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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9344
|
What can I make with the broken corn chips at the bottom of the bag?
Once I've eaten all the biggish chips with salsa, there are a bunch of small-to-crumb sized corn chips left. I always think I'll eat them plain later, but I happen to want more salsa now...and they sit until they get stale. But they're so delicious (so full of fat and salt!), it seems to me I ought to be able to incorporate them into a dish. But what?
They're generally good for adding some crunch, too, not just the flavor. A few things that come to mind:
on top of a salad - my family does a roasted corn and black bean salad; also probably good instead of croutons in salads where they're a better flavor/style fit
garnish on a soup - tortilla soup, sopa de elote...
as part of a breading for fish or chicken (or anything else to bake or fry)
In general, anywhere you would use breadcrumbs, tortilla chip crumbles might find a place. If you're afraid they're too salty, you could always put dump them in a sieve and shake some of the really small bits out, leaving the more sizable bits of chip.
Not just on a soup, in a soup. Add the small chips to puréed soups and cook them in. The chip crumbs soften, and can be blended in to help thicken the soup.
@Bruce: True enough; I was just going for uses that left the chips more noticeable.
They're also good for breading (pan|deep) fried foods. Dredge, egg wash, dredge in chips, fry!
Thanks! Tried the soup garnish approach and it worked beautifully. And I hadn't thought about them as breadcrumb alternatives; now I see plenty of uses...
I'd also add sprinking it on top of casseroles, instead of breadcrumbs for a little extra crunch.
Very nice answer and useful answer!
Throw them in the frying pan with an egg. You'll get a crispy crunchy egg tortilla matrix.
I sometimes add the crumbs (or more, if there's not enough) to chili (chili con carne) as a thickener.
I think Angelina Jolie (of Tomb Raider fame) uses these crumbs for crumb crust. Not sure about that factoid, but hey. You can actually use these crumbs that way.
Put them on top of a tuna casserole with peas , celery , cream of mushroom soup, garlic , onions , bell peppers ( if you like them ) some cumin , coriander , a little curry , tuna , spinach fettuccine ...I don't think I'm leaving anything out ...yum , just made myself hungry , damn!
Fun fact: You know how there is always an exact weight on your bag on corn chips, even though corn chips are irregularly sized? You ever wonder how they come to that exact weight, because, legally, if the weight were off they could be sued (for false advertising)?
The answer is salt. They add salt to make up the different in weight.
Now what would you like to do with the stuff at the bottom of the bag?
Ouch. Still, the chunks I have at the bottom are too yellow and too large to just be salt. :)
My local corn chip provider lists the ingredients as corn & oil, nothing else. There is no salty taste etc. So it depends where you buy them. I just put the left overs on the compost heap, you do have a one don't you?
@TFD The OP said (so full of fat and salt!) so I think you don't share suppliers :D
Surely it's also possible to simply put chips into a bag until it's the right weight? This seems like it might be overly cynical. More likely it's just salty because crumbles tend to include proportionally more salt from the surfaces of the chips.
Some manufacturers do add the salt last, or add an extra dose of salt last, but it's not to make up the weight: it's because they know that salt is heavier than the chips, and so will migrate down to the bottom, leaving the top chips less salty than desired.
@jefromi: The reason I know this factoid is because an uncle of mine worked for IBM in the '80's and figured out a way to balance the bags via algorithm, and was told (curtly) by a major chip producer that this was unnecessary for the reason I stated above.
Yikes. Well, let's hope not all of them are like that. The tortilla chips I buy certainly aren't just a pile of salt at the bottom.
@jefromi: It's probably not the same for high-end producers. This was a mass market brand, and I, at least, remember what mass market chips were like 25 years ago.
Do you have anything at all to support this "fact"? I've actually seen the machines that bag chips like this, they use very accurate scales and they fill them equal to or greater than their marked weight. There is no special "salt adding" process in the examples I've seen. Also, the weight of the bag has nothing to do with the size of the chips, at least not in the way you allude to you in your fun fact.
I'm not going to vote this down any more since apparently that's already been covered, but this should really have been a comment since it doesn't answer the question.
Depending on the type of chip and the grain size of the salt, you could add one chip or (very approximately) 1/2 teaspoon of salt. I'm pretty sure the difference in weight is made up by (effectively) adding one more chip.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.484270
| 2010-11-22T02:18:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9344",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Dr. belisarius",
"JNL",
"Joe",
"Josh Bleecher Snyder",
"Marti",
"Matthew Nichols",
"Mo Sutherland",
"NiklasJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Simon K B",
"TFD",
"Vien Nguyen",
"agentman",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"japoncem"
],
"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
}
|
9354
|
Oxidized Avocado: What's Going on & How to Prevent It
So what exactly happens to the flavor of avocados when it oxidizes? I made some guacamole and as many are familiar, it forms that yucky garbage-green color.
Now, it tastes different. I'm not sure if it's necessarily bad though. Maybe it's just an acquired taste. The essence is still kinda there and I feel bad scraping that first 1/8 inch off and just chucking it away. I can't tell if it tastes spoiled because it looks that way, or if it's just undergone a really crappy reconstitution of it's flavors and there's been a quantifiable decrease in yumminess.
Side note: a friend taught me to cover the top layer of guac with sour cream. This works awesome. I just didn't have any on hand for my last batch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.484696
| 2010-11-22T05:51:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9354",
"authors": [
"Ayesha Tikly",
"David Martin",
"Ian Rogers",
"James",
"Judi M",
"MarkE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19138",
"jenny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9722
|
Why do some pies call for two crusts, and some do not?
Most fruit pies call for two crusts, whereas most custardy pies do not. However, my apple pies with one crust or two or substantially the same.
Is the number of crusts simply traditional?
My impression is that it depends on the culture that's making the pie... in France, apple pie is a tart with one crust, but American apple pie traditionally has two. Anyone know?
Yes, it is mainly tradition, appearance, and how you like the ratio of crust to fruit in your pie. You can make any pie open faced, with a full top, or any type of lattice top. The other thing to consider is that a top crust provides some heat insulation to the fruit, so if you don't want the fruit to caramelize as much, it will help with that.
I think it's traditional to some extent, but double crust pies have several advantages for fruit pies. For one, it keeps the fruit covered, so the fruit can simmer, much like cooking in a pot. Second, it keeps the bubbling fruit from seeping over the edges of the pie plate. Third, a top crust adds another surface to keep the pie together when it is being sliced. More surface tension means more structurally sound pie slices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.484809
| 2010-12-02T22:39:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9722",
"authors": [
"Jennifer K.",
"Lucas",
"Mrs. Garden",
"anon",
"foobarfuzzbizz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"mike"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10963
|
The secret to Pringles like potatoes
Some context: I'm not a cook, hardly even a good amateur, this considered:
I would like to know if it is possible to, with everyday cooking accessories, make some home-made potatoes that are as similar to the Pringles potatoes.
The resemblance should be in the:
Consistency/hardness/texture *
Taste
Shape
(and in that order)
Of course any home-made recipe would be appreciated if it helps to prove the point (and useful for me) but I'm mainly interested in wether it is possible to imitate the potatoes without resorting to industrial accessories.
Thanks in advance!
* Sorry for the plain english (again, I'm not a cook) please feel free to edit or comment if something is confusing! (tags included)
Short answer is no.
If you were a cook/food scientist we could cover a lot of the ways you could combine potatoes and starches and then layer on forms, but really, most people would rather just make homemade potato chips with a potato, a mandolin slicer and some hot oil.
If you want Pringles, they are generally cheap and available. No need to duplicate in the kitchen.
This description should give you an idea of how difficult it would be in the home
The relevant portion from the article...
For producing Pringles, new machinery and techniques were required involving mixing of rice flour, potato flakes, water and other ingredients. When smooth dough is made, it is cut in to thin round pieces, placed in baking trays are then fried very quickly in a machine. Seasoning is also quickly added before the chips are sent to a stacking machine that packs the chips in distinctive Pringles containers.
Thank for your answer but, in my case, not cheap, not available, and just thought it would be fun to do/replicate. Just in case the question came out wrong, I wanted to "replicate" them for the fun of it, it should't be anything professional, but again thanks for your answer.
Understood. The problem is that you said you aren't much of a cook and while potato chips are do-able, something like Pringles which is made with dehydrated potatoes and other starches, then formed and fried, would be VERY difficult...and probably not that much fun. You'll be much more impressive if you just make fresh potato chips (or crisps for the Brits) maybe with a seasoned salt than duplicating a rather bland commercial product.
Just try frying homemade potato chips ( properly) and you see that it's not THAT easy. Actually, thats not correct, it IS easy, but its a lot more work than non-cooks realize. it's all the tools and the cleanup thats a pain in the home kitchen.
Thanks for the update, I guess my incompetence lead to arrogance :) I though it would be a matter of frying it more hot or witha different oil or something, thanks again!!
Not arrogance, or you wouldn't have asked the question. It actually led to humility...as cooking is wont to do. If you were arrogant you would have just figured you knew what you were doing and went and burned down the kitchen.
Yes it IS possible to create a "pringles" like product using just a few simple items that you probably already have in your home. I will post the ingredients after I list the few items you need.
First you will need a mixing bowl, a measuring cup, measuring spoons, and a pasta maker (to help flatten the dough). If you do not have a pasta making machine, do not fret, you can still roll these by hand with a rolling pin, but it is a DIFFICULT task to get them this enough. After you have the dough rolled out, and your shapes cut you have 2 options for cooking them; Flash Frying, or baking. While frying will result in a more authentic taste and texture, and is much faster, baking is also acceptable and will limit the amount of fat and cholesterol you consume. With that being said, here is your list of ingredients.
1 Cup Warm Water
1/4 tsp salt
1 Cup Instant mashed potatos
1 Cup Rice flour
1 Table spoon Corn Starch
1/4 tsp baking powder
Dissolve salt in a mixing bowl with the warm water. Add remaining ingredients and mix into a STIFF ball. Turn the ball out onto a cutting board and cut in half. Roll each half of dough through the pasta machine on it's LOWEST or Thinnest setting. If you do NOT have a pasta machinem then get out your rolling pin and put the dough pieces between 2 sheets of cling wrap and roll to as thin as you possibly can. The cling wrap will make rolling easier, and will keep the dough from sticking to your pin and rolling surface. (Try this when rolling out pie dough also, it works GREAT) Cut the dough into circles using a small buscuit cutter, or the cap from a can of cooking spray. Cook according to your desired cooking method mentioned below.
If frying the chips you will need peanut oil heated to 375 degrees and flash fry for 10-15 seconds.
If Baking, pre-heat your oven to 450, line a cookie sheet with parchment and bake for 2-3 minutes, chips will be completely crisp when cooled.
Apparently Pringles aren't very potatoey. According to Wikipedia:
Pringles have only about 42% potato content, with the remainder being wheat starch and flours (potato, corn, and rice) mixed with vegetable oils and an emulsifier.
So most likely, you'll be looking at mixing those dried potato flakes with flour and water, forming them into chips and deep frying them (or maybe they're baked). I doubt you'll be able to mimic them very well though without a lot of experimentation.
+1. pringles actually went to court to argue that their product did not contain enough potato to be considered a 'crisp' (or 'potato chip' if you are that way inclined) and were in fact cakes. this was in an attempt to avoid some tax I think. Made me want to stop eating them though.
Their extreme thinness, texture and taste didn't make you want to stop eating them before?
Thanks, yep, unfortunately that doesn't seem like somthing I can do at home! :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.484948
| 2011-01-12T00:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10963",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Chef",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Gumby",
"Jess",
"M.M",
"Sam Holder",
"Trufa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64633",
"kentr",
"user64633"
],
"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
}
|
113059
|
How is unsweetened plant-based yogurt possible?
For plant-based (soya, almond, cashew, etc.) unsweetened yogurt, how does the yogurt bacteria grow and develop without sugar?
