah",
"Barry",
"Bob Tway",
"Brandon Gomes",
"Bryan Yeager",
"CJ Dennis",
"Carcigenicate",
"Cos Callis",
"David Richerby",
"GdD",
"Geobits",
"Joe",
"John LeBlanc",
"JoshuaMee",
"Journeyman Geek",
"K A",
"Kyle Strand",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"Lorel C.",
"Marci Smith",
"Random832",
"Rob Bye",
"Ron Meely",
"Sanchises",
"Steve McGovern",
"Wad Cheber",
"blacksmith37",
"carncrows",
"david paterson",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"rackandboneman",
"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
}
|
54059
|
How to store Soda Water or other Home Made Sodas?
I have a SodaStream which I use to make soda water. My wife recently started purchasing very tasty, but relatively expensive soda drinks from the store, including "Rose Lemonade" (here: http://www.amazon.com/Fentimans-Rose-Lemonade-Soda-Bottle/dp/B00513EV60), and a pumkin ginger root beer. I offered to try to make equivalents at home, which worked out really well, by combining Torani Syrup, fresh ingredients (like Ginger Juice from Centrifugal juicer, or Lemon Juice from a lemon), and soda water from the Soda Stream.
OK, so everything is great, except now when I make a batch, my Soda Stream bottle is "in use" until we finish that batch. So I bought a few of these on Amazon, with rubber gasket seals: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000CFMBL/.
But here's the problem:
when I transfer the soda water from the Soda Stream bottle to the glass bottle, it fizzes up and loses most of it's carbonation. Is there any way to avoid this, or a technique I can use to pour it with less "fizz loss"?
Please let me know if more information would be helpful, and thanks so much!!!
Buy more sodastream bottles?
How do you pour? Do you use a funnel? How quickly do you pour? and what are pouring first? Do you add SodaStream water to the mix, or do you add the mix to the SodaStreamed water?
@TFD thanks, that probably would have been a good solution to begin with :/
@Layna I have tried pouring a few ways: 1) tilted glass bottle and slow pour, like a beer for very little head. 2) with a funnel, which was the worst - as the foam forms really fast. I tried poring the soda water in first, and then adding the mix ingredients, but that made more foam too, so now I add the mix ingredients first, and add the soda water after. Feedback much appreciated!
@ShamirColloff my suggestion would have been the tilted approach, too... only remaining thing I can come up with: wash the glass-bottles out first, so they are wet when you try transferring. Except for that... if not SodaStream bottles, anythign with a wide openenig.
@layna thanks! I will try wet bottles, great idea!
Also make sure the bottle is pre-chilled.
More sodastream bottles is the best option if you are starting from a sodastream.
The best other alternative is to act just like a really old-fashioned soda counter.
Mix and store your syrups/flavors.
Measure syrup into the glass.
Add plain soda-water and mix.
Thus, your sodastream bottle only ever has plain carbonated water in it, not a specific flavor.
Carbonated liquids lose their carbonation very quickly when at room temperature, when agitated, and when pushed through small orifices at room pressure.
You can't change the "small orifices" part due to your bottle design (and, honestly, these aren't that small so it isn't as bad as, say, a needle valve). But you can change the temperature. Cool the liquid until almost icy before charging it, then pour slowly (reduced agitation) into a pre-chilled glass bottle. If you can, tilt the bottle so it runs down the side of the bottle inside, rather than as a stream into the liquid on the bottom.
The biggest difference will be made by making sure everything is ice cold, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.465914
| 2015-01-27T21:29:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54059",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joy Fluty",
"Kisandra Glogowski",
"Layna",
"Maggie Schroeder Grams",
"Mona Walker",
"Sandy Vinson",
"Shamir Colloff",
"TFD",
"Vic Bevan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"samantha andrew"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56787
|
What qualifies as butterscotch
I am working on a creation: probably will end up being a Butterscotch Blondie Cheesecake.
Here is where the butterscotch debate comes in:
1) Some claim butterscotch is only "pure" when it is simply butter and dark brown sugar (melted correctly into a sauce, of course).
2) Others think it still counts if there is vanilla and sea salt
3) Others think as long as you start with butterscotch base, you're dealing with butterscotch- and add bourbon or scotch (despite the name, probably didn't originally include scotch...the things you learn when researching), or other flavoring notes.
According to this article from Wikipedia , your debate points 1 & 2 could both be correct.
Butterscotch is a type of confectionery whose primary ingredients are brown sugar and butter, although other ingredients such as corn syrup, cream, vanilla, and salt are part of some recipes. According to "Housewife's Corner" in an 1848 newspaper, the real recipe for "making Doncaster butterscotch is one pound of butter, one pound of sugar and a quarter of a pound of treacle, boiled together."
While I have never seen any recipe or reference that included adding liquor to butterscotch, and I wouldn't personally consider it essential, it's not too much of a stretch to think that someone has done it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.466203
| 2015-04-19T00:51:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56787",
"authors": [
"Alisha Parks Shell",
"Brett Behlen",
"Drew Dawson",
"Jojo Valenzuela",
"Laurie",
"Marcie Roberts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135055"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62633
|
Old oil on cast iron Dutch oven
I have a Dutch oven that remained in storage for about three years. Apparently I covered it with oil prior to the storing. Now,it has that old oil smell to it that I can't get of.
Any advice on how to remove the oil and smell?
This (not a duplicate) might prove helpful for more details of "burning it off" - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7127/how-to-clean-a-burnt-cast-iron-pot/7129#7129
Try burning it off. Put it in a 500 degree oven for an hour or so. If there is oil on it, it will smoke.
After that, you may need to re-season the Dutch oven.
Good luck.
Yes, this can be huge pain to deal with. Note for the future - if "oiling prior to storage" mineral oil (USP) might be a better choice than vegetable oil, as it does not go rancid.
If you have a dishwasher you can run the pan through the dishwasher to remove most of the (now rancid) oil. Then follow @user40124's advice to burn it off (but have less smoke) and finally re-season it. Alternatively, burn it off in a wood fire where the additional smoke won't be an issue. The thread I just linked in a comment on the question suggests running it in a self-cleaning oven on the the clean cycle.
Dry promptly after the dishwasher runs or it will rust. Likewise, don't wait a long time between burning it off and re-seasoning, or the clean, oil-free pan will quickly rust.
In general, vegetable oil on a metal object that has been heated will not go rancid, as it is polymerised into a different substance, and is no longer oil
And this was clearly a case where it was oiled and put away, without heating.
Or, without heating enough, as I found out with a wok that I stored for a few months, then had to scrape the sticky rancid oil off.
Strip it and re-season it. Just make sure that when you prepare the cast iron for storage, that you bake the oil on, and don't store the cast iron wet. Depending on your choice of oil, it will be plus or minus 385 degrees until the oil is dry. About an hour usually if the pot is cold.
I don't use nor recommend FGMO, I don't want to eat that whether or not it's supposed to be harmless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.466357
| 2015-10-18T22:06:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62633",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cody Dwight",
"Colleen Moore",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gerri Barnett",
"Invisible Dark",
"Jamie Bell",
"Karen O'Brien",
"Kim Hong Chin",
"PJ Lilly Pejota81",
"TFD",
"Thanapond Sukthana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44184
|
Cheddar equivalents as far as amount of flavor
I read on a website that cheddar can be aged for 12 years
I suspect that 12 year old cheddar is so strong that a small amount may be equivalent in flavor to a much larger amount of mild cheddar (3 months old)
Assuming that all ages of cheddar are made the same way, how much of each one from 1 year old to 12 years old would be equivalent in flavor to 1 cup of mild cheddar in flavour?
What is the actual question here?
how much of each age of cheese from sharp to 12 years is equivalent in flavor to 1 cup of mild cheddar?
Wikihow might not be the most reliable source for cheesemaking...
It tells you all the things related to the cheddaring process and how to do that at home. That is reliable.
12 years is child's play... http://chicagoist.com/2012/10/08/so_what_does_40-year-.php
I heard from 1 site that maximum is 12 years and another site said maximum is 15 years and so how can 40 years be even edible?
How does it follow that the apparent (given that you've never done this before) comprehensiveness of some web page that doesn't even claim to be written by experts is somehow sufficient to establish its reliability? Wikihow isn't a reliable source - for anything. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is not reliable.
@caters The information you found on wikihow might well be good. Or it might have omitted something critical, or made a mistake that'll upset the whole process. It's hard to know without either being an expert or trying it yourself. So if you're going to go to all the effort of making cheddar, why not find something from someone you know is an expert cheesemaker?
Wikihow is not like Wikipedia. Wikihow is written and edited by experts. Wikipedia is just edited by experts.
@caters Wikihow is editable by anyone, same as Wikipedia. I can go there right now and edit any article or write a new one - think I'll get it complete and correct? Think the person who wrote the cheddar article did? Maybe, maybe not! But for a lot of reasons, Wikihow has ended up with less reliable information than Wikipedia, which itself is not 100% reliable. (Also, the distinction between who writes and who edits isn't really meaningful; everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is called an editor. In all cases, there are plenty of experts and plenty of non-experts.)
Cheese isn't just used for flavor; it generally contributes greatly to the texture, whether via a crispy browned layer on top, or thick goopy texture inside a dish, or even just background richness. If you change the total amount of cheese, even if you have the same amount of cheddar flavor, you won't have the same dish.
So I would suggest that if you like cheddar, just use the quantity that's called for, and replace mild with medium or sharp. You'll get more flavor, and you'll probably like it.
Otherwise, if you want to keep the flavor of the dish roughly the same intensity but replace mild with sharp, then make up the rest with another mild cheese. Obviously it won't be the same flavor but it'll be roughly similar strength; if all you have is sharp cheddar, this will be better than using all sharp cheddar (too strong a flavor) or using half as much (upsetting the balance of the dish). For example, you might replace a cup of mild cheddar with half a cup of sharp cheddar and half a cup of mozzarella. (See rumtscho's answer for a good explanation of exactly how not the same it will be.)
But the ratio depends on the particular cheddar; you can get a pretty good variety of things marketed as "sharp cheddar". I think the half and half ratio will be a good starting point for nice strong, sharp cheddar, and I personally would just use medium instead of mild without changing any quantities. So experiment with the cheese you have and see what you like.
And remember, it'll never be the same, it'll just keep the sharp flavor from being overpowering. I'm not saying this is an exact substitute, just what I'd do if I only had sharp cheddar around.
Finally if you're asking this because you're planning on making and aging cheddar yourself... don't get ahead of yourself. See how well you do at the basic cheesemaking before you worry about aging it.
The conversion ratio you are asking for doesn't really exist.
There are only five tastes we taste with our tongue: salty, sweet, bitter, sour and umami. They are indeed different by concentration. But the human tongue response is not linear. When a source says that saccharine is 500 times sweeter than sugar, they mean that, if you dissolve 1 g of saccharine in a liter of water, a spoon of the solution if will taste as sweet as if you had dissolved 500 g of sugar. But if you put a gram of saccharine in your mouth, you won't say "wow, this is 500 times sweeter than sugar" - you will notice that it is very much sweeter, but not by how much.
Umami taste does increase in cheese with aging (and saltiness increases too, due to the loss of water), but we don't dissolve cheese, so we cannot really make a statement about this difference.
But even if we could find a number for the concentration ratio of umami, it wouldn't even be relevant. Most of the difference in taste between young and old cheese comes from ripening. In ripening, chemical and biological reactions produce completely new molecules in the old cheese which were not present in the young cheese. These new molecules have their own aroma, which is perceived as part of taste (although not perceived with the tongue). And it is not a matter of the young cheese having less of them; the young cheese doesn't have them at all, because the reactions which create them take so much time. So, old cheddar doesn't taste "the same only more so" than young cheddar, it tastes "differently" than young cheddar.
Asking your question is like asking "how many acorns do I need to get as many teak leaves as a grown teak tree". It just doesn't make sense. There are no leaves in the acorn yet; similarly, there is no ripe cheddar flavor in the young cheddar yet.
This is of course simplifying, because at some point, you start getting the flavor molecules which will be abundant in old cheddar, only you have less of them at the beginning. But even taking that into account, you cannot calculate a ratio because 1) not all molecule types which will be present in old cheddar are already present in young cheddar in perceptible amounts, and 2) the flavor profile - the ratios between kinds of flavor molecules - is completely different at different ages.
So, let's make a thought experiment. We take 1 kg of just-created cheddar, grate it finely, and start adding 12 years old cheddar in small amounts (basically diluting the old cheddar). If at X gram of old cheddar, this mixture tastes exactly like 1-year old cheddar, then the answer to your question would be X:100. But there is no such amount; no matter how much old cheddar you add or don't add, the mixture will never taste like 1-year-old cheddar. So, your question is not answerable. Cheese just doesn't work that way. Not even in flavor; Jefromi also explained why it doesn't work that way in other important cheese properties, and TFD explained that, if it did work that way, natural variance would make the ratio impossible to calculate.
I guess I wasn't clear enough about it not being the same! Thanks for going into more detail about it.
This is probably an impossible to answer question, as every cheese batch is different, and how do you compare 6 year old cheese to 12 year old cheese of the same batch? Freezing cheese to stop aging, makes it very change in a different way
Cheese ages in a inverse exponential way, just line wine. It takes progressively longer and longer for flavours to change
Also, cheeses don't change in one direction of flavour, and over time they become quite different from where they started, so 12 year old cheese may have no relation to 2 year old cheese of the same type
Over long times the texture changes to the point of not being what people think of cheese is anymore, too more of a paste
Most people looking for aged cheese are perfectly happy in the 18 months to 3 years bracket, after that it gets a little weird
Remember cheese is aged at around 4°C, which for most people requires electrical refrigeration, which is therefore more expensive for every year for not much gain. You can't just shove some cheese in the cellar and hope it turns out OK
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.466594
| 2014-05-16T20:49:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44184",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Additiveinn spam",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Didgeridrew",
"Katrina Stevenson",
"Mary",
"Matt Stein",
"Nederealm",
"OlegWock",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tallahassee Concrete Spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"optimus_prime",
"reffu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122222
|
How can you dye your frosting?
It may be closed for a lack of focus, but I'll give it a try. What are some pastry-friendly easy-to-obtain natural food dyes that you could use, for example, to give color to your frosting/icing (I mean other than red/purple, berries would do that)? It's not as simple as "take the fruit the colour you want to achieve". Bananas are yellow, but quickly turn brownish which is typically a color you want to avoid in food. Lemon is yellow, but mainly from the outside. The pulp is very pale in color. Tumeric is great, but would it be okay in pastry? I'm not sure. Orange, what about it? Apricots are no longer on sale, it's November. What about blue? Or green? Could you give me some ideas?
https://food52.com/blog/16265-how-to-make-all-natural-food-dyes-from-ingredients-in-your-kitchen
I know that there’s another question on here that covers more than just beets for coloring, but I’m on a phone right now and it’s a bit of a pain to search. Search for ‘coloring’ instead of ‘dying’, I think
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/65823/67
Another one to look at - my answer to Hitting specific color of orange in a sponge cake. I had fun addressing the turmeric/orange colour sub-questions (and it tasted pretty good too).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.467208
| 2022-11-04T00:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122222",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125076
|
How to freeze and thaw black eyed peas
I'm considering moving from canned black eyed peas to dry black eyed peas since they're cheaper. I'm thinking of batch boiling them and freezing them but I'm not sure if I could eat them straight after thawing without cooking them again. I usually eat black eyed peas cold as a salad/side dish. Would their texture be good after thawing? And what would be the best way to freeze them - after cooking do I just put them in a tupperware? Thank you so much!
I’ve made batches of black bean soup, put it into freezer bags, and then laid them out on sheet pans to freeze. That thawed out well, but I don’t know about just freezing beans as an ingredient.
I do the same as @Joe but with mixed bean chilli and various stews, all starting from dried beans.
Beans freeze very well in my experience. We cook from dried, place extra in quart containers with some of the bean cooking liquor, and freeze. Thaw slowly in the refrigerator (that helps protect texture). Use however you like.
Thank you so much, I will try this
If you cook them before freezing, they will still be cooked after freezing, so no need to "cook them again" on that basis.
As for texture, the simplest thing to do is try a small batch and see what you think. Freezing does often affect texture somewhat - whether you find the change objectionable is going to be up to you.
Freezing will be more rapid and even if you get the beans into a thin layer, such as the freezer bags laid flat on a pan that @Joe uses for soup. If using tupperware or similar containers, try a large flat one with a thin layer and a deeper one and see if that makes any difference in your assessment of the texture. Usually faster freezing (thin layer) is percieved to be better, but experimenting might show that for your taste it either matters a lot, or not at all. All it costs is a container of beans, that will still be edible, even if the result tells you not to do it that way again.
I don’t know if liquid in the container when freezing is also significant… if nothing else, it minimizes the air so would reduce the chance of freezer burn
Reasonable to try freezing with/without the liquid. With would also be "more similar" to canned beans. My read of the question is that the intent is short term freezing for meal-prep, not freezing a year's worth of beans at once, so freezer burn may not be a large problem, unless a container gets lost for a long time in the freezer.
Thank you for sharing this, I'm thinking of trying a small batch yes, but I'm still looking for opinions because I really only like black eyed peas cold in salads so if I don't like the texture of them thawed I will be at a loss on what to do. And yes, I'm planning on short term (3 months max) freezing for easier meal prep.
If you don't like the frozen/thawed texture, limit the amount you cook to what you will use before it spoils in the refrigerator, unless you want to get into pressure-canning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.467689
| 2023-08-26T13:51:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125076",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"LissaC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121141
|
What are the dips in muffin/cupcake tins called?
When I was writing this answer I realized that I have no idea what to call the dips in muffin/cupcake tins. I used to call them cups but when I looked it up I found that the cups are the paper inserts or liners you put into the dips or whatever they are called.
What is the right terminology?
I provide 'muffs' as the tins that muffins are in...
+1 This is akin to not having a name for the inside of your knee. ;) Everybody has one, no-one knows what it's called. Sometimes language just fails us… hole, dent, ermm.. thingy… like a cup...
That's apparently called a kneepit @unlisted. Ick.
…which is weird in itself, as it's more akin to the crook of the elbow...
@unlisted are you going to propose that we call these "muffin fossae", from popliteal fossa? I somehow doubt it will catch on :)
@rumtscho - libum fossae - muffin ditches, bun pits ;) Why not?
That's it, the new accepted term for the dents in muffin tins is 'bun pits'.
…or cake holes, as that's what you stuff them in when cooked ;)
Looking at Amazon listings and Wikipedia Cup seems to be the correct terminology, or at least the most common one.
Alternative names I found are cavity and well, which also seem adequate.
The paper cups are known by many names including but not limited to cup liners, paper liners, muffin wrappers, muffin cases, baking liners among others.
I would add (muffin) cases as a name for the paper cups.
At one bakery was asked to grab a 24hole rather than a 12. Nowadays I use individual aluminum 2.6" cups with paper liners on a standard tray. Easily stack to store, clean up only on sticky cups. Recycle mangled ones. Tipping out idividual muffins safer against damage.
I use ‘depression’ which also works for things like poffertjes pans
I saw one recipe that called for "a 12-count muffin pan."
So your contention is that “12 count” here doesn’t have its normal meaning of “there’s twelve things”, but instead means that each individual cup is called a “count”?
Presumably that's what the recipe author was thinking. Sounds 'generic' to me in that it would be suitable for poffertjes pans, etc. Seems that there is no one answer to the OP's question "What is the right terminology?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.467955
| 2022-07-25T13:59:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121141",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81327",
"jconcord",
"npst",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46567
|
Avocado substitute in blueberry muffin recipe
I have a vegan blueberry muffin recipe. I'm not vegan, but like anything as long as it tastes good. The recipe calls for an avocado to be used as the fat. I don't like avocado. Is there something I can substitute for the avocado or should I just forgo this recipe? I'm including the ingredients below:
flesh from 1 ripe to very ripe medium/large Hass avocado, mashed very well (about 3/4 cup)
3/4 cups granulated sugar
1/3 cup canola or vegetable oil (melted coconut oil may be substituted)
1/3 cup Greek yogurt or sour cream (use vegan versions if desired)
1/4 cup light brown sugar, packed
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
3/4 teaspoon cinnamon
3/4 teaspoon nutmeg
pinch salt, optional and to taste
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon baking powder
1 1/2 cups frozen blueberries (keep them frozen, do not thaw them; fresh berries may be substituted and baking time may be a few minutes less)
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour, for tossing berries
Why do you assume the avocado flavor will stay prominent? Most fats lose most of their flavor in cooking (other than butter); this is why people can get away with putting mayonnaise in dessert recipes (not that I recommend it).