From online recipes for soya yogurt, one tablespoon of sugar per 1 liter of unsweetened soy milk is needed to promote bacterial fermentation. As these plant-based milk alternatives themselves do not contain sugar (lactose/ milk sugar), for which is the basic food for yogurt bacteria (eg. Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus/ Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus/ bifidobacteria).
Also, there is not much sourness in some brands of soya yogurt (eg. Sojade etc). I wonder instead of sugar, what is added to cover the lactic acid that was produced by the yogurt bacteria during fermentation?
Would like to try making unsweetened soya yogurt at home. Appreciate any insights :)
The simple answer is you don't. Without sugar there's nothing to feed the bacteria.
Lactose is a type of sugar.
Actually, the yogurt cultures, usually some strain of the group N Streptococcus and Leuconostoc species, mesophilic cultures, converts the lactose into lactic acid, which gives the diary product it's tart taste.
Furthermore, bacterial enzymes transform the milk carbohydrates into oligosaccharides, some of which have prebiotic properties.
Different LAB (Lactic Acid Bacteria) produce different fermentation products, although they have in common that they are alive in the product and can interact with microbiota during intestinal transit and the cells of the intestinal wall.
Fermentation of soy milk with lactic acid bacteria offers a means of
preserving soy milk and the possibility of modifying the characteristic
flavor and texture to make it more acceptable to Western taste.
It is possible to make soy milk yogurt-like products with acceptable texture
and clean acid flavor. The choice of fermenting organisms is limited to
those that can ferment the sugars typical of soy milk. i.e. stachyose.
raffinose or sucrose. unless sugars fermented by the desired cultures
are added to the soy milk.
SOURCE
SOURCE
You are making a wrong assumption here - the soy milk does contain sugars, along with other forms of carbohydrates. So this apparently can be used to make soy yogurt. Thus you have both commercial products and homemade recipes for unsweetened soy yogurt. You can easily find them, I suspect you didn't use the term "unsweetened" when you searched.
If you want to know whether a food contains sugar, you can always look it up in nutrition databases, for example this is an entry for unsweetened soymilk:
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/10341/2
As you see, it has 1 g of sugar per 100 g.
I think the problem arise from the fact that in USA Nutrition label can report that 1g per 100g as zero (because they report values for 100 ml) and "unsweetened" mean "no sugar added after the process of making the yogurt".
I see, so there are still natural sugars in unsweetened soya milk... Yeh the labels are an issue. Also as they are unsweetened, as I customer, if I see the unsweetened ones are not of 0 g, then I would wonder, so this make sense!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.485423
| 2020-12-09T02:59:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113059",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Neil Meyer",
"Ryan",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65948
|
what made the juice/water of the beans turned black
I have 3 new pre-seasoned cast iron pots as gifts I cleaned as instructed before using. But when I tried simmering a nice pot of beans in one the broth turned really black. I had to throw away everything now I am afraid to use them what can I do
Were they black beans?
Don't use cast iron for boiling, I mean you can, but you'll always get a slick and darkened water. Use stainless or enamel for boiling.
@Escoce Cast iron Dutch ovens are regularly used for stews, chili & cookin' up a mess of beans.
Yep, I use mine all the time, but looks like his turned nasty.
My cast iron Dutch oven is enameled on the inside...
Could that stuff/method be useful if you WANT an irony/bloody taste in something?
lol no they weren't black beans when they went into the pot
@Escoce Mom had cast iron and we used it all the time to cook even potatoes in. Nothing better than a pot of pinto beans cooked all day really slow in the cast iron pot..
I agree, but some people just don't like the way some things come out in a cast iron. I have the whole family of cast iron pots and pans, and even have 2 of a few things I use a lot. Cast iron stays on my stove because it's what I reach for first. Only exceptions is my stock pot and sauce pans which are stainless.
My best guess is that the factory pre-seasoning just wasn't very good. When the seasoning (essentially cooked‐on oil or fat) is bad or weak, it's a lot more likely to flake off and wind up in your food, which is not particularly dangerous but may be unappetizing.
In his book The Food Lab, J. Kenji López-Alt notes that preseasoned pans have "a mediocre level of seasoning at best", and advises cast-iron users to "[a]void making liquid-based dishes in the pan until it has acquired a reasonably good layer of seasoning." He defines "perfectly seasoned" as "nonstick enough to cook eggs in", which is presumably a bit beyond "reasonably good".
You can give your pots a good initial seasoning with the techniques described in this other answer: What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet? They will acquire even more seasoning as you cook with them, if you cook with oil or fats. (While a good seasoning should be able to withstand a slow-simmering pot of beans from time to time, boiling water is never going to add anything to the seasoning.)
It sounds you ended up with magnetite in your broth. That is the black stuff you want to use to season cast iron pans by binding it with fats. Sounds like that went wrong with your pans. If you really want to use them for boiling, you need to season them again, and test if that was successful...(water with a drop of lemon juice or two or three as a test). It is not poisonous.
If you don't know how to season a pan, this is the method I like to use: guide for seasoning a pan
Hello Marc, your citation was very, very long, to the point where it is probably not fair use any more. Also, it's not really part of the answer, as the question was not "how to season a pan" (which we have answered elsewhere extensively). As a moderator, I kept the link as an optional resource, but removed the pages and pages of a citation.
And separately from the moderator action, speaking as a user: Cast iron seasoning does not consist of magnetite, nor is magnetite created by "binding iron with fats" (which, chemically speaking, doesn't occur at all). Also, if the coating leaked the first time (I'm not sure that's what happened, but this is what your answer assumes), why would you suggest that the OP continues boiling in a seasoned cast iron container?
Here I thought a magnetite was a pokemon... oh wait thats Magnemite.
I did not suggest the OP to continue boiling in cast iron. The rest is obvious from the citation.
It is best not to boil anything in a cast-iron pan or pot. The boiling water lifts the oil seasoning off the iron and exposes the raw metal again, leading to oxidation. Starchy foods, such as beans or potatoes, increase the reaction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.485710
| 2016-01-27T17:15:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65948",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel Tichindelean",
"Debbie M.",
"Escoce",
"Jay",
"Juliet Gering-Gregory",
"Lacy Wilson",
"Lisa Brown",
"Marc Luxen",
"Pamela Dukes",
"Sandi Smith",
"Tanya Williams",
"Wanda Hudler DeVore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"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
}
|
66559
|
I have a recipe that calls for a Cubanelle Pepper, but my dad can't eat peppers.
I've got a recipe that asks for a Cubanelle Pepper. I was going to just leave it out, but I'm not sure how much it's going to alter the flavor. It's a flounder and scallop saute in a garlic cream sauce.
Additional ingredients: Italian parsley, lemon zest, Greek seasoning, corn, green onions
Is there anything I can add to help make up the flavor? Thanks!
Note that Cubanelle peppers are not hot peppers — they're similar to green bell peppers. So if your father's restriction is restricted to hot peppers, then he'd be just fine.
Otherwise, there's nothing else quite like the flavor of peppers (other than paprika, which of course, is made from peppers). Your recipe has so many other flavorful ingredients, that it's sure to be delicious if you simply leave out the Cubanelle pepper.
However, celery might be a good substitute in your recipe, being similar in color and texture to Cubanelle peppers. The flavor of celery is subtle and would work quite well with the other ingredients you listed.
Thank you...I think I'll have a little on hand and ask him - you never know. :)
I've managed fine for decades simply skipping any peppers in recipes. It won't be the same as with peppers. Whether allergic or simply having severe dislike for them, the difference won't be a problem for someone who cannot eat peppers.
That's what I'm probably going to do...it's what I've always done in the past when I've cooked for him. I just figured I'd ask in case anyone had any ideas I hadn't thought of. And I agree...he won't miss it :) Thanks very much!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.486097
| 2016-02-16T18:45:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66559",
"authors": [
"Aisling O'Shea",
"Angelo Angelo",
"Jamie Bishop",
"Kimberley Harvey",
"Linda Shreve",
"Miguel Rivas Valle",
"Scott Johnson",
"Stefanie Zucker",
"gary mcquillan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43444"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65014
|
How does good pasta dough feel to the touch?
I have just been given an Imperia Pasta Roller as a present and have wasted no time in trying to make pasta. As advised in the instruction manual, I have made a small batch of pasta just using water and passed this through the rollers in order to clean any factory impurities or debris from the machine. I noticed that the pasta (eggless I hasten to add) was quite soft, much softer than shop bought fresh pasta. I worked some more flour into the dough and the pasta held up quite well to being passed through the rollers. This was then thrown in the bin.
The next batch that I made, following a recipe by Jamie Oliver, called for 100 grams of flour to 1 egg. I am using Tipo 00 flour. The resulting dough felt firmer and very slightly sticky to the touch but when cooked was very soggy and flabby in texture, not very appetising at all.
For my next batch I added a little extra flour and kneaded it for longer. The dough was dryer than the previous batch and when I took a few strips and put them in boiling water, they cooked perfectly. However the remainder, when I went back to it a couple of hours later had stuck to itself and turned into a solid mass that was really difficult to separate. I had dusted it with fine cornmeal to stop this happening. I was advised not to coat it in flour.
Can anyone please give me some advice on how the dough should feel when correctly prepared (how stiff, how moist or how sticky it should feel) and also some advice on how to stop it from forming a solid mass before I have time to cook it.
Thank you
Soggy after cooking can also just mean it was overcooked, not that there was as problem with the flour/egg ratio.
Hello Steve, and welcome! Your question title could have been anything about pasta. I changed it to match the body of your question. It's a nice question, I hope you'll get some good answers.
Pasta dough should be smooth in texture and be only slightly sticky. When kneading it out and folding it over onto itself, it should not readily re-stick to itself, but rather require a bit more kneading to do so. It should feel slightly tacky (less so than a post-it note) but not aggressively stick to your hands or the counter. If you get it too dry and it refuses to stick to itself, add a few drops of water.
My pasta method is based on the well method, but in a bowl to avoid making a mess, and adding flour as I go to avoid wasting any. Start by cracking as many eggs as you want into the bowl, about one per person you'll be serving. Scramble with a fork. Gradually add in flour in amounts about equal to the amount of egg, and mix well with the fork--adding too much flour at once, especially early, can result in "pasta sand" which is a difficult condition to recover from. The dough will go from the consistency of oatmeal, to a paste, to cookie dough.
At some point, the dough will become too solid and the fork will stop being an effective tool--you'll just be pushing a solid mass around the bowl. At this point it's probably still way too wet, so dump another good amount of flour on top and get in there with your hands. Once it gets a little less sticky you can dump it onto your counter. Continue to knead and work in flour until it reaches the consistency described above. Wrap in plastic wrap and let it rest for 30-60 minutes.
You'll know you've gotten it just right if it barely requires any flour, if any, when rolling. If you find yourself having to apply flour on every roll, you left it too wet. It's still perfectly edible, it's just a huge hassle and might turn out a little gummy. Another thing to look for is that as you roll it thinner, the edges will crack slightly. If you got it too dry and it wants to crack all over, or is struggling to go through the machine, you can loosen it up with a bit of water--wiping one side with a wet finger should be enough.
If you get the dough to the proper consistency, you won't need to do anything fancy when drying it. I just lay it out on cookie sheets. It's okay if it sticks to itself a bit, it'll come apart again in the water.
Fresh pasta will always be softer than commercially bought dried pasta, even when you cook it for only a minute or two. Homemade pasta is typically even softer than the 'fresh' pasta that you can find in the refrigerated section of some grocery stores. You're going to get closer to the soft texture of a wonton in soup or a steamed chinese dumpling than the firmer texture of commercial dried pasta.
As your noodles come out of the cutters, you need to either dust them with a lot of flour if you're going to dry them in nests, or you need to hang them up to dry (our family's preferred method). If you don't have a pasta rack, you can improvise something by using canned goods to cantilever wooden spoons out over past the end of a shelf, and hanging the pasta on them. (if you don't trust the cantilever, you might be able to support the spoons between two tall boxes or similar, but the airflow won't be as great as it's blocked on both sides).
If you don't have lots of wooden spoons, you can also do the cantilever with knives (non-ceramic) -- leave the handle of the knife sticking out past the shelf, and then put a heavy can on the blade to hold it down. Then hang the pasta on the handles.
You also need to flour both sides of the pasta dough every time it goes through the rollers, just as you would it you were rolling it out by hand and trying to keep it from sticking.
If you're not sure if you're using the correct amount of flour, I'd recommend using the 'well method', where you make a mound of flour, clear a hole in the middle, pour your liquid in the hole, and stir slowly pulling in more flour until it won't pull in any more, then start kneading -- knead for a bit as you would bread, then set the rollers as wide as it'll go and crank it through. Fold it over, then send it through again (preferably sideways to the way it went in last time). Each time it goes through, it needs a dusting of flour. After a few passes through, it'll be less ragged. Once that happens, slowly reduce the thickness 'til it's where you want it, then run it through the cutters (unless you're want it as sheets for lasagna, ravioli, etc.).
Then hang to dry, or form single portion nests on a wire rack or sheet pan and leave to dry out.
Fresh pasta dough should feel slightly tacky and be smooth and elastic. Make sure to rest your dough at least 30 minutes before you roll it. Use a dusting of flour as you roll the dough. If it takes more than a dusting to keep it from sticking to the work surface, it is too wet. To make it easier to cut or shape, allow rolled sheets to air dry on the counter for 15 minutes...flip, and dry for 15 minutes more, then cut. Dust with flour when you cut to keep cut edges from sticking. You can hang and air dry, but I prefer to lightly coil (if I am making long noodles) or lay out (if short shapes) fresh pasta on a sheet pan that is also lightly dusted with flour. I place in freezer, then, when frozen, transfer to zip lock bags. Pasta goes directly into boiling water in frozen state. It cooks in 3-4 minutes and then tossed in pan with condiment.
Fresh pasta should be cooked a fraction of that of dried pasta. When I make fresh spaghetti it's on the boiling water for around 2 minutes.
To keep the pasta from being sticky while rolling it, you keep it floured like you would when making dough. Pasta is a kind of dough I think.
You can also experiment with your pasta recipe. Not every egg is the same, and a bigger egg may beg for a little more flour or semolina.
Additionally, as you work the pasta flat, and you continue to flour it, it will get stiffer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.486283
| 2016-01-02T17:34:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65014",
"authors": [
"Barry Bu",
"Cascabel",
"Danny",
"Ellie Royle",
"Eunice Atkins",
"Russ Gannicott",
"Sarah Ainscough",
"Wendy Green",
"beverly dickerman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35785
|
First time canning....forgot to sterilize my jar. Advice please!
I made a jalepeno/banana pepper relish from my garden two days ago and have since realized that I was supposed to sterilize the jar before doing this.
My fault for not researching enough at the beginning. Though I did submerge the jar full of relish in boiling water for 10 minutes. Would that not have killed all bacteria?
I am not planning on storing this for an extended period of time. I'm hoping to begin using it within the next few weeks.
Is the batch safe to eat, or can I eat it without worry?
You don't say what else is in your relish (and the term "relish" can mean a few different things), but peppers are low-acid foods, so unless you've added pickling liquid and tested the pH, it's definitely not shelf-stable; low-acid foods must be pressure-canned, or be refrigerated and consumed within a couple of weeks.
In general, for processing times of at least ten minutes, you do not have to pre-sterilize the jar. From the NCHFP:
All jams, jellies, and pickled products processed less than 10 minutes should be filled into sterile empty jars. ...
Empty jars used for vegetables, meats, and fruits to be processed in a pressure canner need not be presterilized. It is also unnecessary to presterilize jars for fruits, tomatoes, and pickled or fermented foods that will be processed 10 minutes or longer in a boiling-water canner.
(Side note: since you mention not having researched enough at the beginning... really, you should have a trusted recipe for things you can. I don't know what was in your relish, but if it wasn't acidic enough, boiling water canning wouldn't make it safe no longer how long you processed it for.)
If you are going to eat over the next few weeks, just store the jars in the fridge. They will be safe either way
This would definitely be the safest option, especially since it sounds like a low-acid recipe and the author didn't use pressure-canning...
@Aaronut In my home country people making preserves just boil and bottle on the stove, pressure canning is unheard of, so is Botulism. Unless you are making industrial milk powder that is :-)
If by "preserves" you're referring to fruit, then there's enough acid and sugar not to have to worry about botulism. That's not the case at all with peppers, though.
http://nchfp.uga.edu/papers/2004/04ift-tomatosalsaPoster_combined.html
Tomatoes are a fruit. :)
So are chilli peppers and bananas, but they are low in acids
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.487272
| 2013-08-04T00:50:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35785",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andreas Grapentin",
"Grace",
"Gururaj Balse",
"TFD",
"Vulcan",
"devxapo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83846",
"mjhe0025",
"tetebueno"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37551
|
What to do with browned butter after frying a steak
I have cooked a steak Gordon Ramsay style (oil, butter, thyme and garlic).
Now after I have prepared and seared the steak, what can I do with the remainders in the pan?
Its brown butter with the seasoning in it, do I just dispose of it, use for some other meat (although I have an issue making it medium-rare, since the pan is supposed to be extremely hot before dropping the meat in, but that would burn the thyme and garlic completely).
Often, assuming they are not too burned, you would make a simple pan sauce from the fond and fat left after pan-cooking a steak. Methods vary, but might include sauteeing some shallots or onions in the fat, deglazing with wine, and/or adding a slurry of flour to thicken. You would then serve with the steak.
Other than this, there is no general purpose use for the left over pan drippings.
I tend to keep some of the butter that I have use in cooking previously, especially if it isn't burned and has some good flavour infused into it.
For example, the next time you cook your steak why don't you strain the butter and set it again in the fridge. The next time you fancy a steak sandwich use that butter for the bread. It will add a little bit extra to the sandwich that you won't get from the steak alone. I wouldn't keep butter made this way too long though as it will spoil.
If you ever make bacon lardons by "deep" frying them in butter (I used to do this for caesar salads when I was a chef), you can then set the bacony butter in the fridge and it makes a fantastic medium for frying fish in. Try it with salmon or inexpensive white flat fish instead of a beurre noisette.
I concur with the other posters. Make a sauce. I actually am fond of making tomato sauces with the fat residue left in frying pans. Sometimes I use a jar of pasta sauce which with the fat makes a great sauce.
You can also use general canned tomatoes. Even things like onion relish can be really good when made with this. Dont be afraid to use some flower to give the sauce a nice consistency.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.487504
| 2013-10-13T13:44:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37551",
"authors": [
"Marko Kalcic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52114
|
New to grinding meat
I'm not sure how much of the fat to leave on the meat before I grind whether it be chicken, beef or Turkey
What's the best method for grinding chicken vs beef vs Turkey, etc.
I've never used my hand-me-down meat grinder ... but one suggestion that I was given was to trim the fat off the meat before grinding. Freeze the trimmed fat for a while to make sure it's really cold, then add it to the stuff that you're grinding. (supposedly it was to help keep it from melting while grinding, and limit the change of it getting stuck in the grinder)
Hello Beth, and welcome to the site! We work differently from discussion forums. We focus on concrete, solvable problems. Asking simply to know everything there is to grinding meat is not a kind of thing we can help with, it is too broad. Also, we don't swap recipes. TFD kindly edited your question into a state which fits our format, leaving out the parts which are off topic for us. I hope the answers to this more focused form are still helpful for you. If you start grinding and encounter a specific problem, you can always post another question asking how to overcome it.
Fat
That depends on what consistency you like, how oily/fatty you like your food, and the kind of food you are preparing.
For things cooked on high heat, like hamburgers, more fat will give the meat more flavor and tenderness.
For things cooked on lower heat, like spaghetti sauce or a casserole, less fat is generally preferable as the looser ground meat will absorb more of the flavor from the sauce/seasoning. It will also make the dish more attractive by not having a layer of oil from the fat floating on it.
Precautions
Always promptly and carefully wash the grinder with hot water and soap after using. Ground meat is more vulnerable to bacteria due to more surface being exposed to the environment.
It is a good practice to sanitize the areas of the grinder exposed to the meat after, and even before using it. You can purchase food-grade sanitizing liquid online or from a restaurant supply store. This is especially important dealing with poultry meat. Poultry, especially ground, is particularly vulnerable to Salmonella. Here is information about handling poultry from the CDC.
Use mineral oil to lubricate the grinder plates, knives and corkscrew regularly. You can also use it on other steel surfaces to preserve its appearance.
Tips
Grind meat twice to get a smoother appearance and texture. Some types of recipes may call for just a coarse grind but generally you will prefer the smoother kind.
Mix types of meats together for interesting results. For example, Bolognese style pasta often using a mix of veal/beef, pork and lamb.
Add your dry seasoning to the meat before grinding to make it more even and quicker to prepare. This works great for things like meatloaf, sausages, etc.
Accessorize! You can usually purchase things like sausage tips so you can make your own. If you have a dehydrator you can make jerky and meat "sticks" (like you can buy at the gas stations).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.487696
| 2014-12-30T19:00:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52114",
"authors": [
"Billy Black",
"Caitlin Neill",
"Cheryl Henderson",
"David Medina",
"Fire Door Inspections Limited",
"Japanese Knotweed",
"Joe",
"Joe Marshall",
"Kissia agurto",
"Lesley Peart",
"William Cassin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123655",
"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/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55939
|
Is it still possible to make cast iron skillets as good as the old ones?
You always hear people talk about old cast iron vs. new cast iron: the old stuff is lighter, smoother, and generally better, while the new stuff is heavy, pebbled, and generally a poor imitation of what cast iron ought to be.
So fans of cast iron go to great lengths to find the old stuff, pay good money for it, and look down on Lodge Logic and similar pans.
So here's my question: why is this?
If we can make high-quality knives at a relatively affordable price, why can't we make cast iron pans as good as the old ones? We're not exactly talking about Damascus steel.
Are you sure that there really is such a difference? It sounds like a standard "Everything was better when I was young" rant. Why on earth would you want your cast iron pans to be lighter? The whole point of them is that they are heavy enough to hold the heat. Cast iron is terrible when it comes to applications which need light pans.
I have pans of both kinds, and yes, I'm sure. Though I'm also parodying the rant of the cast iron enthusiasts a bit.
I was at a Lodge outlet store a few months back, and one of the sales people mentioned that they've been working on it. She didn't have any info other than that, though. Of course, they're also making carbon steel stuff now, too.
I'd say that it's not that we can't make cast iron pans as good as the old ones. It's that for most companies that's not where the money is. A company doesn't make money by making super high quality cast iron ("like the old stuff") that costs $100-200 per pan and selling them to a few cast iron enthusiasts (those prices are random, I don't actually know how much those would cost if they were made, but it would be a lot more than the current price). They make money by selling $15-30 cast iron cookware to loads and loads of consumers. Back in the day when manufacturing wasn't as automated and people were involved in the process at a lot of steps, it didn't add much incremental cost to also sandblast and polish the surfaces, yielding the super-smooth surfaces that you used to see. Now, when lots of the manufacturing process is automated, adding in the additional time adds significantly to the cost of the product percentage wise.
So, could we do it? Yeah, sure. But big companies won't. I just suggest making your own :)
As a side comment, newer cast iron isn't as nice as the old stuff for a number of reasons, but I use the newer style cast iron all the time (my mom has not yet bequeathed me her old cast iron pans) and it works great. Not as non-stick, heavier, and so forth, but still excellent for cooking.
Easy enough to take what you can get and polish it up, even grind it down if you want lighter (though I rather like the heat-spreading aspect of thicker.) Le Cruset seems to do just fine selling their version of $100-$300 cast iron, though it's not the cast iron that @crmdgn wants.