Mayonnaise is detectable in desserts when used. You might not immediately recognize it for mayo, but it makes the dessert taste different or off.
@Brooke Do you know if you don't like avocado in baked goods though? Assuming you can still taste it, it won't have the same flavor that fresh avocado does, and it might not be a problem. But it's easy to replace too, I'm sure, so no big deal.
It depends on whether the complaint about avocado is more textural or more driven by aroma, but the texture in particular will likely not survive at all in a properly mixed recipe and the aroma would probably be substantially minimized. Mayonnaise may have additives like mustard for flavor, though foundationally the only flavor contributor unusual for a cake is vinegar (or lemon), which can mostly disappear thanks to chemical leavening and dilution.
I'm finding it incomprehensible that anyone is discussing substitutions here. There are a gazillion highly rated recipes for blueberry muffins that don't contain avocado. Why not look for one of those before messing with substitutions?
In general, when making muffin recipes, you can replace around 1/2 of the oil (sometimes up to 2/3) with applesauce or mashed banana without significant problems. I don't know if you could get away with it in this particular case, as avocado would be a solid fat, so it might adversely affect the texture.
I'd personally try replacing the avocado with either mashed banana, coconut oil (mashed up some, but not melted), or a combination of the two.
Joe, that sounds like a great way to "fix" the avocado problem. I love bananas and when mashed the textures are similar. And banana goes with nutmeg and cinnamon better than avocado might. Adding a little coconut oil would also add some fat that the bananas might be lacking too.
The recipe already has fat in it in the name of vegetable oil. It also has fat in the greek yogurt/sour cream. Increasing these will take the place of the avocado, how much is the question though. They don't give an amount of the avocado besides saying use one, and as they very in size you'd get a different result every time, and without an amount it's hard to say how much you'd want to add. Upping the oil and yogurt to 1/2 cup each would probably get you close.
Personally I'd just find a recipe without the avocado if you don't like it, there's loads out there so unless you have some sort of emotional attachment to it I'd chuck it and hunt for a better one.
I think you're right. I know better, but the picture and the person's commentary on the muffin make it look/sound really good. But the avocado doesn't. I think I'll stick to the recipes I already have and maybe modify them to add spices.
The fact that they don't say exactly how much avocado to use indicates that the exact amount isn't critical. If you replaced it with the "wrong" amount, it probably won't make a huge difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.468170
| 2014-08-21T16:47:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46567",
"authors": [
"Adrienne West",
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"David Richerby",
"Gay Vinson",
"JasonTrue",
"Jolenealaska",
"LauNR13",
"Melody Anderson",
"Olorunfemi Emmanuel",
"Tigger Lemm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"wxlund"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40972
|
Adjusting dessert recipes to accomodate a larger slow cooker
I have a recipe for Mississippi Mud cake that calls for a 3.5 qt slow cooker. I own a 6 qt. Do I need to double the recipe?
This is a fairly unusual application; you might want to provide the recipe.
It's possible that you'd scale by something less than double. I'd assume you'd want to scale it based on the difference in the bottom surface of the cooker, so the thickness of the cake would remain constant.
If your cake batter is to be poured into the slow cooker without the addition of a pan, yes, I would double the recipe to fit your larger vessel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.468490
| 2014-01-08T16:06:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40972",
"authors": [
"Alezandra Miley spam",
"Anish B.",
"Eraina Smith ",
"Jaen",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96391"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54514
|
What does "natural" actually mean?
More and more I see "natural" or "all natural" labels on the slightly-cheaper alternatives next to "organic" products, and I find it somewhat confusing. I know that (for example) tofu does not occur in nature, so obviously "natural" does not refer to the whole product, but to the ingredients. But many common ingredients do not occur naturally in the processed forms that we use either.
Today I saw an ad declaring the "first all-natural burger in fast food". This seems like a pretty specific claim for something so nebulous, so it led me to wonder: What exactly does "natural" mean in the context of food? Are there specific rules, or can anyone slap a "natural" label on anything?
George Carlin described it best, in my opinion: "The word 'natural' is completely meaningless! Everything is natural! Nature includes everything! It's not just trees and flowers! It's everything! A chemical company's toxic waste is completely natural! It's part of the nature! We're all part of nature! Everything is natural! Dog [poop] is natural! It's just not real good food!"
The ad in question seems to recognized the nebulousness of the claim and thus goes on to describe what they mean by it. Introducing fast food's first All-Natural Burger. A grass-fed, free-range charbroiled beef patty with no added hormones, steroids, or antibiotics, topped with natural cheddar cheese and vine-ripened tomatoes. Hence, in this context, it appears to refer to avoiding certain tradeoffs in quality often made in industrialization. It appears to be similar to "artisanal" in how it is usually used in the mass market.
It means that some people will buy it in preference to a product that doesn't say "natural".
The food product in question contains no supernatural ingredients.
Maybe start from the Antithesis: an additive derived from inedible petrochemicals and/or purified anorganic salts (beyond table salt, and MAYBE potash, baking soda, lye) would generally be considered NOT natural in a food context.
@DavidConrad it would have been funny if it weren't true - but a prominent sign of orthorexia is to insist on eating "superfoods", whose purported properties sound quite supernatural.
Short answer? Not a damn thing. The term is pretty much meaningless in the US; at best it only means that the product doesn't have added colors, artificial flavors or synthetic "stuff". From the FDA:
What is the meaning of 'natural' on the label of food?
From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.
O.K., so, next question: what constitutes an "artificial flavor" or "synthetic substance", as opposed to a natural one? :-)
@ruakh Oversimplified: if you can get it by crushing something you can find lying around in the countryside and mixing the result with water, it's a natural flavour. It's not quite that simple, but that's the gist
And note that you can still add things to change its color as long as it isn't a 'color additive'.
@Zibbobz I noticed that too. Neither turmeric nor beet powder seem unnatural.
@ruakh: Natural additives may still be produced in a factory, e.g. yeast would not be considered synthetic even if it's grown in a reactor vat.
To expand on Jolene's answer, there is not only no official definition, but the only definition which fits its common usage is A food which a certain group of persons is not afraid to eat.
Philosophically, "natural" is the opposite of "artificial" or "man-made", but philosophy doesn't give us a limit of interaction under which something stays "natural. Does a ear of corn stop being natural when you pick it? When you remove its leaves and silk? When you mill it into cornflour? When you make HFCS out of the cornflour? Somewhere along the process, it becomes "unnatural" as the term is commonly used, but there is no technically obvious place for placing the turning point.
There are three possible ways to define "natural" which would make it more or less objective, but they don't cover the word as it is used in real life, even though there is overlap. Besides, if one of them were the "correct" definition, the commonly assumed connection to "healthy" or "better quality" would not automatically follow from any of them.
The first candidate definition is to say that non-processed food is "natural" and processed food is not. But there are many counterexamples to it. For example, I've seen many foods listing "natural fruit sugar". Well, the fructose in them is processed to about the same level as the sucrose in the competing products, but I've never seen somebody include white refined sugar in their mental list of "natural sweeteners".
Another candidate would be "synthetic", as in chemically synthesized by man as opposed to extracted from an organism which produced the molecule. It would have the advantage of being consistent with the use of "natural" in textiles, another major area of everyday life. Again, this is not congruent with real world usage - a sizable proportion of food additives, which in my experience scare the average natural-eater, are extracted from plants and bacteria, for example xanthan or MSG.
The third possible definition (added after Steve Jessop's comment) would look at human history, draw a limit somewhere and say "these foods are natural, the others are a product of civilization and thus unnatural". As pointed out in the comments, this is indeed used in some nutrition theories such as Paleo. But when we ask ourselves where to draw the line, we'll notice that the average person talking about "natural" food is not as radical as the Paleo people, and will see a loaf of whole wheat bread as a very natural food. Could we find a point in more recent history which supports such a division? It's hard, as technology has evolved in a continuous way, but the best candidate would be the Industrial revolution, amounting to a rapid switch from low-tech to high-tech. Still, if we apply this definition, we see that foods like smoothies or baking soda would fall on the "unnatural" side. But in common use, baking soda has an old-fashioned feel and, if we look at cleaning methods, is often touted as a "natural" alternative to purpose-created cleaning products. So, this definition again doesn't explain the common observations.
"Natural" is an ideological construct common in our society. As with other ideological constructs, its true meaning is determined by who is saying the word, and what his attitude to the object of speech is. As far as I have observed it, it is not connected by any physical properties of the object, at least not in a consistent manner. This is also why there is no definition by the FDA, and there cannot be one either, at least not one which covers the current use.
Note that despite the condescending tone above, I also prefer eating an apple over eating a mix of fructose, water and processed fibre, just like the people who insist on "natural" food. I fully appreciate that having a term which helps us decide the relative "healthiness" of a food would be useful for society. It's only that "natural" isn't that term, even though people insist on using it that way.
An example of how those ideological constructs vary: to paleo types, an ear of corn is already "unnatural" when it's still on the stalk. Firstly it's not a natural organism because it's been selectively bred by farmers, and secondly it's not natural human-food because they believe humans shouldn't be eating that kind of plant even if not for its modification via agriculture! Oh, and if it's GMO then forget about it too :-)
@SteveJessop: That's kind of a misrepresentation; paleo/primal doesn't care about "natural", just "food that didn't contribute to human evolution" or just "pre-agricultural food". Whether or not that's any more useful a criteria from a scientific point of view is debatable, but there's a strong correlation with low GI/GL foods, which is an objective metric.
This answer addresses that it varies from person to person, but not why or how. I posit that the actual definition is: Food without "chemicals". Of course, you then have to define "chemicals", and the contextual definition is essentially "anything with a name that sounds strange to me or isn't in my vocabulary right now". That's why it's not only completely subjective from one individual to the next, but can also change over time with education.
@SteveJessop thank you for pointing out the "historical" definition, I had forgotten to mention it. It seems indeed closest to common usage, but still doesn't cover it well enough - except maybe if we redefine it as "natural is anything which the speaker perceives as having been available in times when people led lives close to nature", which is still a subjective definition, because it requires both the decision of where to put the division between natural and unnatural times, and accounting for the speaker's (possibly incorrect) assumptions about history.
@Aaronut "Food that didn't contribute to human evolution" is about as nebulous as "natural". People have been eating corn for thousands of years, and we're not done evolving.
@sourd'oh: I already pointed out that it was almost as vague, but in spite of its vagueness, it clearly refers to a different thing. And most experts would agree that we are done evolving, and have been ever since technology eliminated natural selection as a factor for either survival or reproduction. Anyway, this is all very off-topic; the point is, "natural" isn't part of any major diet, paleo or otherwise.
@Aaronut Surely experts would agree that we are evolving faster than ever, and in different directions than in pre-industrial times? Selective pressures are very different today than even 10,000 years ago and that has vastly re-shaped the competitive landscape.
Narrowing the question to just Natural Flavor, we have Code of Federal Regulations Title 21:
(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors, include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in subpart A of part 582 of this chapter, and the substances listed in 172.510 of this chapter.
Modern fermentation products include a multitude of sins.
It gets even more technical:
(iii) If the food contains both a characterizing flavor from the product whose flavor is simulated and other natural flavor which simulates, resembles or reinforces the characterizing flavor, the food shall be labeled in accordance with the introductory text and paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section and the name of the food shall be immediately followed by the words with other natural flavor in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters used in the name of the characterizing flavor.
Long ago I learned what the Natural Flavorings in Mapleine were, but can no longer remember, other than that they had not the slightest to do with Maple trees.
Vanillin can come from lots of 'natural' sources : http://pinktentacle.com/2007/10/ig-nobel-prize-vanilla-flavoring-from-cow-dung/
By a strange coincidence, NRC (a Dutch quality newspaper) published a report this weekend (7 Feb 2015) that EU law allows flavors created by genetically modified yeasts in bio-reactors to be described as "natural" (since yeast fermentation is a a natural process). Link. Unfortunately the article is in Dutch and for subscribers only, but the title and header are (translation by GlobeFish):
Grapefruit flavor from the bioreactor
'Natural' is what consumers want. But the meaning of that word is
stretched. 'Natural' flavors and fragrances now come from the lab.
One highlight which appealed to me: "orange drink with natural flavor" could mean bio-reactor, but "natural orange flavor" means that real oranges were used.
This is a known exception already explained by Wayfaring stranger: when it comes to flavorings, there is EU regulation which distinguishes between "natural", "identic to natural" and "synthetic". It doesn't cover anything food-related outside aroma/flavoring, and it's also not what customers think it is. A "natural" strawberry aroma doesn't have to come from a strawberry.
From Consumer Reports:
Most consumers would probably be surprised to learn that the FDA has not developed a formal definition for use of the term "natural" or its derivatives. But the agency has not objected to the use of the term if "nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food" — though these are still found extensively in "natural" labeled foods.
The USDA, which regulates meat and poultry, says that a product is natural if it contains: "No artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product."
Input: one live chicken; Output: one dead chicken with no head, feet, guts, nor feathers. Sounds "fundamentally altered" to me. (I'm mocking the weak definition, not the poster. Nor am I a chicken advocate in case it matters)
The problem is that if a small tribe crushes and sun dries a beetle with a stone or heavy wood and ads it to a dish for colour then it would be 'artesenal' where as if the exact same outcome was achieved in a machine production line it would be called 'processed'.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.468616
| 2015-02-07T23:06:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54514",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Børge Fagerli",
"Charles",
"Dacio",
"David Conrad",
"Esther Mvundla",
"Guillermo Lopez",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Story",
"Kim Hamman",
"Lezienne Cloete",
"MSalters",
"Pamela Chinyama",
"Pete Becker",
"Ryan Dodd",
"Smut",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Steve Jessop",
"Tara Davis",
"Tom Squires",
"Yareida Herrera",
"Zibbobz",
"abhinav bhutani",
"econe62comcastnet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8672",
"msw",
"rackandboneman",
"ruakh",
"rumtscho",
"trlkly"
],
"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
}
|
18481
|
Can soured raw milk be used to make yogurt?
I have a large quantity of raw milk at my disposal, and am trying to find creative ways to use it.
Various web sites (here, here, and many others) have suggested that raw milk, even (perhaps even especially) after it begins to sour, can be used to make yogurt.
I've also heard the claim that sour milk is too acidic for yogurt cultures to grow.
Which is it?
Please note this question is specifically about soured raw milk, not spoiled milk, which is not edible. And please assume that the sour raw milk being used is free from harmful bacteria and pathogens and is safe to consume. I'm not asking about food safety here, I'm asking: Is it possible to make yogurt from sour raw milk?
Large quantities of raw milk? The one thought running through my mind would be "Mmm... cheese... yum...".
@Marti: I've made yogurt before... so I thought I'd start with that... but yes, I hope to get into some cheese making, too! And butter! :)
I'm just a little confused, I'm not trying to be argumentative - but logically, what makes you think that raw sour milk doesn't have bad nasties in it?
@rfusca: The confusion here probably lies in that few people these days ever experience truly "sour" milk--they mostly experience spoiled milk, which is different (both can occur simultaneously, though). The souring of milk is similar to the souring of grapes that occurs in wine making, or the souring of pickles that occurs in pickling, etc. Raw sour milk can have bad nasties, and it can spoil. But souring alone is not indicative of this.
@rfusca: See the Wikipedia article on soured milk for a more complete explanation of the difference between soured and spoiled milk.
Well, strictly speaking, then, you may have already made yogurt. For example, lassi is sour (possibly raw) milk. If you are specifying that it is sour and not spoiled, what would it be but yogurt (in the general sense of "yogurt")
Yogurt is made in the presence of yogurt cultures, which, to my understanding, don't exist naturally in soured milk. Soured milk, left long enough, turns into cottage cheese, which is of course similar to, but still quite distinct from yogurt.
Based on your edit to your question, and with some additional thought, I'm going to answer this differently.
Soured milk differs from what you called "spoiled" milk in only one way- what wild bacteria reproduced faster: bacteria with tasty waste products or bacteria with disgusting waste products. With that in mind the major potential problems with using this milk to make yogurt are:
If the wild bacteria crowd out the yogurt culture
If the yogurt culture is not able to work because the milk is too sour.
In making homemade yogurt neither of these should be a problem.
In making all yogurt- including yogurt made from raw milk in commercial settings- the milk is heated to 190F for some time to denature albumin proteins and to partially sterilize the milk so that the yogurt cultures will have the upper hand. This means that all yogurt has been pasteurized and the fact that the milk was purchased raw is a red herring. This will make problem #1 above unlikely. Not heating the milk will leave you with @rumtscho's answer- you can only guess what you might get by incubating it.
As for problem #2. Milk proteins begin to coagulate at a Ph of about 4.6. The target Ph for yogurt is usually 4.5. When making yogurt, Streptococcus thermophilus brings the milk down to about 5.0 and Lactobacillus Acidophilus takes over and brings it down to 4.5. Lactobacillus Acidophilus is active well below this Ph. Therefore, if your milk is not already thickened then it is, by definition, not too acidic for the yogurt culture to work.
Unfortunately, as the commenter from your first link indicated, heat combined with acid will cause the milk to prematurely denature. If you milk is too sour already then heating it to 190F may cause the protein to precipitate out and you would have paneer (sort of). I looked but was unable to find at what Ph milk proteins will denature at 190F.
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/yogurt.html
http://food.oregonstate.edu/learn/milk.html
If you can strictly verify the handling of your raw milk to have confidence that it has not been contaminated with harmful bacteria, and if the milk has only slightly soured so that it can be heated without breaking, you should be able to successfully make yogurt out of it knowing that the texture might vary from that of your starter.
Thank you! This answer has some very good information, and is the kind of answer I was hoping for!
@Flimzy: There's one very important phrase: "If you can strictly verify the handling of your raw milk to have confidence that it has not been contaminated with harmful bacteria". I'm not entirely sure how you're going to do this. Please be careful.
@Jefromi: I think the fear of raw milk is way out of proportion to the actual danger, but of course I'll be careful.
@Flimzy: It's not fear of raw milk, it's fear of raw milk which has been presented with an opportunity to grow harmful bacterial cultures. My point was simply to emphasize an "if" which, if not respected, could result in you or another reader consuming dangerous milk.
Understood. Your warning is appropriate for anyone doing fermentation of any kind, I'm sure.
@Sobachatina what about the lack of lactose in the soured raw milk? Will the bacteria just die since they will have no food to survive on?
@AdamThompson- This is just supposition on my part. When that much of the lactose has been consumed the milk is quite sour. I suspect that it would break from the acidity before even adding the bacteria.
@Sobachatina interesting, well I'm giving it a try anyways. Perhaps not as much of the lactose has been consumed as I suspected. No curdling occurred at all yet in any of the steps or fermentation. I suspect you are correct because once it is fully naturally soured the whey and curds will be completely separated.. though I don't know at which point all the lactose is fully consumed.
If it is acidic, couldn't they add a base (say bicarb) to neutralize the acid prior to boiling it to prevent the denaturing?
Since you edited your question, I would like to expand my answer.
What you plan is to let raw milk go sour, then add a yogurt culture. You ask what will happen. The answer is: it depends on whatever bacteria were in the raw milk in the first place. And you have no control over that. Here are all the possible outcomes if you start with milk not contaminated with any harmful pathogens:
The milk its on its way to become a tasty and harmless yogurt even before you culture it. This will happen if the initial bacteria were harmless yogurt-producing lactobacilii, and they dominated all other bacteria species in the milk.
The milk is on its way to become something tasty and harmless, but different from yogurt, before you culture it (for example the cottage cheese you mentioned). You add the culture, the yogurt bacteria dominate the non-yogurt bacteria, and you end up with yogurt.
The milk is on its way to become something tasty and harmless, but different from yogurt, before you culture it (for example the cottage cheese you mentioned). You add the culture, the non-yogurt bacteria dominate the yogurt bacteria, and you end up with something different from yogurt.
The milk is on its way to become something yucky and harmless (because it happens to contain the wrong lactobacilii). You add the culture, the yogurt bacteria dominate the non-yogurt bacteria, and you end up with tasty yogurt.
The milk is on its way to become something yucky and harmless (because it happens to contain the wrong lactobacilii). You add the culture, the yucky bacteria win, and you end up with something yucky which is not yogurt.
I doubt that 4 can ever happen, because once you have produced the bad taste, it stays there even after the bacteria responsible for it die out. Your position that raw milk goes sour, while pasteurized milk goes bad can be then understood as stating that case 5 only happens with pasteurized milk, and raw milk will produce result 2 or 3, and you are asking us if 2 or 3 will happen.