I don't know much about manufacturing and fabrication, but I'd have thought automation would lower the cost. Isn't that the point of automation? To put it another way, couldn't you have a factory full of CNC machinery to mill, surface, & polish the pans? (I mean, I'm sure that's what Lodge does have.)
I believe it's more about the incremental cost. Yes, the cost of sandblasting them and polishing them would go down with automation, but the cost of making them in the first place has gone way down with automation. So for example surfacing and polishing the old cast iron would maybe have added 20% to the overall cost, but doing that today would add 75% to the overall cost (again, numbers just picked for examples, I don't know the actual values).
Hm. It would actually be really interesting to research what the actual values are, though I'm sure those are trade secrets and not accessible to mere mortals.
It also makes me wonder about manufacturing costs for, say, woks---most of which are made by a different process, I know, but which are still very light and very smooth by comparison with, say, Lodge Logic. Which is true AFAIK even for cast iron woks.
PS. @Duncan, you suggest making my own... That's part of why I'm asking.
Ah, I was being somewhat facetious when I suggested making your own :) But I would also be interested in knowing what the actual values are.
@Duncan : there's at least one company making 'artisinal' cast iron (ie, limited numbers, fairly expensive): Bourough Furnace. (via Serious Eats and Anthony Bordain)
That is so cool, on so many levels. $300 for a skillet is way beyond what I'm willing to pay, but I'm happy just knowing that that's out there.
Considering that you can't really source any of your numbers, or substantiate your claims that the cost to process the surface of a skillet makes up a larger part of the production cost these days, this sounds mostly like speculation?
Also, mind that real "high-quality knives at a relatively affordable price" will usually NOT be from a big-name brand (these tend to have medium quality at affordable price, and high quality at ridiculously inflated price).
"Back in the day", cast iron pans were manufactured in a much more labor-intensive way. Each sand mold (minimum of 2 per item) was hand-rammed around a form, which was a wood (later aluminum) "positive" of the pan to be produced. The forms were slightly larger than the finished pan to allow for the shrinkage of the iron as it cooled. Molten iron was poured by hand into the forms, which is as much art as science to do properly. After the iron hardened the frames of the molds were removed, and the "raw" pan was ready for machining. First the "gates" on the edge of the pan were removed by nipping/grinding. The pan was then placed in an apparatus similar to a brake drum lathe and turned. A counter-turning grinding burr (shaped as a truncated cone) was run across the cooking surface of the pan. The quality of the result was due to the fineness of the sand used in the mold, the age/quality of the grinding burr, and the skill of the machinist. The bumps didn't get "smoothed out with use". To my knowdledge, none of the major hollow-ware manufacturers sand-blasted any if their products.
In the late 50's, early 60's, domestic manufacturers had to compete with imports if cheap overseas manufacture. Labor overhead made the old manufacturing methods economically unviable. The surviving manufacturers, BSR and Lodge, retooled for automated casting. This led to the thicker, unmilled pans that are with us today.
The spiel about "the rough surface is for pre-seasoning" us pure marketing BS. I bought Lodge dutch ovens in the 70's that had the rough surface and NO PRE-SEASONING. They were, however, shipped with a thin coat of paraffin wax to prevent rusting. Lodge came up with the "pre-seasoning" story years after they started selling un-milled pans (and people complained about how tough it was removing the wax coating).
Older, smoothly milled, properly seasoned pans are WAY slicker than you can get any rough surface iron. My daily egg-fryer is an unmarked Lodge #5 from the 40's. It was a $5 crusted-up wreck of a thrift store find. Degreased in a lye bath, further cleaned by electrolysis, and re-seasoned with 6 baked coats of flax seed oil. With a wipe of oil, over medium heat, the cooked eggs slide around in the pan, nearly as slick as Teflon.
Furthermore, cast iron does NOT do a good job distributing heat, but DOES do a good job retaining heat. Copper, and even cast aluminum, are better heat conductors/distributors. A thinner cast iron pan works just as well as thick one. The only thing that thicker, rough finish cast iron does better than the smooth pans is sear meat.
because cast iron is a terrible medium of heat transfer thin cast iron develops more hotspots compared to a thicker cast iron pan (put some flour on the pan, put it on the burner and check if you do not believe me!). I find that after a bit of sanding, just to take off all the rough bits sticking out, modern thick cast iron is as good as it gets
(yes, I know this doesn't answer the question directly ... I'm hoping this is still useful)
It's possible that the exact composition & technique might have been lost (similar to Damascus steel) ... but that doesn't mean than you can't get old cast iron, as the stuff is nearly indestructable.
The best place to get it at a reasonable price are yard sales and estate auctions. If you have a local thrift store, talk to whoever does their incoming processing, and tell them that you'll buy any cast iron pans, no matter the condition for a given price (eg, $10/$20, I should be near what they sell other pans for, and enough so that it's worth their time to remember your request). It's important to say any condition, because cast iron can typically be salvaged even when it looks completely foul. You can often find old cast iron pans at antique stores, but if they know what the they're doing, they'll clean them up themselves and mark up the collector's items accordingly.
We rescued my neighbor's grandmother's skillet ... it had been moved to the basement at some point, and was so disgusting that her mother & aunts had planned on throwing away, but it's now back to almost daily use after a pass through a fire pit, a wire brush and a re-seasoning.
If you rescue enough old pans, sooner or later you'll find some of the $200+ Wagner and Griswold pans, and maybe even some of the $500+ "ERIE" Griswold pans. You can then give your cleaned up cast iron pans away to friend who cook, or give them back to the thrift store to sell once your friends & family are sick of you giving them pans.
The old pans are usually smoother mostly because they have been use a lot over time, and the little bumps have been scrapped off
Cast iron pans are just that, cast. Casting does not produce a beautiful surface
Old style casting was very rough, and to produce anything resembling a pan surface they had to be ground and sand blasted
Modern pans have a smooth finish direct from the casting machine. They should not require further finishing. Just proper seasoning, and some normal use with metal implements
Most of the imperfections are voids (holes). High heat and seasoning will fix this with the polymerised oil filling the void, and covering the sharp edges of it. Any imperfection that are bumps are rare as it would be a flaw in the casting mold!
In new style pans, most of the bumps you see are grinder splatter from the finishing of the mold release points (usually around handle and edges). These splatter marks should come away with a decent wash and scrub, or just from normal use with metal implements
If you do have a very rough pan, new or old, take it to the local engineering shop, they should be able to smooth it out
I'm pretty sure that older pans were sandblasted and polished after being cast to be smooth, not just worn away over time. Modern pans aren't, so that's why they're pebbled.
That what I said? They where not polished mirror smooth, that is what happens over time
My interpretation of your post is that old pans are smoother "because they have been used a lot over time, and the little bumps have been scraped off". This is not the case. The smoothness comes from the sandblasting. And when you said "it wasn't an option" in the third paragraph, I interpreted that to mean the sandblasting was not an option, though you may have meant something else.
Thanks. Removed that bit, not sure where it was from?
Just saying the old pans even after grinding etc where not that smooth (I have some unused antiques), and probably not much better than modern pans. The old pans that have been used for 50+ years are very smooth, and very nice to use
I could see the back being warn down from wear ... but the inside you actually want rough to start, so that the seasoning takes hold well. You want the seasoning to build up in the cracks so that it holds on well. Polishing might get you a slick surface faster, but it doesn't mean that it'll result in a better pan for the long run.
Yes. You can still buy a machined and polished cast iron skillet. As of this writing, those skillets are cast and machined in Milwaukie Oregon and finished in Portland Oregon. The finishing involves re-machining any defects, polishing, seasoning, and putting on the handles. The octagon shape may take some getting used-to, but it allows you put on a lid that seals or rotate the lid to let out some humidity.
I'm not very familiar with the company, but if you go to the location in Portland to buy a skillet, they'll give you a tour of their small factory. My skillet was still warm from seasoning when I walked out the door carrying the cardboard box.
Rescuing an old skillet is probably a more thrifty option, however.
The new cast iron is better in most ways. Except for the old cast iron needed much more graphite in the iron to keep from sticking to the old molding methods. So a different alloy of iron than today.
The answer, other than cost which has been described already is that the smoothness of griswold for example ended up not providing as much add value as you would suspect.
No cast iron is going to be as non-stick as Teflon, advocacy or not, and I am a cast-iron advocate and use cast iron to near exclusion of everything else.
Once you develop a nice seasoning, and this takes time no matter what brand of pan you have, they all behave the same. The principle difference between super smooth and not so smooth is how long it will take to develop this nice seasoning. My lodge 10inch is baby skin smooth, it started out dimply, but it's not anymore.
I however use that skillet a minimum of daily, and scrub it gently but thoroughly with a green scrubby which knocks the tops off the seasoning bumps, and oil and heat the pan dry at the end of each day it's been used (I said daily use didn't i?) my other cast irons bits are two 8 inch griddles which get used about twice a week for breakfast, and another 8 inch skillet which gets used when I need two skillets on the stove at once.
I also have a lodge wok which I adore for stir fry, just preheat it like everything else and it makes perfect fried rice every time. That wok is still very dimply since there really isn't a spatula that fits the curve exactly.
The issue isn't smoothness ... it's weight. Today's cast iron is significantly thicker and heavier than older cast iron. I don't know if that's because automated processes are less gentle and need a more sturdy pan to make it through the process without breaking, or if there's something else going on.
@Loverofsmoothcastiron. Can you please point out to me where I said a green scrubby will knock down iron?
Just ran across a Kickstarter company. That uses a slightly different process to achieve the lightness and smoothness of old cast iron (wax loss). And yes, they are a bit pricey...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/innovative-cast-iron/marquette-castings-superior-cast-iron-skillets
https://www.marquettecastings.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.488009
| 2015-03-22T11:59:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55939",
"authors": [
"Bob ellis",
"Cyril Worth",
"Duncan",
"Ecnerwal",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Matthew H",
"Nasser Almesfer",
"Rosie Owen",
"Sandra Cameron",
"Sara Jones",
"Shaz Lye",
"TFD",
"angie lee",
"crmdgn",
"eirikdaude",
"glynneth elser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user1256923"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
683
|
Is it ok to use a metal turner in a wok?
Is it ok to use a metal utensil when turning or serving food in a (seasoned, steel) wok? I suspect that the wok surface may get scratched, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems so far; is it always better to use wood or do the scratches not matter?
Most good woks I see today are carbon steel. Those things can take a ton of punishment and are very difficult to damage. In fact, a wok chuan, which is a "scoop" that's a bit like a metal spatula, is not only OK to use, it's an essential part of Asian cooking. Wooden utensils just don't have the right shape or, well, weight, for proper stir-frying.
If you happen to watch a stir-fry in progress in an Asian kitchen, you'll probably hear a lot of noise and see the cooks seriously abusing the cookware. Stir-frying is generally done on very high heat and therefore needs to be done quickly; it's not like flipping an egg or a piece of meat, it's not precise, you've got potentially hundreds of tiny chunks in there and you need a tool with some mass and curvature to it so that you can really shovel out the food at the bottom of the pan and deposit it back on top.
Now, as Owen said, if you have one of those cheapo Teflon woks, then yes, you should probably avoid metal implements. Actually, if you have a Teflon wok, my recommendation would be to throw it out immediately and get a carbon steel or cast iron wok. Teflon was never designed for that kind of heat or to take that kind of punishment. But as long as your wok is good material, definitely get yourself a proper metal scoop and use it!
Great answer, thanks! Agree with you totally on non-stick woks - though I have found that dirt cheap, thin steel woks are also great (and much easier to shake about than cast iron or heavier steel woks). Just make sure that the handle won't fall off... :)
I just bought a wok. I seasoned it and it worked great the first time, but now I notice food sticking to it a little more every time. I'm concerned it's because the metal tools and bamboo brush are scraping off the patina. Why isn't this an issue for professional chefs? My patina is coming off a little bit from these tools after every use.