Even if we assume that 5 really can't happen with raw milk, you still can't predict whether 1, 2 or 3 will happen before you have the end result. It depends on which kind of bacteria will invade your milk, which kind of yogurt-making culture you will add (there are lots of them), and what conditions you will keep the milk in before and after the culturing. If you try it, you are practically gambling. You can end up with yogurt, with cottage cheese, with kefir, or with some strange, inedible combination of all of these. That said, I suspect that 1 will be much rarer than 2 or 3, just because the subset of lactobacilii which produce yogurt is somewhat small. It still can happen - it happened in my own kitchen with pasteurized milk forgotten on the counter for a weekend. When I came back, it had the texture, viscosity and smell of yogurt, not cottage cheese or something else. (I didn't taste it, so there is a small probability that it was case 5 after all).
You can try to make your chances for getting yogurt higher by choosing a more aggressive and rapid growing yogurt culture, and using big amounts of yogurt culture as starter. This will make it easier for the yogurt culture to overwhelm the other culture, because it will grow at an extremely high rate. As a downside, the rapid fermentation process will result in a sour, pungent yogurt with a high ratio of acetic acid and quite probably some ammonia.
The reason why Sobachatina and I reacted so strongly against your idea is that there are five other possible outcomes. For each of the five cases above, if you start with a milk which is contaminated with a pathogen, you end up with the same result but it is no longer harmless, it is very dangerous - let's call them cases 1b through 5b. And there is an ugly detail: Milk (or yogurt, or cottage cheese) which is contaminated with something nasty does not taste, look or smell different. So, whatever you end up with, you have no way to tell (short of a lab test) if you ended up with 3a (what you wanted) or 3b (a yogurt which will make you sick). The fact that you bought raw milk from (presumably) a well-handled, healthy animal does not make the risk of contamination low enough. And while you can find reputable sources which will tell you that raw milk doesn't "go bad", what they mean is that case 5 doesn't happen with raw milk, not that raw milk is never contaminated with pathogens.
I have no means to stop you from conducting your experiment, but my advice for you and anybody else who might read this question is to not do it. As evidence for this opinion, I will leave my old answer below. It is based on peer-reviewed articles and government-approved guidelines, not hearsay or unattributed web sites. For anybody still unconvinced, I recommend reading the articles themselves.
You don't need people with "experience" of raw milk. In food safety, experience doesn't help any; counting pathogens does.
Common sense alone should be enough to notice that spontaneously fermenting raw milk can't be a good idea. Look at how hard it is to obtain raw milk - wherever this is possible at all, it is very tightly regulated. The reason is that cow stalls are dirty places, and milk is a perfect growth medium. If it was safe to leave raw milk around and eat it after it has fermented, nobody would create such tight regulations to prevent this from happening. Making yogurt is a special case - if you have a big colony of harmless bacteria, they can outcompete pathogens quickly enough (but still it is preferable to make yogurt with pasteurized milk, just in case). To give you an example: in Germany, raw milk can be sold up to 24 hours after milking, and has an expiry date of 96 hours after milking (and has to be kept under 4°C in the meantime). The raw milk must be labeled as such, there is a warning that it should be cooked before consummation, at-risk populations (pregnant, elderly, infants) shouldn't have it even cooked, and it is forbidden to use raw milk in commercial kitchens.
But as I said, you shouldn't rely on common sense where it comes to food safety. So here the hard data. I went to pubmed and searched for "bacteria in raw milk". This is a complete list of the bacteria mentioned on the first page of the results:
Coxiella burnetii (bonus: Wikipedia says this is "the most infectious organism known to man")
Lactococcus lactis
Campylobacter
Escherichia coli
Staphylococcus aureus
Lactobacillus zeae
Sphingobacterium lactis
spores of Bacillus anthracis (that's just what it sounds like: anthrax)
Salmonella
Listeria
Brucella (a Wikipedia citation: Brucellosis... is a highly contagious zoonosis caused by ingestion of unsterilized milk)
Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis
Out of these, the Lactococcus and Lactobacillus won't make you sick. All the others are dangerous pathogens. And I don't want to go through the article you linked sentence for sentence, but in case you believe them that pathogen infections only appear in industrialized dairies (oh, and I can tell you that my grandfather is a vet specializing in livestock - the cows in big dairy farms are not constantly sick as your link claims), some of these studies were made with normal village cows in India, Zimbabwe and other places where cows are raised the same way as centuries ago.
As for the "different bacteria" point: Theoretically, the same bacteria can live in both raw and pasteurized milk. In practice, in today's industry there is practically no way that milk can get contaminated with the nastier stuff between pasteurization and you opening the carton. After opening, we hope that nothing in your kitchen can contaminate the milk with brucellas or salmonellas. Before pasteurization, any contamination can occur. So yes, the microflora of pasteurized and non-pasteurized milk is different, but it is by no means a case of "natural is better".
Conclusion: Raw milk is a good thing by itself, but it can harbor some terrible illnesses. If you want to use it, you have to be much more careful than with pasteurized milk. Letting it ferment by itself is reckless. Refrigerate it and throw it out 96 hours after milking - even a whole cistern of milk isn't worth a salmonella or listeria infection.
First, your question presumes that sour pasteurized milk has gone bad and sour raw milk hasn't. This isn't true. "Go bad" is the same process - bacteria growing a colony in the milk and converting it to their waste product - only in one case it is harmless and tasty (yogurt), in some it is harmless and yuck, and in many it is dangerous. The point of my answer: if you let raw milk go sour, it it is very likely that you get the third case - dangerous pathogens multiplying in your yogurt. So please just don't do it. Even if the result looks and tastes like yogurt.
@Flimzy, you know I have a lot of respect for you, but rumtscho is being pretty direct here. You asked if raw milk could be used to make yogurt, and she answered that it would not be a safe thing to do.
@rumtscho, or is "go bad" colonization by spoilage bacteria, whereas "become yogurt" is colonization by fermentation bacteria. I think the premise is that the bacteria present in raw milk is something other than the former. I don't have the information to agree or disagree with that premise...
"Go bad" may be the same process, but "sour" is not. Sour raw milk can be perfectly good. Sour pasteurized milk, while it may technically possible to still be "good", it is much less likely--since the cultures in raw milk that allow it to sour gracefully don't exist in pasteurized milk.
I have updated my question to distinguish between sour and spoiled milk, rather than sour raw and sour pasteurized milk.
I suspect that you will most likely be able to produce a yogurt, whether or not that yogurt taste any good would be a different story. Plus this is a public site, and please note that @rumtscho would be doing a disservice to the community if she didn't address the safety concerns. Even if you are willing to take the risk, people who come here to read your answer need to be able to hear those risks. Her safety concerns are very valid, and I would urge you again to think twice before attempting this. Aside from that she gave you a very good answer here.
@tastefive: You are right, the warning is not out of place as part of an answer... and now that the answer has been updated, I think it's a very good complete answer.
I home produced raw goat milk for 20 years and made yogurt, cheese and it was our sole source of dairy. I ran a healthy herd, good udder cleansing pre and post milking, strained my milk and chilled to high grade B standards. I would never use soured milk for fermentation like yogurt or cheese. While I never did it I believe it would negitively affect taste and I would be concerned about bacteria. I would some years put a small sample of milk in a half pint mason jar, date it and leave in the outside frig. The longest I ever left was 14 months, the length I milked that particular goat. It was chunky curds and yellow whey with a sour smell, there was no sign of bacteria. I routinely used lightly soured milk in all my baking its makes wonderful lightness and depth of flavor. Contaminated raw milk can grow some very interesting bacteria and I had few mason jars ever show any but believe me the floating colonies were unmistakable!
The answers here are kind of frustrating. The sour milk is not bad. But let's start with a history lesson.
Before pasteurization, raw milk was, obviously, the only option available. And without a refrigerator, this was a far more perishable product that we're used to today. In this sort of context, it simply does not make sense to discard everything you can't drink while it's still fresh--you need to come up with ways to deal with milk that's turned. Possibly the simplest approach here is a product called "clabber" or "clabbered milk": leave raw milk alone, and hope for spontaneous fermentation. This will yield a product that is slightly tangier than most commercially available yogurt, and has a far wider variety of probiotics (and likely in greater number) than what you can find in the store.
And it's fermentation that you're looking for: once the milk picks up the right bacteria (primarily lactobacillus), it will grow wonderfully, crowding out and eventually killing off all the other nasties, and thickening itself in the process. The point here to recognize is that this is a food preservation process: allowing the milk ferment will grow one kind of bacteria (the good guys) and kill another (the bad guys).
The main difference between clabber and yogurt is that the former is spontaneously fermented by wild bacteria in the air, whereas yogurt is a cultured product, meaning that some of a previous successful batch of yogurt is added to the milk to provide a starter colony of bacteria to jumpstart the fermentation process. Along the way, someone found that this would improve their success rate and consistency of product, and it became standard practice.
So, no, soured milk is not necessarily harmful. You could make yogurt out of soured raw milk. The only potential problem would be the taste would be more sour. Some people love that taste, and for others, it's acquired.
I have a gallon of raw milk that I did not get to and it has soured. I poured off some of the cream (another thing that is impossible to do with homogenized milk) and will use it in a beef stroganoff recipe for dinner. The milk still has some cream left, I was thinking about making yogurt actually, or trying ricotta cheese. If I make ricotta cheese (another curds from whey thing), I will save the whey for bread making or similar.
I guess the frustrating answer come from different cultural and climatic background. I guess raw milk left for fermenting has big chance of becoming dangerous in most places on Earth, but in some places it has been used this way for centuries, and it is as natural there, as fermenting sour bread starter or wine elsewhere.
In Poland 'zsiadłe mleko' is a traditional product home-made exactly this way – by letting fresh (unpasterized milk) ferment using the bacteria already there.
You are confusing homogenization and pasteurization. You can pour the cream off of pasteurized milk- if the milk is homogenized the cream doesn't separate.
You can most certainly let your milk sit on a counter until it separates, but the results will not be cheese. Milk - especially raw milk from a source that knows better than to let it sit warm - is wonderful stuff, but if you want to try your hand at culturing or fermentation, you had better know what you're doing first. Relying on luck is a very bad idea.
I think you've done well to recognize the apparent ignorance of raw milk in the other answers, however your answer doesn't really add much, as it doesn't really answer the question. It also has a lot of misinformation and half-true information. Letting milk ferment and separate at room temperature can be a fine thing to do, but this alone does not produce cheese, for instance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.469802
| 2011-10-20T21:04:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18481",
"authors": [
"ATXinventor",
"Adam Thompson",
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Gordon Amable",
"Hot Sauce",
"JHN",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Marti",
"Ray",
"Saeed ashour",
"Sean",
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"Tom M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jeffwllms",
"niknak",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"tina",
"user1724258"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21973
|
Can cultured buttermilk powder contain live cultures?
I'm looking for some buttermilk starter, which I know I can buy online, but I wanted to shop locally first. The two local health food stores don't carry it, so I checked one of the local supermarkets, and came across some Saco Cultured Buttermilk Blend, which is a dry powder. I'm curious if this can possibly contain live cultures, though. One forum post I found claims it does not:
Because the SACO buttermilk is dried, it contains no live cultures and will not be a good buttermilk starter culture.
However, many other living organisms, (such as dry yeast, and the freeze-dried Kéfir starter I found in the store today) come in dry form, so I'm not convinced that a dried product cannot contain live cultures, but maybe dried buttermilk is different. So is it true that this type of product does not contain live cultures, or will it work as a buttermilk starter culture?
It is true that Saco Buttermilk Blend contains no live cultures. If you can have any further questions, please feel free to call our consumer line at 1-800-373-7226. We are happy to answer any questions you may have about our product!
Amy Verheyden
Director of Consumer Affairs
Saco Foods, Inc.
Well, can't ask for a better source than that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.471287
| 2012-03-04T00:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21973",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15899
|
Thai Chicken and Noodles Recipe Recreation
I used to eat this delicious Thai Chicken and Noodles recipe from a restaurant that closed down over a decade ago. I'm looking for a closest approximation of a recipe that will still taste good. (I don't know if cooking.SE will tolerate this kind of question, since it's a bit off-topic, but here goes.)
The dish was composed of:
Dark brown noodles, a bit thick
Chicken that was reddish and deep-fried; it was very crispy
Chopped vegetables; zucchini at the least.
The dish was pretty dry; it didn't have any curry, sauce, or any other ingredients, really.
How would I make a dish like this? Or, what's the closest to this dish that I can find a recipe for?
This sounds fairly simple and easy! Was the chicken breaded and spicy? If so, was it a Panko type breading (Yum, Panko!) or maybe just some flour with Thai spices mixed in?
Check out these recipes for curry fried chicken. They look tasty. Just use chicken breast cut into strips instead of whole legs and wings and things.
This one, or this one.
They're the same recipe, but it makes me laugh that this site just copied Rachael Ray or vice verse :p. Probably the former, but still amusing. Anyway..
You should be able to find some whole grain rice noodles from most major grocers, least here in Cleveland, Ohio. They will be thick like your looking for. Start those boiling while you saute your veggies with some olive oil. Start off with some garlic in the pan for a minute once it's hot, then add some green beans, bell peppers, zucchini, snow peas and what-have-you and cook until they are as tender as you would like.
Mix in the noodles, with an extra tablespoon (15mL) of olive oil if you please, and give them a toss. Put the chicken on top almost like a garnish.
If you think it will be too dry, it's easy to make a sauce REALLY quick by just reserving some of the water you used to cook the noodles, like 1/4 to 1/3 Cup, or 50 to 100mL (it's a really rough number). Add the water to your noodles and veggies in small increments until you think it's "saucy" enough. Add in some Curry Paste or eat as is!
Try using Peanut Oil or Sesame Oil instead of Olive Oil!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.471415
| 2011-07-02T19:31:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15899",
"authors": [
"Ari Lacenski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3861",
"ptpaterson",
"spacebread"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44405
|
What kind of foods react with aluminium pressure cookers?
While researching about pressure cookers, I found a comment in a review that says:
As with all aluminum pressure cookers, the metal will react with some foods and can overheat if you are not careful [...]
This is news to me. Further research seems to mention only a couple of salient points:
Aluminium is very reactive in general
Acidic foods may react in a pressure cooker
Since I don't see myself puting lemons or tomatoes in a pressure cooker, I'm really at a loss as to why this could be an issue.
What foods commonly react in an aluminium pressure cooker, and what do I do about it?
baking soda is one of the most corrosive to aluminum among all food ingredients.
Aluminum isn't exactly toxic or harmful to the same degree as lead, but it's not exactly good for you either. And as you've identified, aluminum is fairly reactive. Higher acidity, salinity, and cooking time will all contribute to further reaction and absorption in any aluminum cooking vessel (or utensils for that matter).
This is an issue for three primary reasons:
Absorption of aluminum is, as noted above, not necessarily healthy.
Absorption of aluminum can result in a metallic flavor in your food, which is generally unpleasant.
Absorption of aluminum into your food also corrodes the cooking vessel.
That third is probably of the most concern here, since you're talking about a vessel that's under pressure when in use. Sufficient corrosion and the resulting structural weakness could (in very rare cases) cause a rupture and sudden pressure release, i.e. hot stew explosion. This would take a long while to occur, and you'd almost certainly notice the corrosion on the inside of your vessel before it became truly dangerous, but this type of problem is exactly why modern pressure cookers have such fancy pressure-sensitive locks and come with warnings all over them. They can pop if abused, and they do this in your kitchen, possibly while you're nearby.
So, extended cooking of certain acidic items (what if you wanted to make, say, tomato sauce in your pressure cooker?) could be dangerous with long-term use, hence the warning. Such foods will also contain more aluminum than they would otherwise, and taste like it as a result. Here's a thread with information on the general pH levels of common foods, which may help you identify specific items of concern.
Another good way to avoid this is to select a stainless steel model instead of aluminum. Stainless is more expensive and doesn't heat up as quickly, but it's not as reactive as aluminum either, so there's less concern when cooking acidic ingredients over a long period. Here is a decent buying guide with comparison of features and some more specific recommendations.
If I understand your first paragraph right, you're suggesting that aluminium is a poor vessel for pressure-cooking because of higher cooking times. Is that right? Then why, coupled with your third point, is it such a common choice for pressure cookers? Is it just plain economics?
Specifically, aluminum cookers can degrade faster than stainless steel if used repeatedly to cook acidic ingredients. Most home cooks will probably not do this often enough to cause any issue, but it's possible. Aluminum is still commonly used because it's cheap, lightweight, and has better thermal conductivity compared to stainless steel, so it heats up more quickly. So yes: economics.
Alternatively, place the dish being cooked in a stainless steel container that fits neatly inside the pressure cooker.
Aluminium may mix into the food if heated for a long time and lot of metals do. I always cook in aluminium pressure cookers with stainless steel containers inside so that will serve both purposes or using aluminium for getting high temperatures and also not contaminating the food since it doesn't directly get in contact with the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.471615
| 2014-05-25T13:21:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44405",
"authors": [
"Buddho",
"Christine Conway Tuley",
"Dugnom",
"Elma lewis",
"Innowise Group spam",
"Jency Villada",
"Spammer",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"logophobe",
"user104381",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47093
|
What are bagel chips?
This recipe for southern-fried chicken mentions something called "bagel chips."
What exactly are bagel chips, and how do you make them? All I can find are recipes for it or places that sell something in a bag that resembles potato chips.
I was going to suggest melba toast as an alternative ... but the recipe already says that.
@Joe feel free to explain what melba toast is too :)
it's really thin toast ... dried out so much that it's shelf stable for months, like croutons (although, it's used more like a cracker). The original way of making it was to take a piece of toast, slice it through the middle (so it's 1/2 the thickness of the original slice), and then toast the inside.
I like the first answer, but feel the need to clarify the 'pepperoni' reference. Yes, they are slices of bagels. However, if you cut a bagel vertically in half as it rests flat and treat each half as if you were slicing a curved salumi, all of your chips will be inconsistently thick on one edge and thin on the other (thanks to the properties of a torus). While that leaves them all consistently round, their thickness varies, which makes evenly toasting them a problem.
The more conventional approach: take the whole bagel as it lies flat on the cutting board, and slice it vertically but thinly from one side to the other. There will be much more variation in chip shape, but it's much easier to maintain the right thickness for even toasting. This is also why most (if not all) bags of chips are sliced in this manner, and you see such wild variation of circles, ovals, etc in chip shape.
A Gildy's Blade or a tightly serrated bread knife will do the job. Along with a bit of patience.
The difference between the thickness of one edge and the other will be negligible, especially if you're cutting them 1/8" thick. They always toast fairly evenly for me, and anyway, the toasting for ashes999's application doesn't even need to be particularly even. They'll be crumbling up the chips to use as breading, so as long as the chips are dry (baked through) they'll be fine.
Bagel chips are just bagels sliced into little rounds- think bagel pepperoni. I know of a few different ways to make them, but generally you just bake or toast the rounds (you can butter each slice a little bit or drizzle olive oil over them before baking) until crispy. Here's a good recipe. I'd personally recommend using egg bagels, they have an excellent flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472029
| 2014-09-13T15:57:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47093",
"authors": [
"Cheryl Ellis",
"JoAnn Krummel",
"Joe",
"Nicholas Ponce",
"Paul Heim",
"RICK",
"Robert Emmett",
"ashes999",
"bethy60",
"david mason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"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
}
|
14245
|
How long should I steam Artichokes?
I know that it should steam until the leaves pull off easily. But how long does that take?
I found steaming artichokes to require a very unpredictable about of time, and have fallen in love with the microwave method.
Cut off the stem so it can sit flat
Cut off a little of the top of the thistle.
Pour about 1 tablespoon or a few milliliters of water into the middle.
Wrap securely in plastic film
Microwave on high for about 10 minutes. Test the base for softness with a toothpick. Use about two minutes extra if needed.
When done, open the wrapping and carefully pour out any remaining water.
They can still be unpredictable, but at least the variation is a little less.
Great microwave idea. There are a few dishes that cook great in them, like Chinese style steam fish works perfectly in the microwave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472271
| 2011-04-22T00:42:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14245",
"authors": [
"Sandra ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75362",
"rickculclasure"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22748
|
What are the best types of apples to use in Charosset?
What are the best type of apples to use when making Charosset for Passover?
I'm torn between something more neutral like Gala vs something tart (which might work well with the sweetness of the rest of the dish).
Looking through recipes suggests a variety of apples. Gala showed up the most, with Fuji in second, and McIntosh and Delicious tied for last.
If you want to go with the "source" of the recipe for Charoset, though, you'll want a sweet apple. The recipe has its roots in Song of Solomon/Songs, and the verse that refers to the apples reads as:
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
So, for authenticity, go for a sweet apple, but Gala is the most mentioned apple in recipes online.
I made mine with Empire apples this year and it was absolutely delicious!
If I remember correctly those are a reasonably sweet, crisp apple. Do you think that's a better fit than something tart?
Well I guess that all depends on what you're going for! I like my charoses very sweet indeed. And I also like it chunky. Those empires worked very well, rough cut with a knife and then mashed a bit. I used walnuts and pecans, pan-toasted with a bit of butter and sugar. Toasted whole and they come apart a bit during the mashing. For spice I used powdered clove, nutmeg, and cinnamon. Some grape juice too to add sweetness, but not enough to make it wet. Delicious.
We make ours with McIntosh and it's so yummy!
And what did you like about it? How do you think using McIntosh improved it in comparison with other apples?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472381
| 2012-04-03T15:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22748",
"authors": [
"Alex Roy",
"Cascabel",
"Cyndi",
"Dana Mao",
"Frelling",
"Michael Daum",
"Tess Zed",
"The_Tough_Brets",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9851",
"rumtscho",
"user51751"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14405
|
What would the drawbacks/benfits be to making French toast with egg alternatives (Egg Beaters, etc)
Would there be any benefit to making French toast with a low cholesterol version of Egg alternative? Or possibly just using the whites for French toast? (I'm currently using the very basic 1 egg/3 Tbsp. of milk recipe)
There's not a lot of difference between egg substitute (e.g., Egg Beaters), and egg whites. So the options you mention, they are roughly equivalent to one another.
The obvious thing both of these substitutes are missing is the yolk. An egg yolk adds a LOT of flavor to this sort of cooked egg dish.
In a french toast, whereas egg white is soaked up by the bread and creates a fairly unique texture, the egg yolk is the key to the flavor and it is what makes it rich. I think the egg white french toast is doable[1] but I don't think it will taste wonderful.
In other news, may I quote Thomas Keller in relation to a recipe of cheesecake (again, paraphrased by me) - If you are worried about the fat, have a smaller portion, and don't do my recipe with low fat alternatives.
I think it applies to cholesterol too.
[1] I certainly haven't tried this since I'm already way too fat to eat any french toast anyways...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472557
| 2011-04-28T23:23:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14405",
"authors": [
"TXgal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58841",
"user72063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14424
|
Dangers associated with sous-vide temperature and time
What's the risk associated with leaving pork (vacuum sealed) in water at 35 °C (95 °F) for 12 hours? It's probably a common mistake with sous vide cooking, forgetting to turn the bath on.
The conditions you've described are ideal for growing a pretty vibrant culture of clostridium botulinum (botulism). Maybe you could distill some Botox serum out of it (please note that this is a flippant comment - don't try to make homegrown Botox), but please do not consider serving it as food to anyone.
Would you eat meat that has been sitting on your porch for a night?
To get a clear understanding of underlying problems, read this: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472678
| 2011-04-30T02:07:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14424",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15395
|
At what temperature should one bake a coconut crust for a Hershey Bar Pie?
Today I plan to bake a hershey bar pie.
I have done this in the past but never really get the crust to turn out like I expect. I am wondering if I am not cooking it at the correct temperature since all the other aspects of making the crust have been followed.
What is or are the recommended temperatures for doing this?
How are you making the crust now (ingredients, steps, temperature)
My friend makes coconut crusts all the time and she bakes them at 350 degrees. But AllRecipes.com bakes their crust at 325 degrees for 15 minutes.
When I read it I thought exactly 325. +1 for getting there first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472767
| 2011-06-12T04:31:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15395",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Adrian",
"Alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"matthew",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119679
|
What's the difference between omelette/frittata/quiche?
What is the culinary difference between these dishes?
It seems to me that they are all egg dishes that are cooked with some fillings in them (onion/tomato/ham/cheese etc). Is quiche just a frittata in pastry?
Two almost identical foods can be called different if they come from different areas. I guess that is part of the explanation here.
You missed tortilla, which is far more like a frittata than a french omelette.
Hi. Welcome. I have a feeling you have done no research here at all. It would be better to look up some recipes to see the differences . . . these aren't the same thing at all. And no, a quiche is not just a fritatta with pastry. A quiche has a savoury egg custard filling.
Quiche has a crust, while the other two do not. But it’s also not stirred while cooking, so the texture is different, especially if you add any milk to it so it’s more of a custard.
There are multiple types of omelette (French, italian, Japanese), but in general they’re egg dishes that are cooked stovetop with fillings typically added after the egg has begun to set up.
Frittata is stirred as it’s cooked at the beginning, with the fillings often cooked first then the eggs added in, then put in the oven to finish.
And had been mentioned there’s also the Spanish tortilla in which the filling is cooked, then added to the beaten eggs, then put back to the pan, then flipped to finish cooking
I would also add the Italian pizza rustica which is an egg pie, so it’s quiche-like but also has a top crust.
And there’s a style of ‘egg roll’, which can be rather omelette like, in that it’s a thin crepe-like omelette that’s then wrapped around a filling.
… and then you start getting into various types of sweeter quiche-like dishes, like Italian cheesecake (aka ‘ricotta pie’) and custard pies
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.472863
| 2022-01-30T02:10:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119679",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109475
|
Bread has acidic smell and taste
I made a sort of "starter" to use instead of dried yeast for making bread.
It was basically a loose dough with a tiny amount of dried yeast. When I bake I take some from the box and refresh the starter with flour and water.
It worked pretty well for a couple of months but now my bread has an unpleasantly acidic smell and taste.
The start doesn't smell bad. It still has the same smell as before.
Initially I thought it was the flour (I started to add wholewheat to the mix) but today I tried with just plain white and it's still bad.
Is the starter ruined?
I can avoid it going bad in the future?
This is stronger than a standard sourdough flavor?
Yes. We couldn't eat the bread. I had just a bite and my stomach was upset all night.
I don't know if you're following a specific technique, but you might want to look into 'biga' and 'poolish'. Or possibly 'old dough' (old dough also has salt in it, which slows down the fermentation). I'm not an expert on these techniques, so I'll have to let someone else answer if it can be saved.
Huh. I'd say some kind of fungal contamination, but I'd expect you to smell & see that.
It's highly likely the lactic acid bacteria in your starter (these were living on the wheat in the field, some maybe from your hands) are more active than the yeasts. You need to dilute the acid out of the starter, feed it more often and keep the whole shebang above 16°C, preferably 18-20°C (although you can still store it in the fridge). Low acidity, more feeding and 18-20°C will raise the activity level of the yeasts relative to the bacteria and generally keep the yeast enzymes, bacteria enzymes and wheat enzymes in harmony.
Consider Ed Wood's "washing" process, it's a very effective starter management procedure. It's going to be a bit different for a mother dough method but the ideas are still the same. I've written about this here before but for somewhat different questions.
Don't pour off the hooch. This stuff is the dark liquid that forms on top of a starter when dormant in the fridge. It is protective (acids, alcohols and enzymes) for you and the microflora, and helps the microflora digest food. It actually increases starter activity. Ed Wood says the starter is contaminated if the hooch forms in the middle or the bottom.
Don't worry about weighing exact amounts of flour and water when you're feeding it. Just focus on the sourness and the consistency. A thicker consistency gives a home cook more flexibility with time and it's easier to gauge the activity level.
Molds are really quite slow compared to yeast and bacteria, especially with hooch retention. The starter has to sit there for a long time to become moldy.
Ed Wood's Washing Process
Stir hooch into starter.
Increase the volume 3-5 times with tepid water
Stir until homogeneous
Pour off 4/5ths of it
Tip in flour and stir until homogeneous
If not a consistency you like then add more flour or water and stir.
Wait until it has risen double or triple, don't worry about how long it takes.
Repeat several times if it still tastes sour.
Good Luck
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.473039
| 2020-07-05T20:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109475",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"algiogia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50118
|
How can you make gelatin at home?
I'm looking for something maybe from a really old recipe book, be it fish, chicken or beef. I've been searching all over and obviously most people's opinions are to buy store bought gelatin. That doesn't work for me - I want it to be kosher or halal, and I can't find that.
What are you trying to achieve? Of course you can boil out the gelatine from bones, but purifying and dehydrating is unlikely to work in your home. It's not that there was a home recipe which nobody uses today (like e.g. with millefeuille dough), it's that people did not use gelatine for jellying anything but soup and meat pies before industrially made gelatine was available.
Well I'd like to make my own gelatin to make sweets and candies as there aren't any trustworthy kosher or halal gelatin in his country. Thought I'd give it a go.
Let's see if somebody has an idea for you, maybe the process is less complicated than I imagine. An alternative would be to use a different colloid, such as agar. But this will change the texture of the candy.
@Bash - I would recommend editing and tagging your question to reflect your need for Halal/Kosher integrity. Otherwise the effort/reward ratio is REALLY bad for something like this.
@Bash - I don't know where you are, and it's not an answer to your question, but I had no problems finding kosher/halal gelatin on the web. Even Jell-o turns out to be kosher to my amazement! (Though not everybody seems to agree). Jell-o is halal too, provided no alcohol is used in the flavor...
You could also consider using Agar... it's plant based, so you don't need to worry about halal or kosher. http://www.joyofkosher.com/2015/12/why-everyone-is-talking-about-agar/
A simple Google search will find items that are specific to your needs that you can order online. If you can post a question here, you can find it via Google.
Typically on this site diet questions involving religion have been moved to the appropriate religions SE. You may even consider the vegan and vegetarian SE if you want advice on plant based gelatin.
After a quick Google I found this recipe :- http://www.grassfedgirl.com/diy-make-your-own-healing-gelatin/
Ingredients:
3-4 lbs pastured animal bones (any kind will work, I even mix them between animals) (the more bones the more likely it will gel…fill’er
up! )
4-5 quarts filtered water
1 tbsp sea salt
Directions:
Put all the ingredients in a slow cooker over night or for up to 48 hours.
Strain it off through a wire mesh strainer.
Refrigerate until firm or overnight.
Chip or scrape off any fat and save for cooking or discard.
Melt the gelatin and add fruit and sweetener to make something sweet the refrigerated again.
Or use the gelatin as a base for making a soup or stew.
This gelatin will keep in the fridge for a week (or a year in the
freezer.)
One thing to note, the recipe makes no mention of all the meaty juices which will settle to the bottom during the cooling process. So where it suggests scraping the fat off the top I would recommend flipping the big gelatin block over a slicing the bottom off also.
Also during the straining process, if you can get hold of some cheese cloth or muslin it'll help ensure there are no meat particles in there anywhere.
This is a good first shot, but it clearly doesn't produce concentrated gelatine, it produces a jelly. If the OP wanted to make e.g. gummy bears from it, he'd have to use some kind of fruit concentrate to get any kind of taste with this thing. Also, I wouldn't trust this to not taste of meat without somebody trying it and confirming that the taste is negligible.
Concentration will come by boiling the liquid down to nothing, flavour wise have you ever tasted bought gelatin? Tastes like pork fat ....
Also the same site it's from uses the recipe's produce in other fruit jelly recipes.
"boiling down to nothing" is not a good strategy with gelatine. As Wikipedia mentions, "The mechanical properties of gelatin gels are very sensitive to temperature variations, the previous thermal history of the gel, and time." It will typically not re-gel after it has been boiled too much. As for the taste, gelatin does not taste "like pork fat" to me, but even if it did, this is an acceptable taste for many desserts, I like lard pie crusts. The problem would be other, more assertive tastes being created during cooking - but again, I don't know how strong they are.
Tell you what I'll try it at work when I get a chance :-) never had an issue boiling geletin before though, for example ham hock terrine, boiling down the cooking stock to add to the meat sets it like a rock...
Might be a while with it being Christmas though...
I just got a ton of gelatin from rendering beef suet into tallow. And I mean gelatin, not jelly! Unfortunately I used salt in the rendering process, so my gelatin is rather salty. It does have a slight flavour. The best I can explain is it tastes the way a doughnut shop smells without any of the sweetness or dessert factor. So, maybe try this and you could have kosher fat to cook with and kosher gelatin. I think the salt helps the rendering process, unfortunately, but I've never tried not using it.
Just a side not, I'm super weirded out by all the recipes online. If it's a recipe to make tallow, it says to discard the gelatin. If it's a recipe to make gelatin, it says to discard the fat. Find a way to use it all - there are hundreds of food and cosmetic uses for both.
I asked a question related to this post: How do you get geletin from rendering beef fat?
Suet isn't generally kosher. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelev This answer may still apply for Halal though (I can't speak to Halal rules).
For the first time last night I tried saving the liquid poured off from my frying pan after browning a pound of ground beef (hoping to use it to make tortillas). After a few hours in the fridge I went to scrape it into the container I'm storing the fat in, and discovered that only the top layer was actually fat. Everything else was gelatin.
This didn't make a ton of gelatin. Perhaps 1-3 tablespoons or so. Still, enough that it sent me here to try to figure out if that's really gelatin (sure looks that way), and what I should be doing with it.
It contains gelatin, but obviously it isn’t usable for gelatin desserts as the OP is looking for. I’m not sure whether you were addressing the OP’s question or asking a new one?
@Sneftel - Now I'm confused. The OQ's question says absolutely nothing about "desserts". It merely asks about making gelatin at home, which this answers.
@T.E.D. If the question itself isn't clear, look at the comments. The OP wants a substitute for gelatin, which is a concentrated material that usually gets added to sweet liquids to make desserts. What you got is broth thickened with gelatin, which is an edible end product, not a concentrated thickener. In kitchen terminology, the end product you make with gelatin is not called "gelatin", it's called either a jelly or something more specific, like panna cotta.
@rumtscho - Ah, sorry (to you and to Sneftel). I'm used to sites insisting on having such question-defining comments from an OQ edited into the question itself, so I didn't think to check down there. It seemed clear enough from the question text to me.
@T.E.D. this seems like a good policy for a site to have, I think we've just never came up with the idea :) also, in this case, it may be about standard terminology. From the question text only, I would have never imagined that the OP might have wanted gelled broth when they use the word gelatin. To me, that would be like wanting cake but saying that they want to make flour.
@rumtscho - Fair. I'm enough of a noob with this that I didn't know the difference. I mean I've seen this stuff for decades. Just never stopped to think about exactly what it was and what it might be useful for until recently. Always just tossed it.
Lifelong learning, right? :P Anyway, that's indeed something that tends to amaze new cooks: never throw away this stuff, no matter if it gels or not. It's one of the most prized things you get in the kitchen. Start deglazing your pans, making fonds, gravies etc., (there's lots of info on those out there, one just has to know to look for it) and you'll suddenly see a noticeable jump in the quality of your meat dishes.
I make bone broth. I cook for up to twelve hours on my wood stove. cool take off fat. put in jars and pressure can. so it has been at quite hot temperatures. All my jars are so hard to get the broth out of the gel is so thick I have to spoon it out. So I don't thin temp will affect much. I have thought of filtering and trying in a fruit jelly perhaps a thick puree mixed through. But you wouldn't have to boil to nothing. secret is lots of knuckle bones.
The question is specifically about how to make gelatin for desserts. Presumably the author knows to boil bones. The question is how to purify it for sweet applications. This answer doesn't seem to answer the question at all.
Quoting from How to Make Gelatin From Animal Bones:
Commercial gelatin is made from primarily from hides and hooves. It is refined and purified to remove any flavors
The mild taste it has gets covered up with flavoring. This should do the trick. And amazon.com sells both halal and kosher gelatin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.473325
| 2014-11-27T08:02:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50118",
"authors": [
"Alondra Soto",
"April Cummings",
"Bash",
"Claire Moloney",
"Danny Allen",
"Double AA",
"Doug",
"Jamin Grey",
"JavaLatte",
"Kayleigh Ireland",
"Marites Nuñez",
"Neil Meyer",
"Patricia Carty",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rhonda Kurt",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"T.E.D.",
"gerbnl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8291",
"john3103",
"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
}
|
123247
|
Restored Pasta Boards
My grandfather's pasta board was in the attic for years. No mold, it looks perfect, however, I need to clean it, to get rid of dust and smell. I was planning on sanding it. Once it's sanded, can I use Boos Mystery Oil to complete the process?
If not, what do you recommend?
Thank you.
'Pasta board' - it brings memories from the old days, of the electricity- and gas board; not relevant at all, I know. It sounds like something the Italians might had, to ensure the stadard of pasta, if they had been governed by British bureaucracy.
I would not use board oil on a pasta board.
Sand it down (if necessary), give it a good scrub with salt/lemon and let it dry completely.
The board works because it gets used and is a little rough so that the dough does not slide around when kneading or when forming pasta.
Agreed. You need the board to grip the pasta when you’re making shapes like orecchiette
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.474300
| 2023-02-02T13:08:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123247",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"j4nd3r53n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82753
|
Can you cut cucumbers when you make them in brine?
I'm trying to make Polish style cucumbers in brine (ogórki kiszone) but my jars are too small to fit cucumbers I can get in the supermarket. Can I just cut them or the lack of skin will change the fermentation process significantly?
I don't see how it would change the process. Besides, I've seen the same pickled fermented cucumbers cut, although lengthwise. However you cut them, it will be fine.
There's one change -- it works faster. As the flesh is exposed, it processes quicker than it would if it has to go through the skin, and it doesn't have to go as deeply to affect all of the vegetable being brined. Where this is really noticeable is when they're been left to sit for extended periods (eg, canned and left for a couple of years). The cut ones can end up being almost mush and really unpleasant to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.474573
| 2017-07-01T00:59:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82753",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
66752
|
Pumpkin carpaccio: correct use of the name
IN my view, carpaccio is thinly sliced beef, nothing else. But now, it seem OK to serve salmon carpaccio, or even, as I recently saw, pumpkin carpaccio. Am I to assume that everything thinly sliced and spreaded on a plate can be called a carpaccio nowadays? Can I expect, say, cheese cake carpaccio soon? Or is that still very liberal pretentious use of the name of a specific dish?
I'd argue that it needs to not only be thinly sliced, but also raw and served with a light dressing. And more likely meat or at least a protein. But if you're trying to be fancy, 'pumpkin capaccio' sounds fancier than 'shaved pumpkin salad'.
So, it is basically salad? We must fear the day we get a lettuce carpaccio...
@MarcLuxen The usage you're seeing here seems to be restricted to shaved/thinly-sliced things, not leaves that are already thin and flat. That is, the process of making it is very similar to beef carpaccio, just with a different ingredient instead of beef.
What if you shave the lettuce?
"Pumpkin carpaccio" sounds reasonable to me. It's fairly clear what it means: something like carpaccio, but made with pumpkin.
I think as long as people generally understand what's meant by the term, there's not really much point in trying to deem it "correct" or "incorrect". Sure, carpaccio is a fancy foreign food, so this might sound fancy or even pretentious depending on context, but it's still a reasonable thing to say. (And this isn't a new usage; for example here's a melon carpaccio from 2003.)
Of course, this doesn't change what the canonical carpaccio is; that's still going to be meat or fish. But it's fairly typical to combine multiple terms to describe something, even if one of the terms individually definitely wouldn't suggest the right thing.
For example, I'm sure you wouldn't blink an eye at use of the term "tofu hot dogs", even though "hot dog" on its own clearly means meat. The combination of the terms doesn't mean "hot dogs can be made of whatever you want", it means "this thing is like a hot dog, but made with tofu." And if someone tries to say "technically, that's not a hot dog" people will most likely just roll their eyes.
Perhaps some of the issue here is that carpaccio is a foreign word in English, and in Italian the usage is likely a lot more restricted. But in English, people are going to say what it makes sense to them to say, and combining terms like this generally makes sense. (That said, even Italians may be flexible; for example here's a zucchini carpaccio, posted in 2003, that's apparently inspired by the version at a restaurant in Rome.)
As a final note, you said carpaccio means just beef to you. Even the Italian Wikipedia page says it includes meat and fish, not just beef. If you're more picky than Italians about the definition of a traditional food, I think you may be taking it a little too far.
Does a hot dog contain meat? Really? ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.474701
| 2016-02-23T12:42:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66752",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chrissy McClellan",
"Deirdre Kelly",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Judith Watt",
"Marc Luxen",
"Peter Ferrier",
"Tempestt Duncan",
"grey cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"scar garcia Oscar FGarcia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61628
|
Is it safe to boil water in a microwave?
Our electric kettle broke. So this morning I used the microwave to boil water for the first cup of coffee.
Only thing is - the water in south Africa is not really the best of quality when you get it from the tap. I presume using a kettle kills of some of the bacteria that is still in the water.
So my question is:
Is it safe to boil water in the microwave and then consuming it in coffee? What other complication might boiling water in the microwave bring other than from a bacterial point of view?
@ChefBrooksie Oh, good. Now you really scared our OP...