@tieTYT: This is definitely a carbon-steel wok and not something with a non-stick coating? Patinas normally actually develop over a very long period of use, they're from the carbon residue, and they can't really be rushed, so if you just got the wok, then I don't think what you have is really a patina, or at least not the kind of patina you want. Of course you'll scratch it, but every time you cook you're adding to the patina.
Yes, this is what I bought. You can see my more detailed question, screenshot and all, here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34491/why-are-my-metal-tools-scraping-off-the-patina-of-my-wok Maybe you can provide an answer? Thanks
As long as it doesn't have a nonstick coating, I think you'll be fine. The Wok Shop in San Francisco, my source for a lot of wok wisdom, routinely sells metal turners with their woks, which I use much of the time. Their turners are, however, constructed with a bit of a curve to them, to make them easier to work with. That probably cuts down on the wok gouging factor as well. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.489246
| 2010-07-11T23:55:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/683",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ari",
"Daniel Kaplan",
"Daniel O",
"Ivo Bosticky",
"Joel in Gö",
"Josh Curren",
"M. Horton",
"Sally",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58548"
],
"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
}
|
4901
|
I wanted to make homemade pickles, does it matter what type of salt I use?
I've got the spices, jars, etc. I was wondering if there is a special salt, or can I just use table salt?
One thing you also might want to consider when making pickles is the process of heating versus not. I recently learned that the crispy store bought pickles are pickled at low temps (my preferred method), where as softer pickles were most likely heated first. Not sure which method you are using, but this may help as you move forward. My step-mother recently made some awesome pickles with chilies and dill and garlic but heated them first in the canning process and they turned out a bit too soft for my liking.
Regarding salt... I happen to agree with Adam's comment on the brine. I usually confirm salt is dissolved before it goes into the pickling solution, so it's not a problem. In that respect, a good quality salt, regardless of shape and size should be used (feel free to grind it in a mortar with a pestle if you think it should be finer). I happen to use coarse Kosher from Morton for most things...
"Pickling salt" is sold, the main difference being the absence of iodine and anti-caking agents. The anti-caking agents can cloud the pickling liquid, but shouldn't effect the flavor. Iodine can impart a bit of a bitter aftertaste, and some sources say can "react adversely with some foods".
I've never noticed a difference between the taste of table salt and that of kosher/pickling salt, but apparently others can. In any case, the differences are fairly minor. I would recommend investing in some kosher salt (its cheap) and using that in place of normal table salt. See Why do some recipes recommend Kosher salt?
it isn't all about differences but how they act in given situations. Just as Kosher salt is named so for its use in the koshering process because it is better at absorbing the blood from the meat, Pickling salt is named for the reason @JustRightMenus describes. It is a "use the correct tool for the job" situation. Sea salt on the other hand, you can have a lot of taste variation, even between different sea salts, as they have differing mineral compositions.
True. I neglected this because when I've made pickles, I mix the brine and boil to incorporate the spices. This dissolves the salt before it contacts the thing to be pickled, so shape isn't a problem.
Pickling salt is very fine-grained, so that it will dissolve easily. It is important to have an even salt solution when pickling. You can use a more coarse salt; just take care it's dissolved completely.
Iodized salt can also turn the pickled items a darker color.
In addition to the things other answers have mentioned, its important that you use the same amount of salt, by weight, not volume.
All of the following are actually different amounts of salt, despite being the same volume:
1 cup Diamond Crystal kosher salt (~135 g)
1 cup Morton Kosher salt (~250 g)
1 cup table salt (~300 g)
1 cup Morton's canning and pickling salt (~220 g)
Those weights come from:
New York Times Diner's Journal, Warning: Measure Your Salt
University of Washington Cooperative Extension, Homemade Pickles & Relishes (note: PDF).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.489548
| 2010-08-11T16:34:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4901",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"DGA",
"Isheka Barrett",
"Kamran Bigdely",
"Luke",
"ManiacZX",
"analogsilence",
"enlavin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9463"
],
"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
}
|
23599
|
How to create homemade special coffees
I got bored with my regular coffe "Nestcafe Classic" or "Nestcafe 3 in 1". Are there tutorials how to create some awesome coffee? I don't mind if it's a latte, cappuccino or espresso, as long as it tastes good. I know it's kinda vague. All I really want is something different and I could do it on my kitchen, fast, easy, cheap and that doesn't require me to have those advanced coffee makers.
Also if I could perfect the process, I would like to serve and impress my guests. But for now I'm the only one who's gonna be trying it.
Tools
I have the following:
Aeropress: Roughly $40 CAD, Quick and easy clean up, Makes a good single serving of expresso.
Moka Pot: They vary in size and cost, but can be found for about $30, makes a good strong cup of coffee.
French Press: Easy to find, about $50 for a decent one, Glass is common, Stainless steel is better, makes also a decent cup of coffee.
Percolator: I have a stovetop one that I bought for camping. Big in size and it's cheap. It makes coffee.
Vietnamese drip thiny: It makes a single serving of very strong coffee. I used this because it was really, really cheap and made a good strong coffee. I stopped using it as the aeropress is better.
I don't have one, but I've enjoyed what is becomming popular these days which is a pourover. There is also a few others (Siphon, True expresso machines), but I don't have much experience with them and some of them are a lot more expensive. They're relatively cheap as well.
If you're mainly making coffee for yourself, I'd look into an aeropress or the pourover. They probably make the best coffee and are both affordable. The aeropress is my daily coffee, because well it's awesome. I often serve the french press as it's bigger or the percolator if I have lots of guests that don't care for "good" coffee.
Coffee
First thing, find a source of good coffee. You're looking for somewhere that roasts their own coffee and sells it relatively promptly. There are a few online sources as well. (No I wouldn't start at Starbucks or the like...). I don't want to link to places I haven't shopped at, so you'll have to search yourself. Unless you're in Alberta, Canada...
If you really get ambitious you can source green beens online and roast them yourself!
Grind
If you can find a burr grinder (not a blade grinder) that would be ideal. You want to grind as close to making the coffee as possible. Coffee starts to "lose" flavour as soon as it is roasted, and even quicker after it's ground. A burr grinder will give you a consistent grind, which means consistent flavour. Coarse grind for french press, fine grind for the aeropress/expresso, medium grind for most of the others.
Technique
Now... for the preparation, that varies by whatever machine you use... Check the instructions or google around.
Resources
http://www.ineedcoffee.com/: Lots of good information about different brew methods, coffee in general.
http://coffeegeek.com: Really great site with a lot of coffee specific information. At the top there is a Guides & How-To section. If you click that they will have much better laid out guides as to specific preparations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.489842
| 2012-05-05T19:08:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23599",
"authors": [
"Bálint Pap",
"Francesco Amato",
"KarelPeeters",
"Marion Heller",
"NancyE",
"dd263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53526",
"user53464"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17871
|
Why does my first batch of cookies come out nice while later batches get thin?
The first few batches I bake look good and have a nice thickness to them. The last few batches are thinner. Why would that happen? For reference, I use the Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip recipe.
The fat in your dough started to soften/melt - especially if you have a hot oven running in the kitchen. Keep your dough cold in the fridge between batches.
See this question for more details on the issue in general, but for your situation, keep it cold between batches. You seem to have started correctly, which is good - you just have to keep it going right.
On the subject of the hot oven - it might actually be the oven itself. If it's not fully-preheated as the first batch goes in (and it comes out fine that way) then the heat may be too high.
Right, I have experienced this while baking pizza.
@Kumar - frozen pizza? Cuz an extra 10 minutes of rise on most pizza dough isn't going to drastically change your result.
The suggestion by rfusca to keep your dough in the fridge between batches is good. Also consider the pans, though. You should let them cool down before scooping dough onto them. I have three cookie sheets, so I can have one in the oven, one cooling down, and one that I'm loading up with the next batch of cookies.
I usually give them 10 minutes to cool down. I use three sheets but cook 2 one time and one another. I might try your method next time.
My mom is a cookie making machine and she uses this method - keeping the 'off duty' or fallow pan at the far end of the kitchen and chilling the cookie dough when not actively scooping on to the sheets AND she keeps the spoon in the chilling cookie dough in the fridge to keep the dough from sticking to the spoon as much.
If you have a fan in your kitchen blowing across your 'cooling down' pan, you can do this with two pans easily.
I use a 5+ pans in rotation when I'm doing my bulk cookie making -- start on the bottom shelf, move to the top shelf 1/2 way through, let cool (have to let some cookies cool on the sheet), depan and let cool further, load next sheet, repeat. Extra pans mean I can let cool longer and/or get a few pans prepped to go in so I can have time to mix the next batch. And then I remind myself why I shouldn't quadruple recipes.
Similar to Adam's pan rotation method is to use sheets of parchment paper:
lay out your cookies on the parchment paper on the counter
transfer the paper to the pans immediately before cooking
It's not quite as good as letting the pan cool down fully, but the cookies won't have as much time on the warm pan to start spreading before they rise & set. It's also useful for when you're doing large batches, as you can get all of the cookies out of the pan in seconds, so they won't continue to cook on the hot pan
Is that like wax paper? Or is this a different kind?
@Mike : it's treated with silicone, not wax, so it handles the heat of cooking. If you're using moderate heat, and don't scorch the edges, you can get a few repeat uses out of it. There are also silicone Mats, which are much heavier and can be reused thousands of times, but as they throw off the thermal characteristics of the pan so much, they are trickier to use for cookies.
That is what I was guessing, but I had to ask to be sure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.490126
| 2011-09-20T04:28:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17871",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Katey HW",
"Kumar",
"Mike Wills",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23827
|
Is it safe to store hot tea in PET bottles?
Every morning I bring with me a small PETE (from some searches it seems to be the same as PET plastic) bottle (an ex coke bottle) containing hot tea.
Is it safe to store hot liquids, especially, tea in this type of container?
Is possible, under these conditions, that the bottle releases some harmful substances?
Thanks in advance.
There are a lot of really cheap insulated travel mugs out there. If you're worried, just get one and avoid the issue - and it'll keep your tea hotter, too.
The answer to your first question is basically the answer to your second question with associated risk analysis (i.e., if yes, is it worth it?).
So to answer your second question, yes it does seem likely that most plastic containers release compounds that mimic estrogen under some conditions. Furthermore, many of the compounds that are released from plastics have not been fully tested, so the absence of specific information on their risk is not evidence of an absence of risk.
Since it does appear that these plastics can release harmful compounds under certain conditions then the answer to your first question of is it safe, boils down to "are you replicating an environment where enough endocrine mimics are released to cause harm?"
Given the lack of research on all of the ways in which plastics leach and the fact that there is evidence that endocrine disruptors do not follow normal dose-response curves, I personally would conclude that the risk exceeds the inconvenience of having to find a non-plastic container to transport your tea.
thanks! I think this is the argument i was searching... I'm not an expert on endocrine system, but I will surely consider your point. In fact I can't alas exclude the risk...
Live and learn, I was writing about PET causing cancer, but that's a hoax, apparently.
Some plastics can stand heat better than others, so try to be on the safe side, and let the liquid cool to 50°C (122°F) before storing it.
No, it won't release any harmful substances.
I'd like to read some counterarguments scattered around the internet but i can't find anything. Then I think your it's a good answer, thanks! :)
I think a lot of those bottles do say "not for reuse" - do you happen to know why?
@Jefromi, I guess for the simple reason that it forces you to buy another one :-) It also explains why the hoax is so forceful, I believed it until today.
@Jefromi maybe its in reference to glass soda bottles, which used to be returned to the factory, washed, and reused.
@Flimzy, when will the anglo-saxons start using the metric system?