Well one tiny detail that I forgot to mention in the question is the coffee tasted different when made in micro to when made in the kettle. This is what led me to wonder if its save to boil in a microwave. But then again when water is boiled on gas flame or fire flame, each tastes different to me. Anyway different topic I guess.
@PorkChop The different tastes from different boiling methods are most likely due to the water being at slightly different temperatures. Boiling water is boiling water but the kind of container it's in will influence how much it cools between the time you stop heating it and the time you make coffee with it.#
The different taste can also be depending on the vessel it was heated in, and the effects of the heating method on said vessel. Heated in a (metal) kettle where the (metal) kettle gets quite hot, you likely have a bit of metal dissolving into the water - not enough to be particularly harmful, but possibly taste-able (depending on what metal the kettle is made from in particular). You also likely don't clean your kettle as carefully as you clean your cup - so there are likely dissolved solids from the water it's boiled before in it.
@ChefBrooksie I don't think that is ironic at all. It's likely the best possible way to do it (from a mechanical point of view, of course not the organic/natural way). Remove all possible bad stuff, then add in whatever is needed to get taste and quality right.
If I had to bet, I would say that there are less bacteria in coffee made using a microwave oven. Probably you are heating it directly in a cup or a mug, an object which is usually washed more often and more thoroughly than a kettle.
There is one very different issue to be kept in mind - water in a microwave can overheat and "explode" once it is disturbed.
Another poster had exactly this problem a short while ago: Water exploded in Microwave
So follow the usual precautions, e.g. putting a wooden toothpick or a small, very clean stone (chemists have them in their labs) in your vessel. In a pinch, a spoon will do, but not all microwaves handle metal objects well.
If you are worried that heating your water in a microwave might not be sufficient to kill all "nasties", remember that killing bacteria is a function of time and temperature, so you might feel safer if you not only bring your water to a boil, but continue boiling it for another minute or so. I would assume that this is mostly for your psychological benefit, but it certainly won't hurt. The temperature reached is identical for different heating devices as physics dictates the boiling point of water and it can't exceed that as long as it's liquid.
A submerged spoon is no problem. It still prevents superheating by providing a nucleus for bubble forming, but there's no air-metal surface where sparks can form.
I didn't think ANY microwaves handled metal well. Don't put metal in the science oven!
@MaxWilliams - that isn't true. Most microwaves handle metal objects without any sharp edges a cracks (such as spoons) perfectly well.
I didn't know that... I would still strongly advise people not to put any metal in their microwave though.
Large metal objects are fine. What you should be cautious with is the thin metal plating on the dishes, which heats up quickly.
When making cookies, I heat a whole pack of butter in the microwave. It works well with normal butter packed in paper, but Irish butter is sold in aluminum foil. I tried it once, it gave a nice pooof and a small, short-lived fire...
As far as I know, distilled water can overheat and explode when impurities are introduced. Regular old non-distilled water will just start boiling (because it already has impurities in it).
@mikeTheLiar But there are enough practical counter-examples where regular tap water overheated. The linked post being one of them, my personal experience another.
@MaxWilliams Why, especially given that your presumption isn't true?
Also, microwaves themselves are typically also useful at killing microorganisms! Gotta love some direct electromagnetic radiation. For some more susceptible bacteria, they literally "pop" on a microscopic level.
@BrownRedHawk Not true. The only way a microwave oven can kill bacteria is the same way as for example an electrical stovetop, namely through the application of heat. For any larger amount of water, the heat will be so spread out that any bacteria will survive until the whole mass of water reaches 80°C or whatever happens to kill the type of bacteria in question.
"physics dictates the boiling point of water and it can't exceed that as long as it's liquid" - Actually this is not entirely true, and is in fact contradicted by the 'exploding water' point. Under the right conditions, liquids can be superheated (and also supercooled) beyond their normal boiling (and freezing) point. The "exploding" water is water that's actually been heated above boiling point, spontaneously starting to boil. Similarly, supercooled water will spontaneously freeze when disturbed.
@aroth Correct, yet I choose to exclude these special cases (partly as I covered them in the first paragraph). For "ordinary" boiling water, which will be the majority of cases, the statement holds true. Also, while the subject of microwaves and their functionalities and shortcommings have been discussed in detail, the original question was focused on water quality and possible contamination. For superheating I linked to the related question, where this effect was probably the main culprit.
@Nit do you mean "Why would i advise people to not put metal in their microwave"? If so, then my answer is that some metal is safe, some is not, and the rules for which is safe seem quite complicated. Best to not take the chance and avoid putting any metal in at all. IMO.
@MaxWilliams Whether metal is handled well in a microwave oven depends on it's geometry, in relation to the wavelength of the microwaves. The microwave wavelength is roughly 3 cm.
@VolkerSiegel I dare say that it depends on many factors. My point is that we can either expect people to take all of these factors into account before deciding whether to put metal in the microwave or just tell them not to. Obviously for a keen scientist like yourself it's no problem to take all of the factors into account and make a considered decision. But for most people, the pragmatic option would be "just don't".
@MaxWilliams I fully agree.
There is no difference. Whether you boil water in a kettle or in a microwave, it reaches a temperature of 100 °C/212 °F at sea level. Not only that, but no method that doesn't involve pressure will get the water to reach a temperature of over 100 °C/212 °F. Water boiled in a microwave is just as safe as water boiled in a kettle.
I agree, however, you still have the very small chance of superheating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating).
@ChefBrooksie: Well-known perhaps, but wrong. Steam forms when bubbles can form, which require nuclei. This isn't an issue when cooking food - a potato is quite sufficient - but it is dangerous when boiling water.
Even If i put on the tin foil beanie and assert that microwaves are dangerous to food, the microwave remains an ideal way to boil and heat water. Leaving aside the steam dangers which are mostly common to steam regardless of heat source (steam is dangerous) the most dangerous chemical reactions possible from high energy ionization is to produce mild base (HO ions), mild acid (H ions), Hydrogen gas, Oxygen gas, and most of the base will be neutralized by the acid forming water, and the hydrogen and oxygen are not enough to measure. This is actually the safest use for a microwave. It is even slightly more effective at killing bacteria, as some bacteria are also sensitive to microwave radiation as well as heat, but for good practice I would still heat to the recommended temperatures.
Could you please describe how a microwave can ionize water, and produce oxygen and hydrogen gases? I don't think this is true.
Actually getting oxygen gas in a typical microwave operation is low probability although theoretically possible in that eddy currents could induce electrolysis. Hydrogen gas would also occur in such a case, but again low probability. Mostly in the parts per million to parts per billion range, and mostly quickly re-reacted to form water. Not a concern nor an effective method for generation, particularly as rotation disrupts stable eddy currents. Presence of Hydrogen ions however is much more common as it occurs at room temperature on the counter in any water, more at heat, and also -- cont ...
. . . cont. more in the presence of radiation. It makes water an even better solvent of ionic solids however since the positive and negative ions are in balance it self neutralizes quickly. The whole thing amounts to less than a tempest in a tea pot, unless you leave in a fork, in which case you get sparks and ozone too. As I said even at the most paranoid edges of rational thought using a microwave to heat water is safe.
Boiling water will kill any live bacteria or viruses that might be in your water. The only thing that can "survive" are bacterial spores. Spores are like seeds or eggs which can hatch to live bacteria. Interestingly, this process is what is used to make salt risen bread...a type of bread leavened by hydrogen-producing bacteria instead of carbon dioxide producing yeast.
The only way to kill spores is the use of a pressure cooker. As another answer mentioned, this does nothing to the chemical dangers, just the biological dangers. If the water is so filthy that you expect there to be actual toxins in the water, purification by RO or distillation is the best bet.
The most significant danger is the super-heated water phenomena. the microwave heats water so gently, that it can actually remain liquid above 100 degrees C. However, the addition of coffee grounds will provide places for steam bubbles to begin to form. The water will then immediately and violently begin to boil, and you could receive some serious burns. If you place a small pinch of coffee into the water while it is in the microwave, it will promote boiling and prevent superheating.
From a bacterial standpoint, boiling water in your microwave is probably sufficient to kill everything of concern.
The time needed to disinfect water depends on the temperature: for example, according to Water Disinfection for International and Wilderness Travelers, five minutes at 60°C, three minutes at 65°C, or one minute at 70°C is sufficient to kill E. Coli. Normally, simply heating the water to boiling and letting it cool is sufficient, but if you've got an exceptionally powerful heat source or unusually cool air, the water may not spend long enough at high temperature. Because of this, the same source recommends holding the water at a boil for one minute as a safety measure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.475025
| 2015-09-10T07:16:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61628",
"authors": [
"Alexander",
"Beverly Johnson",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Cindy Rice",
"Connie Coonts",
"Connie Mackenzie",
"David Richerby",
"Diana Layton",
"Eleanor Martinez",
"Erbureth",
"Etheryte",
"Federico Poloni",
"Jeffrey Fronce Smith",
"Joe Coach",
"Joe M",
"Julie Belmonte",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Kitty Brittenden",
"MSalters",
"Max Williams",
"Mien",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Pork Chop",
"Stephie",
"User1000547",
"Volker Siegel",
"aroth",
"hildred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"nitro2k01",
"rachel ealey",
"wendy mornin"
],
"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
}
|
79704
|
My date has some black powder in it. Is it safe to eat?
Im cooking a Blue Apron dish that uses Medjool dates. One of the ones I chopped has a very fine black powder in it. Is it safe to eat?
This question has an Arquade-worthy title.
What you're looking at is mold, not uncommon in dates and figs, and not a recommended snack. Not only does it have an unpleasant taste, it may trigger an allergic response in some individuals.
Whole Fresh Dates in Yuma, Arizona (USA) gives a good overview in its August 6, 2016, blog:
What is this in my Date?
The unfortunate truth for many date lovers and fig lovers too is that these deliciously tasting fruits are susceptible to being tainted by bugs and black mold. This is a side of the date industry that is not talked about all that much, and for good reason. Nobody likes talking about nasty critters or black unknown powdery stuff in their food. We will try and bring some clarity to this problem as well as some things you can do to ensure you are not biting into a date that might contain some foreign elements.
What's the Black Mold in Dates?
The perfect environment for growing dates are hot extremely dry climates that receive very little rain fall. Moisture is a killer for date crops. And this black dust is exactly that, it's excessive moisture that has caused the date to turn. ... Actually, date fruits growing on date cluster need several days of 100 degree weather to ensure proper development and reduce the likelihood of moisture.... Simply put, dry growing conditions equals less moisture for mold to exist, wet environment equals black dust (mold).
Here's What YOU Can Do:
Those that have eaten dates for sometime know that you just don't bite into a date. You need to peel it apart and open it up. Always open your dates prior to biting into them. This is a process that all date lovers either know or have learned over the years of eating dates. I typically will pick out several dates that I'm going to eat slice long ways from the top of the date toward the bottom. Split it open, remove the date and then wash thoroughly regardless if I see anything or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.475992
| 2017-04-07T01:01:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79704",
"authors": [
"DVK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58343
|
Does oak aged wine contain vanillin?
"Vanilla" is one of the aromas used when described red wines.
I am allergic to natural proteins in vanilla, per Elisa blood test. I am interested to know whether the red wine will contain actual vanillin, or whether the aroma comes from unrelated substances.
Hello! We cannot say what you are or aren't allergic to. A health professional needs to determine that (probably by testing you personally), not cooks.
I first closed your question because it's about medical advice. Then I noticed that we can answer at least one small part of it: whether the substance people smell in red wines is really vanillin (the one which is smelled in vanilla) or not. So I edited and reopened. The catch: if the answer is "no", this is still no guarantee that you can drink these wines, because we don't know exactly what you are allergic to (vanilla has many more substances than vanillin). But we couldn't have answered the original q, so I think leaving that part open is better than closing outright.
Are you allergic to artificial/imitation vanilla? It's basically just synthetic vanillin (possibly even produced from wood pulp), so if you're not allergic to that, you shouldn't assume you'll be allergic to other things that contain vanillin.
Oak aging can indeed produce real vanillin, whether in wines or other liquids (spirits, beer, even vinegars can all be oak-aged) among thousands of other flavorful compounds. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems that vanillin is commonly synthesized for use in artificial vanilla extracts from lignin, a fibrous compound that serves to strengthen the cell walls in wood, or from guaiacol, an oil derived in turn from lignin.
However, this doesn't imply that you will necessarily have an allergic reaction to vanillin based on the information you've provided. Vanillin is a flavorful aromatic compound, and not a protein (which typically have much larger, more complex molecular structures). "Real" vanilla extracted from the eponymous bean gets much of its flavor and aroma from vanillin, but it contains much else besides. If you're definitely allergic to the proteins, those would be present in extract from actual vanilla beans, but not in vanillin produced from other sources such as wood, and therefore not present in oak-aged wines.
The caveat, of course, is that I'm not a doctor, an allergy specialist, or anything remotely close. You should confirm this with them before risking discomfort or bodily harm.
Wine that is aged in oak barrels, or with oak pieces or chips will contain a trace of real vanillin according to scientists. Red, white and rose varieties can be oaked, not just red wines, Chardonnay is a perfect example of a white wine that is oaked. Not all wines are oaked, you'll have to check which ones and do some research. Whether there would be enough to trigger your allergy is something you'll need to consult your doctor about.
First, you should ask your doctor at what level of the chemical Vanillin is considered dangerous in comparison to use of vanilla in industrial food products.
Second, there are many wines, good wines, red and white that are made without the use of oak (either as oak vats or oak chips)
They are made in stainless vats or concrete vats or lined terracota vats.
Ask your local wine store about un-oak wines.
Even with the original wording of the question, I don't see how this is an answer. The OP asked if he can drink oaked wines, not whether there are unoaked ones.
Well, maybe the OP did not know there were unoaked wines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.476221
| 2015-06-18T16:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58343",
"authors": [
"Aleksandra Wojdecka",
"Arian LeShaun Johnson",
"Carol Lee",
"Cascabel",
"Gabrielle gabby Moe",
"Kaye Stroud",
"Kelley the 4th",
"Lindsy Manceaux Louisiana Lind",
"Maria Boyer",
"Max",
"Thomas Crawley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jacob hayes",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17743
|
What defines a gui chow dish in Chinese cuisine?
A restaurant near me makes a delicious dish they call Gui Chow Beef, which I want to reproduce. I've found some alternate spellings as "gui zhou" and even "aui zhau," but I've yet to find a recipe that represents what I've eaten.
The beef is thinly sliced and limp -- not battered or deep fried. I think there are bamboo shoots and celery. They use enough Szechuan peppercorns to numb my tongue; that's one of the most important ingredients to me. The sauce is dark and sour and there is always orange grease left on my plate when I'm done.
So. What am I eating, and how can I make it at home?
Guizhou is a province in china. Sichuan is also a province and is much different food than guizhou food. Guizhou dishes are sour and hot where Sichuan are more spicy and garlicky. Just do a search for guizhou cuisine and you will find those dishes related to that culture.
http://community.travelchinaguide.com/forum2.asp?i=38624
再建!
If the restaurant is run by Chinese people, the recipes will typically be family influenced. There is not a lot of real standard recipes in China due to it's size and cultural differences
It sounds like a typical western "Chinese" stir fry: vegetables and then thin sliced beef flash fried in some peanut oil (VERY hot wok), turn work down a bit, and sauce it up with a ladle of chicken stock, some corn starch, flavourings (salt, sesame oil, soy, sugar, even MSG?), and some roasted and powdered Szechuan pepper husks, short simmer and serve
Cooked Szechuan pepper generally makes that "sour" taste too. Try it with and without to see the difference
If you try a recipe search on "Szechuan pepper stir fry", and substitute in beef for whatever the recipe has, that should be close
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.476516
| 2011-09-14T20:41:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17743",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21230
|
What cattle do we get our "beef" from in the US?
What type of cattle (i.e. cow) do we usually get our "beef" from? There are different variations of cows - e.g. longhorn, bull, buffalo and more - but when I buy "beef" in the market I am never told what kind of cattle the meat is originated from - just say it's beef. There are a few restaurants who specialize in cooking a certain cattle meat and would tell you what specific kind of cattle the meat is from, but not when you're buying meat yourself.
So, generally when we buy "beef" in the market, what is the cattle?
[EDITED]
When I says "beef" I meat "USA beef"
Generally buffalo -- assuming you mean bison and not some breed of cow named for the buffalo -- is marked, as it's an "exotic" meat.
Holstein or Jersey are types of cattle common in the US. Bison (buffalo) is a different animal, as would be oxen. Bull means male, as "cow" or heifer means female. Steer are castrated bulls. Within beef, there is more variety caused by how the animal was fed and raised than caused by breed.
does beef from castrated bulls taste differently? (may be from lower hormone in the meat..I don't know, just curious.)
@KMC I would expect somewhat, yes. The purpose behind castration is to make the animals more docile. So I'd expect a bit higher fat content, and less tough meat.
"Market beef" often = a disappointment in customer service and flavor. The decline of the butcher shop in America is lamentable. I recently moved into a town that still has butcher shops, it's awesome. They know what kind of cow the cut came from.
As someone who has raised beef cattle (here in Oklahoma) I must say the TFD is (unfortunately) mistaken, (at least here in the U.S.) Most cattle fall into one of two varieties, Beef and Dairy (there are also some breeds that are almost exclusively show cattle) The most popular (and common) Beef varieties are Angus, Limousine, Herefords, Longhorn; This list, including cross breeds (for instance, limangus, what I raise, is a cross of limousine and angus) and constitutes somewhere around 90% of beef production with in the US. (not include 'beef' used for things like dog food). I would consider that list to be in descending order of beef quality (but that is a matter of opinion...)
There are several varieties of cattle which are raised for dairy production, and these do not generally produce quality cuts of meat, but do produce copious quantities of milk. These breeds are led by Holstein-Friesian, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, Ayrshire, Jersey, and Milking Shorthorn.
Buffalo (or Bison) is a separate breed altogether and is no longer all that exotic. I regularly use bison to make chili.
Yes, cows are 'females' but not all cows are heifers, a heifer is a female that has not yet given birth to her first calf .
And @Scivitri while feeding and ranging cattle do make a difference the driving force in beef flavor is still the breed. I can tell the difference between breeds by flavor but the difference from feeding and ranging is really more about tenderness and texture.
So what happens to all the 'old' dairy cows, surely they don't end up as $5/Kg ground beef? :-)
see my comment about "dog food" above and then try not to think about it...
actually, it worth adding to this conversation that young males from milk breeds are often the source of 'veal'. If allowed to age their meat becomes less valuable, where young beef steers are worth more at market the larger they get, so the 'economic' decision favors using young male holsteins and guernseys for veal.
＋1 informative answer. I always thought Angus is named after a person who made good steak... Since "the driving force in beef flavor is still the breed", shouldn't meat seller labeled their meat so people can expect a flavor? Or, is there a way judging by the color or structure of the beef, can tell what breed the beef is? [if this should be a separate question, let me know]
@KMC I think you missed the point. If you buy "beef" it is often left over cattle from the dairy industry. If you buy a speciality "beef" (Limousin, Maine Anjou, Wagyu etc) you will know, as it will be labelled as such and generally have a much higher price. Personally I haven't noticed a big difference between breeds, but have noticed a big difference with how the animal was raised and slaughtered
@Cos Callis That's a lot of dog food!
@TFD It is not uncommon here in the US to go into the grocers and find that the pet food section is about the same floor space as the meat counter. There are also some low grade institutional (read: prison) food uses that such meat will go to, but the quality of beef from milk cows is just not good enough to make it onto the meat counter at WalMart...
@Cos Everyone has a different background for information. My intent in commenting was primarily clearing up "bulls are a breed," and my experience was growing up with dairy cattle. However, as most of the chefs I talk to are first concerned about marbling (which is a product of feed, age and exercise); I still maintain those are primary concerns when cooking. Your background and information are more relevant to the OP who specifically asked about breed; thus you gave an answer and I gave comments. And I congratulate your discerning palette.
@KMC, a couple of things worth adding. Depending on the market breed labeling has become more common, particularly for Angus. Color (raw) is not a good indicator of flavor or even quality as dies are added for 'visual appeal'. Marbling and odor are you best indicators, and it is hard to smell the meat through the wrapper. Honestly the best indicator for the average shopper is history, find a butcher's counter you like and stick with it. Also, I will put in a small plug for Omaha Beef. This is your best bet for getting Prime+ quality in your home and on your grill.
Longhorns are notorious for tough, gamey meat and putting on weight slowly. At least in the part of Texas where I grew up no one ran them for meat: they ran longhorn--somethingelse half breeds that were almost as survivable but much more profitable. Of course a few ranches kept pure longhorns as breeding stock. Mind you, even the halfbreeds are mean and you stay clear of them.
I believe most dairy cows in the U.S. goes into hamburger. After being fed for 2 weeks. Or into canned soups, stew meat.
@JBergen, you 'believe' any 'evidence' to support that. "Used up" (aged) dairy cattle don't produce meat that is really 'fit' for anything but dog food or 'institutional' uses (prisons), raising young dairy bulls/steers to maturity just doesn't make financial sense, the cost of feeding, etc. just doesn't get a return on their investment. Dairy cows are mostly kept pregnant to produce more milk the young calves (roughly 50/50 male/female) don't make much practical sense to raise except to replace/grow your herd...so they become veal. It's just a matter of dollars and sense.
What country are you in?
Most countries offer beef from all their cow varieties. Most are very similar, though some have slightly better properties for certain cooking styles. But these are mostly offset by condition on the animal, feed quality, and age
A good butcher would know not only what kind of cow it was, but what farm it came from (hopefully a local one!)
In countries with large dairy industries you will find plenty of very young beef from the excess stock of the milking cows
A free range, grass feed, happy and healthy cow, only a year or two old is generally going to have nicer meat than some "flash" brand cooped up and artificially feed
I have not met a butcher who knows where the cow is from. Even small local butchers in my tiny town surrounded by cattle ranches buy their primals from processors in Oklahoma.
@Sobachatina, and I have not met a butcher (not a 'processor', but a real butcher, like those I take my cattle to..) who do NOT know where the cattle they butcher come from. I walk the cattle into the butcher's pens and pick them up 30 days later, table ready.
@Cos- That's wonderful. I'm really very happy for you. But that doesn't help the rest of us very much. I can sometimes buy half a cow locally but you have to know someone.
@Sobachatina according to your profile you live in Texas. You can't swing a dead opossum in Texas without hitting a cattle rancher. If you like, I can sell you a whole cow from Oklahoma. :)
@Cos Callis: There's plenty of ranching in Texas, but I don't think that means that all butchers buy from nearby, nor does it mean that they all know details about the individual animals. I think that what Sobachatina is saying is that, despite your experience, and stereotypes about Texas, what you've personally seen isn't universal. Disagreeing is kind of beside the point.
In many countries the butcher (large or small) must know exactly where the animals come from, and file an government inspection report that the meat was healthy, or had diseases
@Jefromi, and my initial point was that Sobachatina's first comment was not as universal as he made it out to be.
@Cos- I don't mean to argue. I haven't gone on a quest to find local meat, I have just asked various butchers. The practice of trucking all cattle to a couple processors in the US is unfortunate on many levels and doesn't make me happy.
@Sobachatina and I didn't mean to 'argue' either, I was just offering a contrasting experience. I agree with you about the problems with large scale processing, but how else to you feed 300 million people? It is what it is...but I don't have to eat it :)
I was a butcher for 8 years in a grocery store. if you are not buying the animal for a speciality shop you are getting feed lot beef from a packing plant. If you are at a restaurant and they say they're serving Angus beef or Black Angus or Red Angus you ask him to prove it then I guarantee you that they can't.
...that depends entirely on what your standard of "proof" is. You are right that the average waiter/waitress probably can't "prove" it...but an invoice marked "USDA Prime Hereford" from a reputable wholesaler would satisfy be enough evidence for me.
Herefords
Wagyus
My grandpa sells Herefords to the best restaurants in NYC his meat is highly sought after. He treats his cows like his children and they produce some of the best meat here in Ohio. Our neighbor raises Wagyu and grandpa and him are both known to have some of the best cows in Ohio. Both have articles written about them. I have loved petting the cows since I was a kid they're very docile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.476691
| 2012-02-10T05:35:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21230",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"J Bergen",
"KMC",
"Patricia Walker",
"Paulb",
"Scivitri",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Yamikuronue",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56712
|
My chicken breasts release a lot of fluid when cooked. How do I prevent this?
I notice when cooking chicken breast in a pan, or in the oven, the chicken releases a lot of fluid, watering down the flavour.
This happens with fresh chicken as well as frozen (de-frosted) chicken.
How do I prevent this?
You tagged this chicken breast but didn't mention that in the question. Are you only asking about chicken breast?
Also I wonder what cooking methods you are using, and whether these are boneless skinless breasts, or what.
Corrected. Cooking methods were mentioned, "on iron" is iron-pan, oven is, well, in an oven. :P
How hot do you get your pan? If the pan's not hot enough, any liquid released from the meat will take a while to evaporate. Chicken breasts require relatively hard, fast cooking.
Same question, what are your cooking methods...pan? Pan can mean lots of things, could be either stove top or oven...what temps / stove settings are you using?
@GabrielA.Zorrilla: answer below edited to actually answer your question... I can see you've never accepted any answers on this site, bud did on Stack Overflow, so care to accept/upvote? It's not because you don't like a truthful/correct answer that you shouldn't accept it... A null pointer assignment stays a null pointer assignment regardless of the answer! ;-)
Hi guys. Let me retake this. With pan i meant just heating up a cast iron pan and throw the chicken. And with oven is heat up oven to 200ºC and let it cook over aluminum foil, as i'm doing just right now.
Anyways, i'll let my butcher know i'm not thrilled by the quality of the chicken and let's see what he comes up with. :-)
Moisture-release is not a result of the cooking process but of the quality of the chicken.
Try the following experiment:
Buy halal or kosher chicken breast
Buy the cheapest chicken breast you can find.
Now put two pans on the stove, and put the industrial chicken breast in the left pan and put the kosher/halal in the right. Ensure both pans have the same heat setting, the same amount of fat (I prefer duck fat for frying chicken breast) and watch the amount of moisture coming out of the left one and the fat actually being soaked up by the right one.
So the easiest way to avoid this is to buy good quality chicken...
Have you conducted this experiment?
I've seen various videos showing producers literally "pumping" chickens with water
@algiogia: there's no need to "pump", just soak...
@Fabby - nice redirect. No, I've never butchered or gutted a chicken, home-raised, halal, or otherwise.
No, I think I'll take your word for it, thanks. :-)
'Twasn't me! I think your previous answer was better - kosher chickens have all liquid removed from them by covering them with salt, I believe, but there I don't believe there is a religious prohibition on adding water to halal chicken.
@JamesMcLeod :D It was just a heads-up to remove comments that now look weird! (I know you can't downvote multiple times)...
It sounds like you're buying a cheaper cut of meat - one that's likely been infused with water to plump and to rapidly chill the meat to a safe temperature after butchery. Look for packages that state 'air-chilled' instead.
Industrial chicken meat is also full of salmonella and other germs due to the extremely unsafe mass-production. The meat is therefore sterilized in a bath of chlorine solution before marketing.
If the manufacturing process was unsafe, they wouldn't be allowed to use it. If the meat is cooked properly, in accordance with best food safety practices, it should be perfectly safe to eat.
Desiccate the outside of the chicken with salt for about 20-60 mins to remove the excess water and then brush off the salt after to make sure it isn't too salty; this should help concentrate the flavour and remove some of the water.
Sear the outside of the chicken on HIGH heat with butter or oil to seal in the juices and flavour.
You can also try dredging the chicken in flour to give it a crust. Cook again in high heat with butter or oil to seal.
Personally I do BOTH the first two options to get a crisp crust and a juicy tender inside but you can very easily do all three.
Most chicken breasts sold (at least the of the cheaper variety) that I have seen, say something about being infused with up to 15% chicken broth. My guess is that most of the water you are seeing is the added chicken broth.
So look at the packaging of the chicken breasts before you buy them. Most of the high quality chicken sold that I have seen do not say that they are infused with chicken broth.
Since every chicken farmer in America does it (plumping is the industry standard) you should look for a brand that says "no added water" or "no retained water". I have found only 2 brands that say this. One is at Harris Teeter super market.
The industry standard is 12%. That means you must assume all of the chicken is plumped unless it says otherwise. The problem with chicken that is pumped full of water is it never gets to the right temperature for a proper texture, instead it is rubbery and the real chicken flavor is washed away.
If you decide to brine your chicken it will have a hard time absorbing because it is already pumped full of flavorless salt water.
The water infusion described above was news to me, but I have certainly observed this exact same problem when cooking chicken in a sauce (usually curries).
My solution (using cheap frozen chicken breasts that produce a ton of liquid) has been to cook the chicken separately – for example, grilling it on a BBQ or pan-frying it in a separate pan, or even boiling it in broth in a slow-cooker. You don't need to over-cook it, but this gets rid of the excess liquid and then you add it back into the sauce to simmer and you avoid watering the sauce down.
I suggest massaging the meat with flour and letting it absorb it for some time, that is, until the flour absorbs moisture from the meat and changes color from white to yellow-ish, and becomes sticky.
This should allow the meat to retain some of the water while cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.477616
| 2015-04-16T00:56:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56712",
"authors": [
"Aicha Hammami",
"Cascabel",
"Cherri P",
"Cpt. KD",
"Denise Finnerty",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Escoce",
"Fabby",
"Gabriel",
"JD Dion",
"Jackie Szukhent",
"James McLeod",
"Meenu Sachan",
"Miss Mitz",
"Rick Scolaro",
"Robert Johns",
"Todd Trimble",
"William",
"algiogia",
"cheahfm",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"madmonk46",
"nick012000",
"santi santi"
],
"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
}
|
21255
|
Can I use a reused can for serving food
Since 1919, tin cans have been the symbol of the Tin Can Tourists organization (vintage trailer enthusiasts). I want to serve red beans & rice in a recycled can (actually cleaned all-meat cat food cans) and want to know if it is safe doing this. Would hate to make every one sick. I've been soaking, then washing the cans immediately after emptying them. Now I've rewashing, scrubbed & put them thru the dishwasher.
Want to use them 1 time only at the rally.
They haven't rusted, have they? (I believe modern cans are usually made out of coated steel, so particularly if the surface is scratched, they can rust.)
Food canned in steel cans (commonly called "tin cans" though none are made from tin), is generally considered safe - obviously we buy a lot of it at the store, and dedicated home canners can actually use steel cans themselves, with the cost of a special lid sealer device. Home canning with lined steel cans is considered safe by the FDA and USDA, at temperatures between 212F and 250F (pressure canning).
Modern cans are lined with an epoxy or other polymer lining that protects the can from corrosion, thus limiting the chance of contamination or spoilage. This liner usually contains small amounts of BPA (the chemical blamed for some potential long-term health problems), but amounts in different cans varies wildly, and the amount of BPA that is considered hazardous is also up for debate. If it matters greatly to you, you can get "BPA-free" canned food from some retailers (though some tests have found BPA even in "BPA-free" cans). Caveat emptor.
I would say that using cans to serve food would be safe, given a few caveats, mostly related to the liner:
Make sure the cans liner hasn't been damaged with scratches by sharp tools. Tin plating is a bit toxic and food contaminated by tin shouldn't be consumed, but it usually takes a long time for even very acidic food to break down the tin through a scratch in the coating. Even if there was a scratch I think it would be impossible for enough tin to get into the food to exceed the very high safety limits of 200mg/kg. Easy to avoid the problem entirely by scooping the food out of the old can with something plastic or silicon.
Don't heat the can above the temperature of boiling water. The liners are good up to around 240F at least, because that is roughly the temperature things are pressure sterilized at. If you are just serving out of the can rather than cooking in the can you should be fine.
Sharp edges - The opened can has sharp edges, make sure that you press the sharp edges down so they aren't likely to catch someone's finger or tongue (if the food is good enough that they are licking the cans clean!).
I won't get into the whole BPA thing deeply here - society in general seems comfortable with the small amount of BPA in most can liners, and I don't think you'd be "negligent" to use regular cans. If you feel strongly about it, use BPA-free cans from some brands sold at Sunflower Market, Whole Foods, Trader Joes or other "natural living" retailers.
The idea sounds cool, and I bet people will enjoy it! I'd recommend removing the cat-food labels, though. ;)
Food grade cans are usually made from thin steel with a very thin tin coating. The top and bottom lid seams also contain a "plastic" material to ensure an airtight seal
Cans for storing acidic foods should have a very thin plastic layer on the inside only
As cans are pressure boiled to sterilise them, they should take the heat of a dishwasher OK
I wouldn't scrub the insides though, as you may partially flake off the plastic layer if it has one
You should be able to put acidic food in non-plastic-coated cans if it is only for serving purposes and not for storage purposes
If all you're doing is taking clean dry recycled cans, and filling them with food for immediate consumption I can't see there's any food safety problem at all. The can contents would have been commercially sterile when purchased and the tin plate and laquer are reasonably robust - any undamaged surfaces must be suitable for food contact. Watch out for sharp edges, tho'.
If you are willing to settle for the 'effect' of serving food from cat food cans I would suggest you consider removing the labels from Tuna cans, as they are similar in size. During an episode of Good Eats Alton Brown recommends Tuna cans as rings for cooking English muffins. If they are good enough to cook with they should do fine for serving. (I don't think I need to tell you to clean them first...)
You should also consider using a "Safe Edge Can Opener" like this one available on Amazon. Traditional can openers or pull tops can leave an unsafe edge which you probably want to avoid.
The OP has already cleaned the cans and presumably removed the labels (I doubt they'd survive that cleaning). Why would she go and buy tuna instead?
@Jefromi, To have cans that NOT cat food cans...
@Cos Callis: I doubt cat food has anything toxic in it, I guess the question is whether it is safe to reuse a can. If it is just a problem of not liking the idea of eating in a cat-food can... well, just don't tell your guests and you'll be fine.
@Nico, I doubt there would be a problem either, but I wouldn't want to be wrong. The FDA standards for what can go into those cans is somewhat lower than for food fit for human consumption and the impact of a mistake could be terrible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.478173
| 2012-02-11T17:55:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21255",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21239
|
Is white cabbage that has turned rose-colored still safe to eat?
We sliced and grated some white cabbage three days ago and left it salted and completely covered in a plastic container. It has since then turned rose-colored. The top layer was pretty dry when I opened it tonight. We had it on our journey and the weather has been pretty cold these days.
The big question: is it bad now? I mean, it didn't taste differently, there was no fermentation... Anybody have a clue if it's still safe to eat? We like to travel around and want to eat some of the cabbage mixed with salad cream in the next few days... So it's only salted and cut right now and completely airtight covered in a plastic container.
Are you trying to make Sauerkraut?
Either way for the pink colour you have a non-desirable bacteria growing. While most Sauerkraut has some of this, it is not always safe to eat. Time to throw it away?
If you salt cabbage, you need to ensure not too much salt is used (1% to 2% max), and make sure it is packed down very firmly, so only anaerobic bacteria will grow in any numbers
It doesn't need to be in a closed container, but it should have a firm fitting lid, without an air gap on the top
Also, once it goes past 20°C (70°F) you run the risk of getting other undesirable bacteria and yeasts, and general food rot
Hmm, we didn't intend to make Sauerkraut. It should just have been cabbage salad. But your answer sounds the best so far. Some smell has appeared now and the plastic container wasn't airtight in the end. So my wife threw it away today...
By the way. I stay in Singapore, where the average temperature is around 26°C. I can make sauerkraut just fine without the cabbage spoiling. It takes about a week instead of the full month in colder countries and nothing rots. Of course, I transfer it to the fridge when it's ready.
Anything that goes a funny colour should be chucked - it really isn't worth the risk.
It is helpful to provide some empirical reasoning to support your answer. Or absent that, a comment on the question mit be more appropriate.
Thanks for your feedback, which I appreciate. It's frustrating to be marked down without knowing why. To expand on my answer - bacteria are all around us. Some whan they grow have clear colours and while not important themselves may show that the conditions have been right for the growth of other bacteria - including food poisoning bacteria which may have no obvious signs. Salt and temperature control while important to microbiological control rely on even distribution. I assume that the cabbage will be eaten cold and not cooked which would at least destroy viable organisms.
So - if I don't understand what's going on I don't feel justified in inflicting it on my nearest and dearest.
So you chuck away blue cheese? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I think the pink is from the salt...
Otherwise, the cabbage would turn brown. The salt acts as a preservative, but the acidity could be reacting to the juices in the cabbage, turning them pink...
Similar chemical reactions also have something to do with why red cabbage is red.
I am pretty sure that neither salt nor vinegar turn cabbage pink - not even pink salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.478613
| 2012-02-10T20:57:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21239",
"authors": [
"Dois",
"Samoth",
"Sean Hart",
"Stephie",
"Stuart",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9101"
],
"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
}
|
22211
|
How can I preserve large quantities of garlic?
I have a lot of garlic that is still fresh. How can I preserve it easily so that it can be used for a variety of uses later?
I edited your question to ask specifically about preserving. Asking generally "how can I use a lot of garlic" is definitely not a good question for this site; that type of question is too broad and tends to solicit opinion, polling, and extended discussion.
I find that just leaving the garlic alone makes it sprout. Which makes the texture rubbery and changes the flavour a bit.
Peel the garlic bulbs and mince (or food-proccessorize) them. Then portion the minced garlic into usable units and freeze those on a cookie sheet. Once they're frozen, keep the lumps-o-garlic in a convenient vessel in the freezer. You can then pull one lump at a time out of the freezer and use it.
I've always heard that mincing or chopping herbs/spices lowers their shelf-life. Unfortunately I don't have any sources for this idea: Do you know anything that proves or disproves this?
Nice advise. Convenient vessel should be airtight. Vacuum if possible.
@Fantabulum mincing/chopping herbs/spices would lower their shelf-life(you are essentially penetrating the plant's natural layer of protection against bacterias) but since the garlic is immediately frozen, that shouldn't be an issue.
mincing the bulbs makes them unusable for recipes which require them whole, though.
Generally, it's Braided and then hung to dry, but I'm not sure if you mean that it's as fresh as that.
It will keep several months in a cool, dry, dark place if you keep the bulbs whole, though. If you don't have a cellar, a seldom used interior closet would work well.
You could easily put it into the freezer, where it can stay for a long time.
Anyhow, if you are looking for a recipe to use it when it's still fresh, take a look at this. It's an italian recipe.
@Daniel "Chicken with 40 cloves of garlic" is also a pretty good dish with easily googleable recipes.
Let's try not to get into the game of listing dishes that use large amounts of garlic. If people are interested in that, pop into chat during the day and I'm sure you'll get lots of recipe suggestions.
I've found that putting stuff straight into freezer changes the texture. When stuff thaws, the cells brake and stuff becomes spongy. For some vegetables blanching helps, not sure if that would apply to garlic tough.
@Daniel: Does that actually matter for garlic, though? I find it hard to think of uses of garlic in which you notice the texture to begin with. Roasted, perhaps? But that turns it so soft that I doubt some damage from freezing would matter. Most other things it's chopped/minced, and likely cooked, and you'd never know, as long as the flavor is intact.
Put a layer of salt in a jar, then a layer of peeled cloves, then a layer of salt again and continue until the jar is full. Then close the lid and keep in the fridge. The preserved garlic can last up to several years.
what about submerging it in salt water?
Never tried that. However, crushing the garlic and mixing the paste with a reasonable amount of salt works nice as well. It will obviously be quite salty and the range of possible uses will be limited.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.478893
| 2012-03-11T22:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22211",
"authors": [
"Amit Pal",
"Andrew M. Farrell",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"Gary",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Jay",
"JohnEye",
"Leon Kigelman",
"Pedro Rodrigues",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"jbalk",
"loscuropresagio",
"user49762",
"vodrilus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18097
|
How can I turn my pasta salad into a pickle?
A pickle that would preserve it for a week?
Would it ruin the taste of the pasta salad?
Are you asking about pickling and salt-curing (e.g. salt pork)? Or just adding small quantities to various things?
Small quantities to various things (or as much as is needed to preserve it) - I'm not sure if I want to turn my lunch into a pasta pickle.
Wow, how far ahead of time are you making your lunch? In any case, if what you're really trying to do is preserve a particular dish (pasta with... what?) for longer (how long?) you might want to ask your question more directly - what things would help it last longer, and how much longer?
This question needs a lot more specifics. Why are you trying to preserve pasta? Raw or cooked? For how long? With what? As it stands, it's a pretty meaninless question: dried pasta lasts forever.
Cooked pasta, for at least a week, with vinegar
If you want to preserve it for a week with acid, you have to pickle it. There is no way around it.
Okay, I'll change the question title then.
Cooked pasta can last a week in a cold fridge anyway, right? I'm pretty sure I've eaten leftovers that old...
Why would you pickle pasta anyways? If you really need to preserve it for a long time just freeze it.
You should use pickling when you want something to last months not days.
In regards to your second question: it certainly wouldn't be pasta salad any more.