@BaffledCook, we Anglo-Saxons in Canada use the metric system (modulo growing up in the seventies or later)
@BaffledCook: Not soon enough. :/
@JamesMcLeod, please forgive my ignorance ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.490436
| 2012-05-18T08:28:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23827",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Ingrid",
"James McLeod",
"Janet Lawther",
"Julia Pleskach",
"Val Simson",
"badperson",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"iRubens",
"user1192",
"user54078",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46644
|
What is the difference between noodles and pasta?
Is pasta just a fancy name for noodle? Or is pasta always an Italian style noodle?
Is all pasta noodles? Or the other way around?
This may be more of a language question than an actual food question...
noodle comes from the German 'nudel', whereas pasta comes from italian / latin (from greek before that).
@Joe Well, in German everything is Nudel (but neither Couscous nor Gnocchi would be). If you want to charge twice as much or stress that it's Italian, you'd call it Pasta. Hence my question... is everything noodles and it's pasta only to make it sound fancy or is there more to it in English?
I think the problem here is that the definitions overlap quite a bit, which is always a good cause for confusion.
Pasta is defined as shaped dough made of Durum wheat and boiled in water. That is the traditional pasta in my opinion.
Noodles are uaully long and thin, and can be made of any starchy material, like rice or even beans.
Basically, things like risoni or even fusilli are pasta, but not noodles.
Spaghetti and fettuccine are both noodles and pasta.
Rice noodles like ramen are noodles but not pasta.
It didn't even occur to that some people might not consider noodles made from grain other than wheat to be pasta. To me rice, corn, and spelt noodles are all pasta. That would also be the case of all gluten-free pasta and Asian noodles including ramen.
All noodles are pasta, all pastas are not noodles. For instance couscous is pasta, but it bears no resemblance to a noodle. Most pasta is made of wheat flour, but not all. Even if it's made of rice or some other grain, it's still pasta, but it might not be a noodle.
To add : pasta can refer to a completed dish; so stuffed dough may be pasta (torellini, raviolli, etc.) but wouldn't be considered a noodle, although the outside would be. Although gnocchi are pasta and not a noodle, I'm not sure that all noodles are pasta (eg, german spätzle, when it's made as more a thick batter than an extruded/rolled item)
Actually, gnocchi are not considered a type of pasta. At least not traditional gnocchi made of potatoes. There are some kind of regional types of pasta (I'm speaking for Italy) that takes the name like "gnocchetti sardi" but it's just weath pasta shaped like small gnocchi
@StefanoDriussi : interesting ... I've always lumped 'em in with pasta even though they're more of a dumpling. (and come to think of it, I'd probably consider spätzle a dumpling, too). And now I have to consider if asian noodles are considered 'pasta'. (as google replaces 'pasta' with 'noodle', searching for '"asian noodle" -salad' gives 294k results, while '"asian pasta" -salad' gives only 17k. (I was trying to avoid 'asian pasta salad', but those sorts of recipes were still showing up (using italian pasta w/ asian sauces)
@Joe I think it's just a matter of translation: even in Italy when you find a menu written both in italian and english with gnocchi on the list, usually they're translated as dumplings. Guess it's due to the need to have something easily understandable without the need for an explanation by the waiter. To be precise, here in Italy the word "Noodles" is used only for asian noodles, not for any other kind of pasta, but again due to simplicity most of the people call them "spaghetti cinesi" (chinese spaghetti).
Since when are asian noodles (of which there are dozens of types by main dough recipe alone, a few of them accidentally being made from wheat!) considered pasta? And a vegetable noodle (spiralized vegetable) might or might not be a noodle, it certainly ain't pasta.
@rackandboneman I consider Asian noodles pasta. I do not consider spiralized vegetables pasta (or noodles, for that matter).
Konjac noodles, glass noodles, soba ... are these really considered pasta anywhere?
Noodle is or atleast has become a shape. Period.
In taste texture usage and ingredients, Asian and Italian "noodles" are different creatures altogether. And yes pasta is not just referring to the shape of a cooked duram wheat for. It's more of a reference to the entire dish or end result. It's a bit of a misnomer as pasta is the "noodle"" and the end resulting dish.
When I think "noodle" I think of Asian cuisine. Not Italian. However many north American folks think noodles not pasta when eating say spaghetti or linguine... why??? Not sure. It's pasta man.
Look folks, let's not confuse this issue. Noodles are pasta and pasta are noodles! All the same.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! The question here was not at all about how to tell when it's done so I edited all that out. The rest... unfortunately might be incorrect; as Jolene said, there are pastas that aren't noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.490722
| 2014-08-25T16:23:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46644",
"authors": [
"Angela Pritchett",
"Bonded Rubber Mulch LTD",
"Bryon Harvey",
"Cascabel",
"Don Kierstead",
"Heidi Ahmels",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie Lipelt",
"Justin Ellerby",
"Marilyn Archer",
"Robert",
"Stefano Driussi",
"Ywn H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44126
|
How to get breading to stick to chicken?
I made a simple breaded chicken recipe last night (mixed butter, mustard & bread crumbs together), but the mixture wouldn't stick to the chicken - any tips?
Let the chicken sit in the coating for at least 5 minutes before frying it. You can also add an egg to improve adhesion, but that isn't completely necessary unless you are doing a double breading.
This has been answered in a related question : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/13878/67
So, to sumarize & relate to your current situation : don't mix your coating together, as you want seperate alternating layers of wet & dry.
Your typical breading for chicken is:
flour, cornstarch, or some other dry powder, possibly mixed with salt, herbs and spices
egg, possibly mixed with milk or water
breadcrumbs, possibly mixed with salt, herbs and spices (but beware that some may burn).
You want to shake or let drip between each addition for nice, think coatings. If you don't, as dry won't stick to dry, and wet won't stick to wet, you'll end up having a giant slip-plain and things will slide off.
If you're pan frying (instead of deep frying), you might be able to get away with your mix while cooking, but it'll likely come off when someone goes to cut into it.
You have to get the chicken "tacky". It's great to soak it in buttermilk for a while, let the buttermilk drip off and then bread the chicken. You can also use egg. Some people use flour, then egg, then breading. It all works, but somehow the chicken needs to be sticky for breading like you describe to stick.
On fish I seen people coat it in yellow Mustard, I kid you not, then breadcrumb, flour it. The mustard can’t be tasted after cooking. Given how light a taste fish is, wonder if it would work on chicken?
I know what you're making is better than shake 'n bake, but the method for that is super simple. Mix your breading, wet your chicken (water, milk, buttermilk, whatever), put pieces of chicken in a plastic bag with with breading and shake it around until coated. Works like a charm.
For thicker breading, and if you don't mind gummy hands, try a 3 stage approach. Set out 3 plates with flour, beaten egg(s), breading. 1) Dredge chicken in flour (flavoured is nice), 2) dip dredged chicken in egg wash, 3) coat egg'd chicken in breading. Done.
Try to do this all with 1 hand so your other hand can touch stuff. It gets thick and messy fast:)
I've tried egg before, but these days I've switched to non-fat yoghurt. So I:
First lightly fry the panko breadcrumbs in a little oil and cool
(makes for a crispier chicken)
Dredge the chicken in flour
Dip the chicken in yoghurt
Bread the chicken and it sticks wonderfully
I've been using this recipe using flaxseed meal stirred into water and allowed to sit for a few minutes. It becomes just a bit gooey and does an excellent job of holding the breading in place: https://allergen-free-cuisine.blogspot.com/2014/10/allergen-free-fried-chicken.html
Mixing a little corn starch in with the flour helps the breading to stick
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.491137
| 2014-05-14T15:28:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44126",
"authors": [
"Dave Seccombe",
"Ganini Doytcha",
"Jacksonville Landscaping spam",
"Matt S",
"Neeti sharma",
"Ordell Robie Ordell Robbie",
"PolySammo ",
"The Sunrise Shack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"user60513"
],
"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
}
|
59215
|
How much meat should I serve per person?
Catering a small event tomorrow for twenty people. Serving beef brisket, pulled pork, and veggie lasagna. Question is how much brisket & pork should allow for each person? also serving three sides, rolls, etc.
Have you given a price quote yet? Are you serving buffet style? Are people going to be loading their own plates or will your staff be doing it?
About 8oz or 225g/person is probably a good place to start.
Think about when you have a standard steak or a piece of chicken in a restaurant. The pre-cooked weight will usually be in the region of 8-10oz.
A good rule of thumb is to allow 1lb of meat (before cooking) per person, not counting small children who will obviously eat less. It's better to have too much than not enough - you can always use leftovers.
I've no experience with this at all, so you might well be right, and don't take this the wrong way, but: Seriously? half a kilo of meat a person?
I think 1 lb. per person before cooking is a good guideline, you will lose some weight to moisture loss, trimming fat and bones, etc. but 1 lb. of cooked meat per person sounds like too much unless you're not serving anything else or the event is mainly about the meat (like a barbecue).
Before cooking would make more sense indeed. Still on the high side for me, I'd say 1 lb. would cover my entire dinner, but I'm not the biggest eater around ;)
Yes, before cooking of course. Who buys meat based on the cooked weight? :D And @DanC - it's brisket and pulled pork, so it's definitely a BBQ...
I think that knowing the type of people is important, too... If you have lots of ladies they will probably eat less.. All men, and you likely need more. I do think a pound seems like a lot, but with only 20, you have less wiggle room.
Sorry, I should have made it clear it's a corporate event. We were contacted by an engineering firm (yesterday. yes two day advance notice.,,lol) that's giving a luncheon presentation. Also serving a veggie lasagna for the non-meat eaters.
For a luncheon, I agree with the 8oz reply. Even though the lasagna is for non-meat eaters, everyone might view it as a desirable side dish. Curious, if you are in the business of catering, don't you already have a rule of thumb for this?
+1 for "its better to have too much". As a 6'5" 20-something year old, 1lb pre-cooked of any kind of meat is not a full portion for someone of my, erm, considerable appetite. My favorite lunches are the ones where I can eat to my preference without worrying about leaving hungry or robbing someone else of their portion. People won't be disappointed or frustrated if there's too much, but they most certainly will if there isn't enough.
@JoeTaxpayer It's possible that they don't typically do catering, or management left some poor sap without guidance :p
@CodeMoose - logically speaking, to serve 20 buffet style, you don't take the largest eater's portion and multiply by 20. The nature of "average" is that you'll have enough, as will the 3 anorexic attendees who will barely touch the food.
@JoeTaxpayer oh definitely agreed, I wasn't trying to insinuate that it makes sense to double the "average" portion - that's way overkill. Rather, I was making the point that trying to hit the "average" bullseye, in my experience, is going to leave more than one person wanting. Even if the average person eats 8oz of meat, it's folly to only provide 8oz to each person - because the individuals in your crowd are not average. Planning for 23-24 when you're given a headcount of 20 will undoubtedly leave some leftovers, but will still have everyone comfortable when people like me are involved =)
Uhh. I dunno, but... I'm a huge dude, like CodeMoose. One pound of meat before cooking is not enough. Also, we're American, so you might as well double up on the meat.
@L0j1k OP has not disclosed location, so why inflict your situation on them. Surely you are aware of what the average eats?
Well we only do catering on occasion. We are a restaurant/bar in a rural county. So when the need arises we will do something. In all honestly it's only, maybe, one every other month at this point using item items we carry on the menu. The rest have been boxed lunches for the area chamber, etc. Thanks to everyone for the input. It's been a BIG help.
Update: Thanks to everyone on the board! We only had about 1 1/2 pound of meat left when all was said and done. You folks are awesome!
@JohnnyWayneMitchell how much did you go for pp in the end?
It depends in part who you are serving--hungry college students (or those with that mindset) eat considerably more free food than do wealthy health-conscious professionals. You also need to keep in mind that while you don't want to overshoot massively, it also looks bad to run out of food. You may also need to keep in mind that a significant number of people do not eat pork for personal/religious reasons, so you want to not run too short of other options.
That said, the best way to estimate is to see what people who do this all the time provide. For instance, CityBBQ provides 8 lbs of meat for 20-24 people. Famous Dave's seems to offer about 8 lbs also, if you can count their 60 chicken wings as equivalent to your lasagna. (This is likely cooked weight, though neither site says.)