If you want to experiment with pasta pickle then sure it sounds like a good idea, if you want to preserve pasta for a week split it into several air tight containers and stick it in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.479304
| 2011-09-30T02:43:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18097",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"EricM",
"FuzzyChef",
"InquilineKea",
"Pia",
"ecc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7567",
"iLearnSlow",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user39085",
"user73225"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19356
|
Cream cheese cupcake icing too sour
How can I cut out the sour taste a bit and make it sweeter? Overall the icing tastes good, I'd just like to tweak it a bit.
The recipe I used contains:
2 8-oz packages cream cheese, at room temperature
8 Tbsp. (1 stick) unsalted butter, at room temperature
2 1/2 cups confectioner's sugar, sifted
1 tsp. vanilla extract
Pinch of salt
Hi Shirley, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've moved the recipe information into the question, where everybody can see it; in the future, please use the "edit" link to clarify or add new information to your question, as opposed to comment replies.
Separately, did you taste the cream cheese and/or butter by itself? It is possible for both of those to go rancid and develop a sour taste if left long enough. Cream cheese is usually not sour at all by itself, so freshness of ingredients is the first thing I would check.
Oddly enough, a little SALT might help. Salt has the effect of blocking some sour receptors in the tongue while enhancing sweetness.
I know that salt blocks bitter receptors but this is the first I've heard of it blocking sour tastes. Can you point us to a reference?
@Aaronut, you are quite correct, I sometime confuse sour and bitter, (yes, they are very different but I will get the wrong name for them, which is odd because I quite like sour and detest bitter...) Of course, even though the salt will not "block" the sour, the electrophoresis of the salt will still have the effect of enhancing the sweet. A little salt in this situation might still benefit the icing. (source: Good Eats: The Ballad of Salty and Sweet)
Based on your recipe, I would add between 1/4 cup and 1/2 cup more confectioner's sugar.
Also, your recipe may match better with a sweeter cupcake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.479471
| 2011-12-03T18:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19356",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cos Callis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"scatman noyb",
"tmandry",
"user76889"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19577
|
Why do some pie crust recipes include vinegar?
I experiment some with pie crusts and have seen recipes that include vinegar as well as eggs. What does the vinegar do and what does the egg do. I have heard the vinegar promotes tenderness but have read on one of the posts here that it speeds gluten formation.
Is the post you mention here the comment on this answer? I think it's wrong.
From On Food and Cooking:
Acidity in the dough - as from a sourdough culture - weakens the gluten network by increasing the number of positively charged amino acids along the protein chains, and increasing the repulsive force between chains.
And weaker gluten structure is definitely a good thing for pastry doughs!
From the same source:
[Eggs] supplement gluten structure with tender protein coagulum, tenderize products; slow staling
So eggs help provide a more tender structure, again good for pastry doughs.
I've got some recipes for Flaky and Puff pastry that call for lemon juice, however the same book omits them from the shortcrust pastries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.479634
| 2011-12-11T17:15:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19577",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Iter Ator",
"Laura P.",
"OnlyHumain",
"Philip",
"Zhaph - Ben Duguid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42634"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29991
|
What should I look for in a cooking class?
I'm looking classes where I can learn to cook. I've found many options, but I'm weary of spending time and money (and a babysitter) for an experience that would have worked better in my own kitchen.
Is there anything I can look for when reviewing the cooking class's info? What things should I avoid? Or is it trial and error?
It really depends on what you are looking for in a cooking class. I can give you some thoughts from my own personal experiences, but I am sure there are many factors that you must consider, so you will get a variety of answers.
I am assuming you are talking about recreational (that is the industry term, as opposed to professional) classes; I don't claim to have good advise for choosing professional programs to become a line cook or patisserie on a career path to being a chef or pastry chef.
Facilities
The cooking school should tell where their class is taught. A local community class in a high school home-ec room or in a community center will usually offer basic facilities (although I imagine some will stun you...)
Commercial cooking schools or businesses should have photos of their classroom for you to peruse, and will usually brag about the equipment they offer (such as Viking stoves...)
Look at the pictures, and ask if the environment will be comfortable for you.
Level
How advanced is the class? If you already know how to temper your own chocolate, and own three dipping forks, you don't want to take a basic workshop in chocolate. On the other hand, if you have never made a biscuit, you might not want to take an advanced pasty course where croissants and puff pastry the order of the day.
Choose a class that is at the level you desire--the course guide should make this very clear.
Cleanup
Find out if the school has interns, or other staff who do the cleanup. Commercial schools tend to--otherwise, you might expect to be helped police and do dishes, especially in a community program like one hosted at a community center. You should be comfortable with the expectation.
Curriculum or Menu
Good cooking classes list exactly what dishes or items will be taught in the class in their class guide or curriculum. They should also specify the lessons learned or techniques applied. Often there is a theme, like "Valentines Dinner for Two" or "Pastry Intensive" Select classes that teach the techniques you want, and dishes you like.
Duration
Is it a one evening class, where you are in and out, and little is at risk, or a week long adventure where if you don't enjoy the format or the instructor, you have lost a week's tuition and a week's enjoyment. I once didn't come back from lunch on the 2nd day of a five day course because I didn't like the instructor's style.
For longer classes, you might ask for guarantees of a partial refund if the instructor or style or presentation is not to your liking, before signing up.
For day long and longer classes, find out if lunches or other relevant meals are provided (at commercial schools, they often are, either cooked as part of your curriculum, or done by staff or interns for your enjoyment), or whether you bring your own. Often there is not enough time to go out for lunch.
Presentation and Participation
There are several main ways cooking classes are taught; you want to be sure the style is one that you enjoy.
Presentation only -- the instructor prepares dishes at the front of the room, and the students watch. Kind of like a cooking show on TV, but live and in person, so you can smell (and maybe taste afterwards), and ask questions.
Each person (or group) prepares some -- the class is broken up into groups or individuals, each of whom prepare one or more dishes from the menu. You might not get to do the dish you wanted from the curriculum, but you will get hands-on for something. Usually, the groups will share afterwards, so you get to taste everything.
Every person (or group) prepares everything -- you will get to prepare everything listed in the curriculum, and usually eat it.
Choose a format you are comfortable with, especially if you want to be sure you get to try a specific dish hands-on.
Pacing
When you evaluate the curriculum or menu, the manner of presentation, and the overall duration of the course, you should have some idea of how fast it goes.
Make sure you are comfortable with the pace. If you like a slow and pleasant pace, you don't want to be a in class where folks are expected to knock out their dishes fast--although those are often more the advanced classes at commercial schools.
Ingredients
Find out whether you bring your own ingredients, or they are supplied. (Most commercial cooking schools supply them, but community programs may not.)
Cost
Cost counts. Need I say more?
General
Talk to the folks at the school's customer service line (if they have one) if you have questions. Take a short class at the school to evaluate the facilities and their general style before splurging on a longer or more expensive class.
And bring your patience. By the nature of the beast, you often sit through things you know, or repetitions, or have to wait through lectures and demos before the hands-on portion.
If you can, bring a friend to share the experience, gossip with, and generally have a good time, should you be so disposed.
Bon chance.
I think you've covered things pretty well, so I won't add an answer, but there's one more really important thing about curriculum. It may sound obvious, but you should make sure it's really what you want. Since the OP is looking to learn to cook, not to have an exciting one-time culinary experience, it's important that the class teach things he'll enjoy and want to cook later. Finding the right class in this sense is probably more important than most other factors. A year from now, if you're still using what you learned, it was a good class.
@Jefromi Absolutely--that is why I said "Select classes that teach the techniques you want, and dishes you like." But the additional emphasis doesn't hurt! :-)
Ah, the 'better answer' I hoped for arrived before I'd even finished typing mine...
@ChrisSteinbach Too kind, but I only can speak to my own experiences.... I am sure there are other perspectives out there!
I've only limited experience with classes, so I hope you get a better answer, but here's what I know.
If you are looking to learn, you should only think about hands-on courses, not the kind in a studio kitchen where you just sit and watch (and usually get to taste). Although the latter is a pleasant way to spend an evening, if you're anything like me, you won't retain much information. On the other hand, out of the classes I looked at in Canberra and here in Stockholm, the hands-on were way more expensive. I imagine it would be the same in Boston, so it will depend on your budget. If you do go for the studio kitchen + auditorium format there are usually opportunities to ask questions. It's worth planning a few questions in advance; the interaction will help reinforce what you have learnt.
Assuming you go for hands-on, try to get an idea of how many stations are available vs. class size. I tried out a class where I shared a station with two other students which was at least one person too many.
Apart from that I would try to learn as much about the location and teacher as possible. If you get to see the location, is it well equipped? Is it as clean as you think a kitchen should be? I personally would prefer a working Chef as a teacher. This way you can book a table at their restaurant before you book their class to make sure they can actually cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.479770
| 2013-01-11T18:42:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29991",
"authors": [
"Becky Clark",
"Bman70",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"L W",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tinh Danh Le",
"dplmmr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69944",
"jason",
"snazzybouche"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19943
|
Does the alcohol in wine affect cooking process?
When cooking with wine or other booze does the alcohol have an affect on the cooking process?
Example: deglazing a pan or making a wine-based sauce. My understanding is that the alcohol evaporates quickly, so the booze is mostly there to add flavor and act as a liquid medium, and thus substitutible by another liquid, e.g. stock. Is there more going on than this?
About alcohol effects in a dish;please refer to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18695/what-are-some-good-substitions-for-alcohol-in-cooking
The alcohol doesn't actually all evaporate that quickly, but it's still usually for flavor; there generally wasn't a ton of alcohol to begin with, and depending on the situation, a substantial amount may boil away. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/659/cooking-away-alcohol
Alcohol serves two functions, depending on your recipe: It is a solvent for certain compounds that do not dissolve as readily in water alone, and it is a mild acid. The former reason is why the "alla vodka" sauce uses vodka (the alcohol boosts the tomato flavor, completely overwhelming the subtle flavor of the vodka itself). The latter is why many cooks add a shot of brandy to beef stew shortly before serving, to "brighten" the flavor.
By the way, while much of the alcohol cooks off, unless you cook your sauce nearly dry, a good bit will remain. For a very boozy sauce (like the glaze for cherries jubilee), many cooks ignite the sauce to accelerate the removal of excess alcohol, but even then, a small amount will remain behind.
I would dispute the "mild acid" claim. Alcohol isn't acidic in itself, and while some alcoholic beverages are acidic to some degree (beer, wine), it certainly isn't due to their ethanol content.
@rumtscho: I'll yield to your point that the pure chemical ethyl alcohol isn't itself the source of the acidity, but the reason for adding wine, beer, or liquor is in large part due to the acid content, so there really isn't much point in distinguishing them.
The alcohol aids in extracting flavour enhancing compounds which may be more soluble in alcohol than in water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.480665
| 2011-12-24T02:34:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19943",
"authors": [
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Cascabel",
"MissesBrown",
"R A Khan",
"SpeedyH30",
"Warhol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"k4yaman",
"maheen asif",
"rumtscho",
"user43610"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19783
|
Scaling up a risotto recipe x4. Things to consider?
I am making risotto for a Christmas dinner, serving 20 people.
I plan to multiple the recipe by 3 or 4x.
Since risotto is a challenging dish at the normal scale, how can I ensure getting good results when multiplying the recipe?
If you haven't done it before don't do this for Xmas day, it's not worth the risk. Always practise on less important occasions
You need a wider, rather than taller pot. Nearly a paella style pan. And a strong arm
Ingredients wise, I don't know of any magic scaling tricks for risotto
The hardest part is stirring enough, but not too much, and doing an even job of it
Probably easier to have two pots going at the same time, rather the one large pot. Then you can have two different flavours going!
If you do have a big enough pot and strong enough arm and enough confidence to try this, you should probably also plan on some flexibility in the amount of liquid - have a little more than the scaled recipe, just in case you end up losing more liquid to the air with the bigger pot.
You don't multiply the recipe. You have to make it multiple times.
Risotto isn't as hard to do as its fame suggests, but it requires a very even heating. If you pile your rice deep, you won't get it right even with constant stirring. You always want a thin layer of rice in the pan. The good news: if you do it correctly, you can leave it there without the constant stirring.
Still, if you haven't cooked it before, I support TFD: Don't try it for the first time with your guests, it has a somewhat high failure rate if you are inexperienced. If you insist on it, make it 1-2 times before as a test.
For best results and easiest preparation, make it Food lab style.
+1 for the Food Lab style. Did this the other night and had the best results I've ever had. I would also say to use multiple, smaller pans for the amount you're making if at all possible.
Perhaps the restaurant trick of preparing risotto in advance would be helpful for you?
See this ChowHound thread http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/300522 where the risotto is cooked only halfways, then put into the fridge on sheet pans. This leaves less work with the guest there.
the discussion at that link is indeed very useful. spreading half-cooked risotto on baking sheet and placing in the fridge stops the cooking evenly. you can then continue cooking as much as needed by reheating in the pan and adding broth as usual.
I would be afraid of making risotto for more than 8, perhaps 10 people. In the few attempts at large risotto I have seen, it was frequent that the violent stirring required by such a large mass of rice tended to break the grains (and make glue). Another frequent occurrence was rice forming a burnt layer on the bottom of the pot. If that happens, keep stirring with a light hand, lower the gas and avoid at any cost to scrape the burnt crust into the risotto. It will taste bitter and spoil the whole thing.
But yeah, do two pots, it is good advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.480888
| 2011-12-19T22:05:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19783",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Cascabel",
"David Moles",
"David Olson",
"Dietrich Epp",
"Divyanshi Chauhan",
"Jim Garrison",
"Mark Dominus",
"diane macadam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8387",
"muyun_",
"ted.strauss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19917
|
Saving a pavlova that didn't form a crust
I have cooked my pavlova the same way I normally do, however it hasn't formed a nice crust like it usually does. I've heard that it may have something to do with the humidity? (It did rain here today and was a reasonably warm day.) Can I put it back in the oven and to save it or do I have to start all over again?
When you say it didn't form a crust - is it still wet and holding its shape, like a meringue topping? Or did it collapse or do something else entirely? What exactly does it look like?
What temperature and process did you use to cook it? if it has set, shove it back in a very hot oven for a few minutes, and watch it. When it reaches the colour you like, take it out
Thanks, yes, held it's shape, so turned the oven back on to a higher heat (180deg C) and left it in for about 15mins watching it closely, let it cool again and it did form a crust but had collapsed about 20mins later....so I'll try again today :)
I have never tried it myself, but a torch can be used to make a crust on the meringue in a baked Alaska. Testing it on a small part of it could give you a clue if it is worthwhile.
I guess there is a good chance you can save it by extending the time in the oven and increasing the temperature slightly (if the humidity is the problem it means that it is loosing water slower so it needs more time and it can benefit from a temperature boost).
BUT IF IT IS CRITICAL that you get it right and you don't have time to do it again if this fails, assume it would fail. The crust may get too thick for your liking.
Thanks Ali, have another attempt in the oven at the moment. Here's hoping to success today :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.481182
| 2011-12-23T08:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19917",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Devin Gray",
"Dr Casper Black",
"Julie",
"Leatherneck",
"Mark",
"Pedro Werneck",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8436"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20153
|
Does ceramic non-stick cookware "fail", and if so, how?
I've heard of pans with ceramic non-stick surfaces; it seems some reports on internet say they may "fail" in about 6 months.
How can these pans "fail"? Do ceramic-coated pans require non-stick-friendly devices?
Normal nonstick surfaces fail by getting scratched, having spray-on butter encrusted into it, and if damaged could release toxic coating. Do ceramic non-stick surfaces have a similar problem?
For the record, especially based on some of the answers, make sure you always use a little oil. Even though at the start of the pan's life you can get away without it, this significantly decreases the life of the non-stick surface. In addition, take extra care to make sure you don't burn anything in it--this also harms the coating. Finally, don't store food in it. They take a little more care than some other pans, but this will extend the usable lifetime significantly.
I have a ceramic-coated pan too, and always treated it with care (plastic utensils, no overheating, etc.) It failed too, after some time (I think I've had it for 9 months now, and used frequently).
Unlike a failed Teflon pan, it does not look or feel any different. But while at the beginning it was superslick, with everything gliding right off it in a fluid motion, now it is only moderately non-stick. I can still use it as normal, including for such problematic cases as omelets. But if I fry without fat, I need a spatula to dislodge the omelet from the surface. In contrast, when I bought it it was like polished ice. It is still more non-stick than, say, enamelled or seasoned iron, and definitely better than stainless steel. But it isn't as good as a good-quality PTFE.
If the non-stickness keeps at this level, I still think that it makes sense to buy it, if you have the money. They are expensive, especially the brand-name ones, but can give you nice, even heating. While they will give you less non-stick performance, they are more robust than PTFE - metal utensils don't damage them, they don't overheat as easily - and I found the non-stickiness sufficient. The nice thing about them is that the quality ones aren't thin aluminium, mine has a 10 mm sandwiched steel bottom - you don't get this in PTFE. So they can be used for applications impossible with PTFE, and will give you a better heating in the cases where PTFE would have worked.
On the other hand, you can decide to go traditional, with a combination of PTFEs for the sticky applications and iron or steel for everything else. It will probably give you a better tool for the stickies, as long as the PTFE coating itself doesn't fail through accidental overheating. It is up to you which style you prefer, but the ceramics aren't the panacea they are touted as.
I've had a different experience with a (cheap) ceramic pan and won't be buying another. It took the pan forever to heat on the induction stove and then, in less than a month with little use, the eggs started to stick. I only used it with eggs, and took good care to oil the pan and use non metallic utensils.
@BaffledCook The heating time is more dependent on the material below it, not on the coating. But I must say that by now, it "failed" even more spectacularly, sticking terribly, worse than non-oiled steel. I restored it to a usable condition with NaOH, but it looks like it is starting to gum up again.
I'm sure the heating time has nothing to do with the coating, I agree. I guess I ruined the pan by trying to heat it faster...
I make ceramics (not pans) for a living. Maybe it isn't the ceramic layer itself that fails but the glaze used to cover it. Glaze is molten glass and can be scratched. It will also deteriorate in the dishwasher. I tend to take my (deteriorated) plates and cups (the ones where the tea stains no longer come out in the dishwasher) and refire them in the kiln. This melts the glaze and re-distributes it. They are then like new. However, I don't think the ceramic pan would survive this.
I purposely never used metal in my ceramic-coated ware, despite ceramic being harder than steel, but still after about 6 months the smooth coating had gone and it lost its non-stickability. They're Le Creuset, not cheap, so I'd like to think it wasn't a quality issue.
I thought it might be acidic casseroles being left in it for a few days in the fridge, but didn't really research it deeper. I'd also steam-fry naan in them until I noticed the damage occurring if one burnt.
Can you link the Le Creuset ceramic nonstick? I wasn't aware they were making such a thing.
They don't as far as I'm aware either, but the standard ceramic when new exhibited an inherent non-stickability that allowed minimal oil and made cleaning a breeze, but sadly disappeared with time.
I found that using a stiff sponge brought my pan back to life. I use it almost every day and after a year it still works great. my guess is that a small amount of egg residue is left on the pan by a cloth, and it builds up over time; a slightly stiffer cleaning method takes this film right off. To be clear I did not use the abrasive side of the sponge, just the soft side.
These pans definitely require non-stick-friendly devices. Very recently, an Israeli investigative report tested the coating of a sample of ceramic coated pans and found excessive amounts of lead and cadmium in some (not all) of them. See coverage by The Jerusalem Post and the Green Prophet.
If you are not sure about the contents of the coating, consider replacing the pan when the non-stick starts to deteriorate.
When i traded in my dirty old Teflon skillet, the saleswoman was adamant about not using molten plastic utensils on the ceramic, as that could scratch it.
Ceramic coating is a piece of crap. Don't waste your money on it and use whatever type material you wish on it. From the moment I got it, it has caused food to stick and stains very easily and hard to clean. You can't even cook bacon on it much less an egg, unless you like your eggs broken.
If you want the best use stainless and good grade oils. It last forever and its a lot easier to cook with.
For folks with bad experiences with ceramic coated pans, believe me, I totally ruined an Orgreenic pan and have since discovered why!. I use an almost new gas stove and had been setting the dial or 4, which is much too high for these type pans. I bought a new pan and now only use 3 (which brings the pan heat to actually only about 255 degrees Fahrenheit. Everything cooks beautifully including sausage, eggs, bacon, hamburgers and more, and I don't use anything in the pan, no butter, and certainly no spray-on of any kind (that will guarantee a ruined pan). Hope this helps folks.
If this is what lets the pans work, then they are a worse investition than PTFE, which work to above 200°C. At 255 F, most of the things one needs a pan for don't work well.