BBQ is almost always sold in cooked weight, yes... I'm a Texan. Most of the barbecue places here sell by the pound and you get to watch them weigh it.
For entertaining purposes the rule of thumb I've most commonly seen in your case, where the meat is the primary food being served, is about 8-10 ounces per person. That's size per portion after cooking. You are making pulled pork and brisket, and each of those will lose just over 40% of their weight during cooking. So if you assume 5 ounces of brisket and 5 ounces of pork per person, that's about 8.3 ounces of each meat pre-cooked per person.
So you'd probably want (number of meat eaters times 8.3) divided by 16 pounds of each meat type, plus or minus any fudge factor you wish to include.
I would go with the 10 oz. per adult. Children less. Cooked weight. As if extra some will take some home with them. This saves some from staying overnight on your floor to finish it for breakfast. So a good meal but not to much all are happy about. Were I live it is a insult to leave before all meat is gone. To your home. But all like to be well fed & happy.
In the past, when I host a party at home and I serve Buffet style with sides, Rice, Potatoes, Mc & Cheese, Salad and veggies, I end up with about 2oz of beef, whether is flank, tenderloin, etc per person. Remember, you have appetizers as well before the main and I serve, Garlic Shrimp, plus an assortment of dips & chips.
Depending on where you live, your local government food or health departments will publish a food guide or food pyramid
In many western countries that eat red meats, you will find this showing about 120 g (4 oz) of red meat, about the size of a pack of cards or a typical hamburger patie
At many functions and restaurants the host will serve more than this, this is marketing, not love
In the case of pulled pork, a generous tong load into an open roll is about 50 to 60 g (2 oz). I did a 50+ person event recently, and there was only about 1.2 pulled pork rolls per person consumed. Pulled pork loses nearly half it's weight from raw to cooked. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/57059/3203
For brisket, the loss is less (depending on beef type). And again about 50 to 60 g is a roll full, especially by the time you add some coleslaw, sauerkraut etc.
So even with if everyone has a brisket and a pork roll, you are still at 120 g cooked, or 240 g (8 oz) raw. Always over cater, as you never know who is going to turn up, and pulled pork makes great left overs
There's a huge difference between the "recommended" amount and the amount people actually eat... Telling a caterer to go by the 4 oz recommendation is like an attempt to put them out of business.
@Catija Most people in the world eat about 120 g or less, red meat per day (averaged). What's up your way?
Doesn't really matter. What someone eats on average and what they eat at a free barbecue buffet lunch aren't the same thing.
In a comment, the OP said that it is a luncheon for a corporate event. Assuming that the corporation is paying as they're the one who contacted the OP, is quite natural.
@Catija can't see comment? have remove my comment anyway
I have grilled, barbecued, smoked brisket whole my life. I would say you´ll actually need about 2 pounds/person. This is because as this homepage also tells, http://goodporkbadpork.com/how-much-brisket-per-person/ the brisket will lose about 40% if you plan on trimming it!
Over a pound of cooked meat per person seems excessive to me, unless you want leftovers ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.491540
| 2015-07-20T15:17:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59215",
"authors": [
"Alisa Douglas",
"BlueBuddy",
"Catija",
"Chris Hill",
"CodeMoose",
"Dan C",
"Debbie M.",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fon Apwa II",
"J Bergen",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"James Skinner",
"Johnny Wayne Mitchell",
"L0j1k",
"Maryjo Baker",
"Mohsen Goli",
"Ralph West",
"Ruth Snow",
"Sarah Fador",
"Suaifa Abbas",
"TFD",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"abdul rahaman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74997
|
Higher temp and lower rack for thicker crust in brownies?
I would like to thicken the crust of my brownies. Will I be able to achieve this by setting the pan at a lower level on the oven racks and increasing the temperature? Or do I maintain the same temperature and increase the time? My oven uses a large heating element attached from the top -- that's also where the thermometer hangs.
Presently, the brownies I have are nicely done through and through, but it seems to need a thicker crust. Is this achievable? Or does having a thick crust sacrifice internal doneness due to non-penetration of overhead heat?
Recipe is as follows:
80-g (3/4 cup) pecan halves, roasted and chopped
88g (3 oz) unsweetened chocolate
1 tsp salt
220g (~1/2 lb) unsalted butter
150g (3/4 cup) granulated sugar
100g (1/2 cup) brown sugar
2 large eggs (~110g)
1 1/2 tsp vanilla extract
140g (3/4 cup) All-purpose flour
18 g (1/8 cup) cocoa powder
Deposited in 12-slot pan made for circular cupcakes. 30 mins in a 350F oven with the thermometer hanging directly on the heating element.
Use your normal recipe and then leave the brownies in the oven with the heat turned off!
Start with 10 minutes and next time increase the time until you've reached the crust thickness you desire.
Why?
Leaving them in the oven with the heat turned off will keep on drying the crust (thus thickening it) until the oven cools down completely. (Don't leave them that long or you'll have a brick instead of brownies)
;-)
The last time I read that in a recipe was for oven-bake churros -- leave them in the oven. I'll try in my next batch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.492225
| 2016-10-25T10:21:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74997",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61734
|
re:salad dressing shelf storage
can I process salad dressing for shelf life in a water bath or pressure canner and if I can how long is the process time, I can't find out anything about it please help.
It REALLY depends on the recipe you are using.
Lots of salad dressings contain either dairy or oil and neither of these can be safely waterbathed OR pressure canned.
Something like a seasoned vinegar might be okay though however I am unable to give advice on how to process that safely.
check http://nchfp.uga.edu/ for guidelines and safe processes and recipes (their search feature on their website is pretty good)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.492374
| 2015-09-14T18:11:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61734",
"authors": [
"Allen Mudrowsky",
"Dianna Sumph",
"Jody Warner",
"Marie Yaremko",
"Richard Schader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146542",
"hubert Pearson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22365
|
How can I substitute English Toffee in cookies?
I found a cookie recipe which requires "English Toffee bars". I have never seen them around here, and don't know what they are.
What are these bars? Is there any substitution I can use? How close are Toffifee candies?
If it just said "toffee", I would cook it at home. But I am unsure what the differences are between an English toffee bar and normal toffee. Can I still cook it? How does it differ from normal toffee? Or can I just put normal toffee in the cookies?
English toffee is very chewy - the kind of stuff that glues your teeth together! Once it has been cooked and set, it's not easy to handle and wouldn't be easy to chop up for a cookie recipe. You'd possibly be better off with some kind of fudge which is easier to handle but will still hold its shape in a cookie.
It's just a HARD bar of toffee. It often looks like a chocolate bar, as it is marked into break-off segments
Modern "English Toffee" recipes call for toffee with a chocolate coating dusted with chopped nuts. I don't think this is really traditional English toffee
Use regular butter and sugar toffee as a substitute
Break-off segments of toffee? In 24 years living in England I don't think I ever saw something like this.
If the origin of the recipe is American, by "English Toffee" they probably actually mean Heath Bars. Heath Bars are, of course, chocolate-covered, but it's occasionally possible to find "bare" Heath toffee in the baking aisle of various supermarkets.
If the recipe is British or French in origin, it could refer to chewy English toffee (per Red Spatula), which is quite different. If it's from some other country, who knows?
Yes, they mean Heath bars (it is specified in the recipe). But I have never seen them here in Germany. Any ideas for a substitute?
@rumtscho Wikipedia suggests Skor or Daim/Dime.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.492472
| 2012-03-18T13:07:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22365",
"authors": [
"Charles Lai",
"Hemant Jain",
"Peter Taylor",
"SNT",
"Swift Candy",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"josinalvo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18930
|
An efficient way to zest key limes?
Due to my affinity for baked goods, I decided to try creating key lime pie filling from scratch. I've done so twice now using two recipes. The first of which calls for key lime zest as a primary ingredient. The second of which does not, though a recommended modification of the recipe, which I followed, does call for it.
Timing the process, it took me about 20-25 minutes to grate 3 tsp. of zest from my key limes using a planar grater/zester and a small ceramic bowl. I would like to significantly speed up this process if I can, but the size and texture of key limes makes them difficult to zest for more than a pinch at a time.
Is there a faster way? I was thinking of doing something crazy with my food processor or investing in a proper zester, though I'm not sure how much this would speed things along. There also seem to be rather expensive products like the Spin Zester out there, but they seem of dubious applicability to this problem.
It seems to me, that a quality planar grater is the best solution. The Spin Zester is way too expensive for a home kitchen. I can recommend this fine micro plane grater for zesting:
I'll second the microplane. I use the long skinny one instead of the model above, but I can zest 6 key limes in about 4 minutes. Maybe the asker just needs more practice ... or safety gloves.
Or the Microplane. We have this big, bulky cheese grater with a fine grater/zester attached to it. The thing is dull and slips around, making a complete mess of the process and taking additional time to secure. This will do nicely.
And one can be purchased for $13.16 through Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Microplane-38004-Professional-Spice-Grater/dp/B00009WE3Z . Very nice. I'll see how it works for me.
@soegaard Worked like a charm. The 38004 took the zesting time down from 25 minutes to around 2.5. That'll do. Thanks!
@MrGomez Great!
When I need larger amounts of zest, I peel the fruit with a knife as best I can, scrape off the white part, and then use a food processor or finely chop it. This is slower for small amounts, but much faster for large amounts.
I think this is actually slower than using a zester. I can zest a lemon in about 15 seconds with one... it'll take longer just to peel, let alone scrape the peel down.
I guess it depends on what you are good at.
With a very heavy and sharp knife (think atsu-deba), there is a good chance to get peel off citrus fruit in ca. 1x3cm pieces without any pith....
I just began zesting key limes and I found a professional zester at Wal-Mart for $ 13.85! It took me about 5 key limes to begin to get the hang of it, but now I can do 80 key limes in about 45 minutes.
The best thing is to practice using no gloves. Be sure to keep the limes cool especially after zesting. This leaves the original lime without a peeling surface but still full of juice and ready to squeeze!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.492650
| 2011-11-13T12:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18930",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Crystal",
"FuzzyChef",
"Lisa Mecca-Primps",
"MrGomez",
"Nayrb",
"Rohit",
"Rud Faden",
"denys",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"michael",
"rackandboneman",
"soegaard"
],
"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
}
|
10620
|
Improvised self-raising flour
Say I just ran out of self-raising flour. What can I add to plain flour to make the equivalent?
According to http://southernfood.about.com/cs/breads/ht/self_rise_flour.htm, you would add 1.5 teaspoons baking powder and 1/2 teaspoon salt to each cup of flour.
Salt is only added to US self-rising flour. In the UK, where it's called self-raising flour there is no salt added to the flour itself.
I've done this, and it works just fine. You can sift to make sure the additional ingredients filter through, or you can simply use a fork or whisk.
While it works as above, note that self-raising flour is generally softer wheat than all purpose flour (matters with biscuits and cakes) and the manufacturers have access to more kinds of leavenings than you do. So while the fix will work, there is still a good reason to keep the self-rising flour around.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.492908
| 2010-12-31T03:59:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10620",
"authors": [
"CarrKnight",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Marissa",
"Martha F.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"user21777"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22155
|
How to make sweet-tasting noodles?
I've never made noodle dough before, and I want to try it today. However, I'd like to make the noodles more sweet.
Is the base ingredient ratio for making the noodle dough one egg per 100g flour?
How can I make it sweeter? Would I just add sugar or is there a better ingredient to add that will not change the texture of the noodles?
Will adding butter and milk change the texture of the noodle?
I want to start cooking now, no answers yet? I guess I'll have to find out myself...
Butter and milk will add fat and water which will definitely change the consistency of the dough. You will have to adjust the ratios if you add them (surely more flour if you add milk).