I purchased an 8 inch ceramic coated fry pan about 6 months ago for $12 at Ocean State Job Lot.
I had high hopes for this magic pan. The name of the brand is "Fry Pan".
I cook eggs and sausage separately maybe 3 or 4 times a week. I've burnt the sausage several times.
Result is that the pan is exactly the way it was when I first used it. Everything I had hoped it would be, it is. When I slide the eggs out onto a plate I immediately squirt a little liquid
dish soup in and hot water out of the tap, slosh it around and rinse it out with hot water and it's spotless again. Sometimes after I burn something, I use a sponge too. I have no way of knowing if this pan has toxic substances and really don't care! I'd like to find a similar 1.5 qt sauce pan but I don't think that they make one.
I have a 9-month old ceramic 12" fry pan. For the first 7 months, it cooked beautifully, stuff slid right out. Last two months, everything sticks horribly, it is stained, and horrible. Donating it this weekend. I was super careful with it, never cooked on high heat, and all that. It has just failed. I will no longer buy ceramic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.481385
| 2012-01-04T08:12:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20153",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"BaffledCook",
"Cees Timmerman",
"David Robinson",
"Ether",
"Frown",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"MR.TRISTEN MICHELL",
"Mark K Cowan",
"NM Pennypacker",
"TeaJay",
"TimC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"jontyc",
"mjulmer",
"ramblinjan",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user6338315"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91029
|
What is this cut of meat? Ideas on what to make?
I have this leftover chunk of meat in my freezer, and I foolishly did not label it. Does anyone recognize it?
I just need to know enough to be able to cook it. At the very least whether it is beef or pork :) Feel free to suggest what I should make with it.
Thanks.
It's difficult to guess based on the cut alone, as they butcher animals differently in the US / UK / France / Russia (and Jewish and others), which can result in cuts that aren't easily recognizable in other countries.
I'm going to assume pork, due to the variation in meat color. (it's possible that it's an issue in monitor calibration, but the top left of that first picture is way more 'pink' than 'red' as compared to the muscle to the right of it. You don't typically see that significant of color change between two adjacent beef muscles, nor that pale of a color in beef)
+1 for your description of why you assume pork. Absolutely on point! If the only two choices are beef or pork, there's no question. Looking at the shape of the roast, the muscle structure, and the bone, it looks to me like it's a cut from the shoulder, where blade or butt steak would be cut.
Thanks! I ended up making pulled pork with it. Came out great!
Without being able to smell it and feel it knowing how big it is (there is no frame of reference as that plate could be a saucer) and how long it was frozen for and how, it's really hard to say with 100% certainty whether this is beef, lamb, pork or dinosaur meat. ;-)
However it contains bone, fat and meat, so add some butter in a kettle, throw the meat in and lightly fry it on all sides, add your favourite spices, a bottle of dark beer and roughly chopped onions and let it boil in the beer with a lid on the kettle until the meat falls off the bone, and come back and tell us what kind of meat it was!
:-)
66% chance it's pork though, 22% it's beef that was slightly discoloured by being frozen for too long and a little more discoloured in the top left by bad packing, 11% it's lamb and 10⁻¹¹ % chance it's dinosaur meat. ;-)
If it is dinosaur meat, it's probably too old to eat even though it was in the freezer ;)
If it is dinosaur meat looking like that, it was probably cryogenically frozen... The type of freezer wasn't mentioned in the question! @Erica ;-)
Not dinosaur, but ancient: when life gives you 50,000-year-old frozen bison, make dinner. (@Erica)
@ChrisH: that's cool, but an upvote would be cooler! ;-) (I read an article about crazy Russian scientists cooking a batch of mammoth meat, didn't know the Alaskans were as crazy as them...) >:-)
Looks like a pork shoulder. It's a common cut for smoking, or pulled pork BBQ. You could braise it.
Fatty roasts always respond well to slow cooking, either in the oven or in a smoker, or in a stew or braise. That goes for beef as well as pork. Cover it with your favorite spices, put it in the oven, fat side up, cook it at a low (325F/163C) temperature until it's soft enough that you can pull it apart with a fork.
I am quite sure this is pork. Where I come from, we make broths and soups with this cut.
Looks like beef chuck roast. Make a nice stew. Even if not beef it should still make a good stew or pot roast
Chuck roast from what I can tell.
Cube it up and drop in a crockpot add veggies and potatoes with some stock or water if you don’t have any.
The first picture shows a curvy thin bone which gives a hint.
I'd say it is some sort of pork cut that includes ribs like pork loin chops, porc rib.
Here are a few similar images the the lining layer of fat and bone
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.482152
| 2018-07-14T23:39:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91029",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52302",
"red.october"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86904
|
What do you call the flavor imparted from cooking at high heat?
I'm wondering about that high-heat flavor you get just before outright burning food. Charred, grilled, blackened, smoky, or seared flavor? Wok hei? I'm not exactly sure what to call it. Or would the term depend on the method used for cooking?
Like you say, it depends on the method.
My understanding is that wok hei also has to do with the specific wok and what's been cooked previously in it. But it's still the closest that I can think of, as it's beyond 'GBD' (golden brown & delicious).
I have frequently heard it said (or read) that "the flavor comes from..." rather than naming the flavor in particular. Each of the adjectives you listed (and more) can be used situationally to describe the flavor, but there is no established name for those flavors.
With sugars (fruits and other sweets) the flavor is caused by "caramelization" whereas with proteins the source is referred to as "the Maillard effect/reaction". I have also heard caramelization used to describe the browning of meat, while technically inaccurate the term still conveys the meaning. Some articles will confuse the terms (see Why Does Food Brown) but it is more accurate to treat them as separate reactions (see Caramelization: Why Food Turns Brown When You Cook It)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.482474
| 2018-01-05T18:47:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86904",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"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
}
|
91980
|
Baker's Angel Flake Coconut
I have an old recipe that calls for a large can of Baker's Angel Flake Coconut.
How many ounces were these cans; I need to substitute the bags that are available now.
A similar can 7 inches(17.78cm) high and 3 inches(7.62cm) dia had a labed tare weight of 7 ounces(198.45g)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pre-1963-Vintage-Bakers-Angel-Flake-Coconut-Tin-Can-Advertising-5-1-2-Height-/153154542442?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.482617
| 2018-08-30T17:05:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91980",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2353
|
Making a natural gravy?
We generally do a roast on the weekend and we end up with a load of really nice juices in the roasting tray.
What is the best method of turning this into a nice natural gravy?
Good question! I made gravy yesterday and thought, I'd love to hear what other's think about this.
My technique:
1 tbsp Fat (from pan, or use butter)
1 tbsp Flour
Pan Juice
Stock (total liquid about 2 cups - omit if you have enough pan juice)
Step 1: Make Roux
Melt fat in medium high saute pan
Whisk in flour, getting out all the lumps. (This is called a roux)
Continue to heat until smooth, and the roux is just starting to darken.
Remove pan from heat.
Step 2: Prepare Liquids
Remove solids from roasting pan. (let meat stand... etc.)
Whisk, scrape, deglaze the roasting pan. If it's brown, you want it, and want it dissolved
Strain juices. skim off excess fat.
Step 3: Assemble
Return roux to heat, and keep whisking.
While whisking, slowly pour in the pan juices.
Once blended, reduce heat and let it thicken. Salt to taste.
This looks amazing. A vegetarian gravy I usually make has Celery salt in it. Try it out if you've got a chance
The problem with vegetarian gravy is getting the richness of flavour. I usually cheat and use a cube of Mushroom stock.
But yes, Celery salt is something I keep hidden away for secret use. Another good hack is granulated onion powder.
I make sure that there are plenty of onions under the meat when roasting, but be careful not to let them burn. If you are not that keen on onion gravy just leave them out.
Once the meat is done, pour off most of the oil from the cooking juices to avoid an oily gravy. Place the cooking travy on the hob over a medium / high heat. If you need to deglaze the cooking tray to get all the bits off the bottom heat up the tray and then pour in some stock / wine / water but just enough to do the deglazing. Add some flour to the cooking juices (this is a Welsh method so it does make a thick gravy). Stir the flour into the the juices and keep cooking it until the flour is cooked. It will go a slightly darked colour as it cooks, but keep stiring to avoid anything burning. Then pour in you liquid (stock / wine / water)a bit at a time to make sure you don't get too many lumps. Keep stiring over the heat whilst piuring in the liquid. It's ready to serve when you have the right thickness for you.
I'm a big fan of lining the bottom of the pan with onions. Not only does it add flavour, it allows me to roast poultry upside down without having the skin stick to the bottom.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.482687
| 2010-07-20T14:49:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2353",
"authors": [
"Austin Moody",
"Chris Adams",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Ian",
"Nathan Koop",
"chama",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"xenoterracide"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21695
|
What is the difference between quick bread and cake?
Quick breads, like banana or zucchini breads, seem to be assembled in an identical method and with similar ingredients as cake. Many recipes have comparable quantities of fat and sugar.
So what is the difference and how can you tell whether a baked good should be called a quick bread or a cake?
I think this is answered by http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5302/how-to-create-a-muffin-recipe (but I'm not sure if it's a duplicate)
See wikipedia article
This question has become blown out of proportion. I was just curious- then I started getting answers that quickbreads and cake are the same thing- which they "obviously" aren't. So I started doing my own research.
Wikipedia says that the term quickbread was probably invented in the US after the discovery of chemical leavening. The Wikipedia references and some dictionaries corroborate this definition. Basically anything leavened with soda is quickbread.
This doesn't work. There are a great many things leavened with soda that can't be called quickbread. A good example is plain old white cake. Obviously this is a semantic issue but one that needed solving.
Two American cookbooks that I consider canonical recipe resources, The Joy of Cooking, and the Better Homes and Gardens cookbook, both have a separate quickbread section. In it are a variety of fruit breads as well as some biscuits and scones.
On Food and Cooking muddied the water a bit by differentiating between quick breads such as biscuits and batter breads such as banana bread. These were grouped together, however, and contrasted against cakes. This book says that cakes are higher in fat and sugar and have a more delicate texture.
Ratio, as linked in this answer, confused the terms a bit more also including a term "quick cake" but it differentiated between the different products with distinct ratios for the flour, fat, and sugar.
With several competing definitions I decided to take an unscientific poll. I called 6 friends in Washington, Utah, Georgia, and Texas. I tried to find a variety of American cultures. Obviously it is biased by the fact that I know all of them.
When asked "What is quickbread to you?" without exception all of them replied "banana bread"
When I followed up with: "What is the difference between that and cake" I received the following answers:
"It is eaten at breakfast"
"It has less sugar"
"It is loaf shaped"
"It is more dense"
"It has a more open texture"
My conclusion is that the historical definition of "anything with soda" is no longer useful. In cookbooks it seems to now be applied to chemically risen baked goods that:
have as a rule of thumb a particular ratio of flour, fat, and sugar
have less sugar than cake
refers in particular to fruit breads, biscuits, and scones
generally has an irregular vs uniform texture
The popular definition (among my extremely limited, unrandom sampling) adds:
tends to be loaf shaped
And now I can sleep easily again.
I think the key differentiation that leads to most of the factors that are enumerated above is the muffin method. Fruit beds, biscuits, and scones are all made with the muffin method, or a variant thereof; this is what creates the irregular texture compared to cakes made by the creaming method, genoise, angel cake, and others. I do count muffins as small quickbreads; they are the exact same recipes, in smaller baking tins.
Blowing small issues out of proportion is a favored hobby on SE. ;)
I've thought about this a fair amount, given some recent interest in the topic, and I think we've run into an etymological problem more than a culinary one. There are many cases where things get assigned a name based on usage, common settings, or common features, that disagrees with the name you would assign it from a purely taxological position. Common examples would be: Whales were called "fish" for many years. Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but are commonly referred to as a vegetable (as are eggplants, peppers, etc.). Cheesecake is called "cake", when structurally it is clearly a custard pie.
In the case of quickbread/cake, I think the problem comes down to the fact that, while many cakes use chemical leavening, they weren't invented because of chemical leavening.
As far as I can tell, the prototypical "quickbreads", such as muffins, scones, soda-bread, American-style biscuits, banana bread, etc., were invented largely because of the existence of baking powder. Certainly people made foods like this before that, but using only natural leavening or no leavening would leave them very different from the modern versions.
These breads share a common trigger, and some common features. They are all relatively low fat, relatively low sugar, they do not rely on the formation of gluten to build structure (yet, historically, are typically made with moderate protein all-purpose flours), and even when they do have fats and sugars, they do not rely on them to inhibit the development of gluten in a specific way (as in a pastry), instead, they all share the "muffin method" of mixing wet and dry ingredients separately, then combining, mixing quickly, then immediately baking.
Cakes, on the other hand, have been using other forms of air-introduction for a long time. Think about the traditional pound cake, which uses air trapped when butter crystals are creamed with sugar. Traditional recipes call for you to cream the butter and sugar together for hours and hours to get enough air in (easy when you have servants). Angel food cakes use beat egg whites to get sufficient air into the mixture. Most use low protein cake flour and high fat content to prevent the formation of gluten, meaning the "muffin method" of mixing is not commonly used.
These cakes were not invented to rely on chemical leavening, even though they took advantage of it once it was invented. Modern cake-in-a-box is much like a quickbread in that it uses 100% chemical leavening, but it uses low protein flour to prevent the formation of gluten during mixing, and it wasn't really "born" to use chemical leavening - its closest ancestors didn't need it. I could bake you a number of delicious cakes without the use of baking powder, but it is such a convenient tool for a more reliable boost that it is very commonly used.
In conclusion, while modern quick breads and many modern cakes share many recipe details, they don't register as the same thing in people's minds because of their different histories, and some details about their construction. They arrived at a similar place through convergent evolution, not because they are closely related to each other. Language isn't just about accurate description and taxonomy, it is about history, intent, and a associations. I can't begrudge people for not calling cake "quickbread", not calling a pepper "fruit", or not calling Cheesecake "New York Custard Pie".
Interesting resources:
Google N-Gram results showing the rise of terms such as "quick bread", "soda bread" and "banana" bread. All modern inventions.
Google N-Gram results showing the invention of baking powder in the late 1800's (technically "invented" in 1843, with the most popular double-acting powders reaching the market in the 1880s), culminating with a huge spike in popularity right after 1900.
A historical view is probably the best way to go. Thanks.
They're not mutually exclusive; cakes are simply a type of quick bread. Quick bread is a term that applies to dough/batter that was leavened without the use of yeast - for example, with baking powder or soda. There are many different types of quick breads: scones, muffins, biscuits, cornbread, even brownies, really, and also your banana breads.
This is nonsense which people who think they know what they are talking about created themselves. Quick breads have less sugar than cake? So what, if I like sweetness and add more sugar and bake it round, it turns into a cake?
There is no explanation, because there is no such a type as quick bread. We all have unexplainable ways with words.
Welcome to Seasoned advice! Your text was very hard to read, and as such, it would have gotten downvotes and close votes no matter what its content is. I edited it for you, preserving the meaning as well as I could understand it. You can edit it again if I misunderstood something.
To regular readers who read this post and disagree with its content: I think that it should not be deleted. This post reminds us of an important matter: language is made by the people who speak it. If the wide masses use a technical term in a given area differently than the specialists, it is best for both sides to be aware of that fact, as it enhances communication. If you want to express disagreement with the poster's opinion, please downvote instead of sending a flag.
I didn't flag, but my issue is that it is not apparent that this answers the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.482928
| 2012-02-24T19:34:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21695",
"authors": [
"Brandy Berryman",
"Cascabel",
"Faith Hegs",
"MikeScott8",
"Pat Kissane",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SMBiggs",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84126",
"mTalkz moBility",
"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
}
|
54543
|
How many ounces is a British "tin" of tomatoes?
If I have a British recipe that lists "1 tin chopped plum tomatoes," how many ounces is that? In British English, does "tin" usually refer to a specific size? In the US, cans generally come in 14 and 28oz sizes - which one is likely closest to what the recipe means?
A tin is British english for can. It's the material, not a size, so that description in the recipe isn't very helpful. I'd say a standard medium size can of tomatoes will work just fine though.
Edited the question to include the clarification from the now-deleted comments.
It is likely the same as a 14 oz can of tomatoes.
From the Wikipedia article on Tin Cans:
A standard size tin can is roughly 400g; however, the weight can vary between 385g and 425g, depending on the density of the contents.
UK shops selling tins of tomatoes quote 390-400 grams based on what I'm seeing.
This is equivalent to 14 oz. American cans will generally say the weight in ounces and in grams if you want to double check.
I'm a Brit, and can confirm that here in the UK, tinned tomatoes come in tins marked 400g. Much larger ones are also available, but any recipe calling for a tin of tomatoes means one 400g tin.
In general (in northern England, anyway), a "tin" contains food and a "can" contains drink, but the two words can be used interchangeably.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.483589
| 2015-02-09T03:18:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54543",
"authors": [
"Addison Cheek",
"Carl H",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Swart",
"Emily Mclaughlin",
"GdD",
"Linda Skinner",
"Lolita Davis",
"Miss T",
"Sheila Baker",
"caroline pung",
"help",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32963"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9279
|
How can I handle black pepper without sneezing?
Every time I am using black pepper, no matter how little, no matter how I turn my head to avoid sneezing, it still triggers it. I have to run from the work area, release myself and then go back.
Are there any quick fit kitchen masks (I am serious) for this purpose, or at least special dispensers that can reduce this problem? What can I do to avoid sneezing?
Your local hardware store or DIY shop will likely have an assortment of dust masks you could try. The simplest ones would be cheap and very quick to put on and remove, and should help.
It seems a little over the top to have to put on a mask for using pepper, but perhaps you're extra sensitive and it's just something you'll have to deal with.
Do you have any reaction at all from eating things with lots of black pepper?
Finally, you might look at how you're physically dispensing the pepper. If you're shaking it from a container you're likely to stir up a small cloud of fine pepper dust. If you're not already doing so, consider trying to use a tiny measuring spoon or even the wrong end of a regular spoon to scoop a little pepper out of the container directly and add it to your food--less sprinkling/shaking, less irritant in the air.
Thanks, not really that sensitive, if you happen to be familiar with Caribbean cooking where they use a lot of ground black pepper, even the slightest of disturbance of the pepper will trigger a sneeze,I usually get rid of the little shake bottle that the pepper sometimes come in and dispense carefully, still the sneeze, I think the dust mask will work, maybe I can decorate them to look a little more kitchen-like, I do not care if I look like a pest control worker, as long as I do not sneeze.
I guess you are using already grounded pepper. If you mill your own, I think the resulting particles are too big to fly their way to your nose!
Edit
Answering your comment: So I think you could prepare something like Black Pepper Oil (adapting the recipe for grounded pepper, just filtering the resulting oil with care) and suffer your sneezing much less often.
Yes, where we live one can only get finely ground blackpepper
@Simmerdown Thanks for the correct word: "ground"!
@Simmerdown Have you considered getting some peppercorns and a mill delivered if you can not obtain them locally? Freshly milled pepper tends to be more flavourful and less inclined to set-off sneezing.
I think any type of mask/plugs that would stop the pepper dust getting in your nose would work.
Perhaps a surgical mask, or a painter's dust mask would help. Swimmer's nose plugs are another option.
My dad makes horseradish fresh every year for Passover, and he actually uses a full military issue gas mask to keep the fumes up. In his defence, the stuff will bring an adult to tears at twenty paces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.483763
| 2010-11-19T19:16:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9279",
"authors": [
"Dr. belisarius",
"Howard Vihon",
"Ms.Miss",
"Name",
"Orbling",
"Simmerdown",
"YolandiF",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"kyle k",
"leah1020",
"sjakubowski"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9265
|
Toasting bread in a gas oven
I am trying to toast bread in a gas oven on a rack about 8 inches from bottom, but all the toast in the centre part of the rack are burnt and the ones to the sides are perfect, is this a normal thing with gas ovens or is my oven faulty? The bottom cover is in place I have not adjusted anything, I use a temperature setting of 180 degrees Celsius. Please do not chastise me for trying this I am just experimenting to see if I can Economize on equipment and even energy as most of the times something else will be going in the oven.
I suspect that it is because of where the flame is at the bottom and that I could place a thick metal plate on the centre of the oven floor, to prevent this, but I prefer to hear from someone with experience or any other expert.
We do that frequently. Hot spots develop in our oven too, but we control the thing by just swapping the bread from center to edges twice along the process.
I think adding a "thick metal plate" would do too, but the toasting time will increase (or at least the time needed to pre-heat the oven will be greater).
HTH!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.484016
| 2010-11-19T14:59:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9265",
"authors": [
"Byron Sanchez",
"Tohato",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18955",
"sthotakura"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"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.