If you want sweet noodles my best bet would be to add sugar, although I wouldn't do sweet egg noodles... maybe sweet rice noodles?
Why don't you just do plain noodles and then make a sweet condiment instead?
Tried it now, I added sugar only... it didn't taste very good. I guess you're right, a sweet condiment or so might be a better idea. However, sweet rice noodles sounds really tasty :)
Do I need the same amount of flour for normal noodles and rice noodles? And how long does it take until they're cooked?
hmmmm... never made rice noodle in my life sorry! :) Cooking is very fast for fresh pasta, less than 3-4 minutes (depending on the thickness). Generally rice noodle even cook faster.
I don't know if the fat in milk will change the texture too much. Spätzle are often made with milk or cheese as the liquid. If you want to add milk to egg noodles, you can either use more liquid (making them spätle-like), or substitute milk instead of egg, which won't increase the fat content much.
@rumtscho: hmmmm... I think Spätzle have a pretty different texture than egg noodles, don't you think (at least the ones I have eaten, I don't know how original they were though)?
Yes, their texture is different. But my point is that they are a type of noodles with fat, and they don't fall apart or anything when boiled. It is obvious that the more the ratio of liquid to flour is changed by the addition of milk, the more the texture will be changed - but fat isn't the reason.
@rumtscho: you're right, I'll remove that from the answer
I swear I'll get killed for suggesting german/austrian things here one day ... well, if we want sweet noodles, we cook them in sugar and milk (you could use soymilk or almond milk) instead of water (adding more milk when needed and letting it absorb), the pasta absorbs plenty of the mixture. Known as a simple children's dish (Milchnudeln), but there are also more evolved forms like Ödenburger Auflauf, an old-school comfort food that combines sweet noodles with poppyseed filling,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.493273
| 2012-03-10T17:29:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22155",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Jordan Shilling",
"JustPassingBy",
"Kenneth",
"dot_zero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"thejh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10070
|
1/4 cup of shredded basil OR 1/4 cup of basil that is then shredded?
I am thinking of making a Chicken Parmigiana that I found on the Lidia's Italy website - http://lidiasitaly.com/recipes/detail/398. The recipe calls for "1/4 cup fresh basil leaves, shredded."
I am trying to figure out whether this means that (a) I should shred the basil and then measure out 1/4 cup or (b) if I should be measuring a 1/4 cup of whole basil leaves and then shred that.
Is there a significant difference between the two options? What is normally intended?
See also this question
Volume measurements of herbs are hopelessly imprecise to begin with; what you actually measure as 1/4 cup depends entirely on how tightly you pack them, how wet the leaves are, even the size/shape of your measuring cup or spoon. When given a measurement like that, you should always treat it as a rough guideline; don't worry about being exact, it's not necessary in this recipe.
That said, what it actually means is that you should measure out the 1/4 cup and then shred them. Another example of this type of language is when you see something like "4 tbsp of vegetable oil, divided" - that always means you measure out the 4 tbsp and then divide into two portions, not measure out two separate portions of 4 tbsp each.
So measure it first, then shred it. If you were supposed to shred it first, it would say "1/4 cup shredded fresh basil leaves" instead. There is an appreciable difference as to how much basil you'll end up with, but again, you've been given a very rough measurement to begin with, so treat it accordingly, and don't worry if you've got a little extra or a little less. The most reliable way to know if you've got the right amount is to simply taste it.
I'm guessing sometimes writers/editors aren't quite this careful about precise wording. "1/2 cup chopped walnuts" should mean volume after chopping, and I'd think "1/2 cup walnuts, chopped" would mean volume before chopping, but some more careless people might use them interchangeably. All the more reason to go with "taste it" (or smell, or look, as appropriate).
@Jefromi: Yeah, I can't vouch for every single cookbook or recipe writer, of course there are going to be some who get it wrong or backwards, and probably some who aren't even consistent across their own recipes! Tasting is definitely one way (and a good way) around this ambiguity, but IMO the best way is to eliminate the ambiguity by using recipes with weight measurements. 250 g of chopped walnuts is the same as 250 g of whole walnuts.
Thank you for clarifying the language. The difference between "1/4 cup basil, shredded" and "1/4 cup shredded basil" now makes more sense.
Personally, I'd read that as measure first... shred second... There is a difference as shredded leaves will take up a lot less space than non-shredded.
But... regardless with fresh basil (and other herbs) you usually add right at the end to get maximum flavour impact (fresh herbs' flavour will diminish if cooked for long periods of time). Since this is the case, the key part in that recipe "stir in the basil and taste". Add in the roughly 1/4 cup, taste and add then more to get the impact you like.
Agreed on measure first, shred second (based on the comma in the ingredients list), but shreded vs. non-shreded basil really doesn't make a significant difference in volume. (cheese, however, is a completely different story)
I like the "stir in basil and taste" methodology; that makes sense to me now. I will be sure to do that when I make this recipe!
Keep in mind that these quantities aren't even right in the book.
The original recipe called for
"Reach into the garden, and grab a medium handful of basil -- Yeah, that looks about right..."
But cookbook publishers insist on everything being a measured quantity. So very often, the end up making a precise, yet wrong quantity. This is particularly prevalent in recipes from famous chefs and restaurants. The Batali cookbook is notorious for it's screwed up quantities. You see, Mario has never made 4 servings of X in his life. He makes 25-50 servings. Now, divide that "1 head of Garlic" into a home quantity, and you'll probably be wrong.
This relates to my answer about recipe scaling as well. So often, the reason a recipe doesn't scale up/down properly is because the initial quantities were little more than a wild guess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.493502
| 2010-12-13T18:40:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10070",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bryan",
"Cascabel",
"Digital Lightcraft",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Marius",
"Mesoganthous",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"monica",
"user20618",
"user20622"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10379
|
How can I make the best use of prime beef?
I generally buy Choice grade beef, but will sometimes spend the extra money and buy Prime.
How should I prepare Prime beef so as to take proper advantage of the additional tenderness, marbling and overall flavour of this grade?
So far I've just been serving it on the rare side, or making carpaccio, but would not have a problem with serving it less rare.
I've edited this to relate as specifically as possible to the properties of the Prime grade itself; although the answers have been pretty good so far, the previous version of the question seemed to be inviting recipe suggestions.
If I'm spending the money to get prime, aged beef, I'm going to cook it rare if I cook it at all. The more you cook it, the more flavor you're going to lose. In the restaurant business, it's not uncommon to slip you a substandard chunk of meat if you order the fillet and you order it well done. How would you know the difference between good and bad at that point?
Likewise a lot of additions. There is a place in town here that does an extraordinary fillet stuffed with goat cheese and cranberries, and one of the best I've ever tasted was covered with bearnaise and crabmeat, but, as a general rule, don't add a lot of extra flavors to high quality beef. The worst thing you can do is hide the taste, since that's what you're paying for.
Still, aside from the two that I mentioned, you can stuff with blue cheese, make beef wellington, or make beef stroganoff (Link is to James Beards version, which, imho, is the best); quality of meat is huge in stroganoff. I'd only use fillet there, or some other very lean cut. Saved the marbled stuff for the grill.
Agreed with all points flavor as far as conventional wisdom. Since I can't handle fully rare myself, I'd still go for med-rare if you're talking steaks. Also, prime rib is somewhat more generally acceptable for company more into the medium range, in my experience. Depends on who you're serving. Most vendor websites advertising prime beef display it seared.
I find beef is better seared at very high temperature, then finished under the the broiler... well when there's no grill available because of winter obviously.
Good ingredients don't usually need lots of fancy prep...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.493949
| 2010-12-21T14:42:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10379",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Karen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"ksigmund",
"niftygrifty",
"rom86",
"rossinhawaii",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11698
|
Do you have to refrigerate Pickles?
So last weekend the wife and I got a huge jar of pickles at Costco. The thing is bigger than a gallon of milk (the wife really loves her pickles). There really isn't any room for it in the fridge, but no where on the jar does it say 'refrigerate after opening', but I've always kept them in the fridge (and so does everyone else I know).
I know that pickles use to be kept out of refrigeration in barrels and I realize that the salt in the brine should keep anything bad from happening, but does anyone actually keep their pickles at room temp? Are there downsides to this?
Thanks
Can't put this as an answer since it's just anecdotal heresay, but when I go to the local convenience store, they have a giant vat of unrefrigerated pickles that's probably been there for years, if that helps. If it was dangerous I'd think the health inspector would shut them down.
How long will fermented/brined pickles last?: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44556/how-long-will-fermented-brined-pickles-last
In brine or in vinegar? Massive difference. Brine fridge, vinegar cupboard.
Traditional fermented pickles were kept in barrels, but they're not the kind that you buy in a big jar at Costco. Those pickles have been briefly cooked in a brine, and should be refrigerated after you open the jar. The salt and vinegar should keep them safe for a while, but they will likely go bad at room temperature before you finish eating the whole jar.
As an anecdotal note, an office I used to work in kept one of these large jars of pickles around. After being open for a few years, they were clearly spoiled, and nobody would touch them.
Isn't the whole point of brining to preserve the vegetable though?
I have eaten pickles kept at room temperature for many months with no sign of spoilage. Here is a bit more explanation :)
Anything can spoil eventually, refrigerated or not. Keeping something under a lid and refrigerated restricts the number of airborne colonizers that might get access to it, and the cold temperature means that even if they get there, they will grow much slower than at room temperature.
For something to spoil, it needs to be colonized by bacteria or fungus spores, and it needs to contain some nourishment to support their growth, not too much chemicals that prevent their growth, and not too much competing life forms already present. So, things with a high concentration of salt or sugar tend to be unhospitable to bacteria and fungi growth, because they are hygroscopic (they draw the water out of cells). Extreme high or low pH (eg acidic) also retards growth. Think of things like ketchup, mustard, jelly with labels that say "refrigerate after opening" but most people ignore them. Alcohol is unfriendly if the concentration is too high, and of course natural fermented foods are already occupied by human-friendly bacteria.
Pickles are sealed in a jar, with periodic access by hands or utensil. They are also protected by a hygroscopic acidic brine. The invention of pickling was done as a preservation method when refrigeration was not available (although modern methods are different as another post pointed out). I think you can leave them out with no worries unless you see obvious mold growth.
The non refrigerated life of things like pickles can be greatly enhanced by careful access to the barrel.
In a closed room with still air, open the barrel. Using a very clean ladle, decant enough to fill your normal sized jar, and then close the barrel firmly and store in cool dark place.
As long as the main storage barrel is only open a few times in clean conditions, it should not get contaminated, and should therefore last a significant time.
Total time will also be affected by how well the contents were preserved in the first place!
Traditional sour/salty pickles certainly don't need refrigeration. Commercial pickles might be another thing entirely, however, if their brine is weaker. If the brine is too weak, expect mold to develop on the surface. Even then, I doubt that they would become unsafe before the brine grew mold. I'd say if your pickles didn't come from the refrigerator section and don't instruct you to refrigerate after opening, you'd be OK.
I'm less certain about the shelf life of unrefrigerated sweet pickles, but I would guess the same concerns would apply.
If you leave them out, make sure there's sufficient brine to completely cover the pickles--the expose pickles would go bad faster. I do know that unrefrigerated pickles aren't as crunchy as the same ones that have been kept cold, so that could be a consideration too.
My wife and I are having a mexican stand off over this issue: refrigerate or not regridgerate;
I like them room temperature and shee likes them cold.
I think they are okay because they are fermented. Vinegar and salt are preservatives. That being said, I think staying out for a week or so pickles are safe to eat. To go longer I don't know because they never last that long in our house.
Cold pickles are definitely an acquired taste. Perhaps it's time to grab an old Mayo bottle and make yourself a room-temp pickle subjar.
In this wild world of litigation, it surprises me that there is anything left that DOESN"T state, "refrigerate after opening....." With that said, I'd feel safe to assume that refrigeration really isn't required, granted one follows some general rules-of-thumb; try to store it away from light and heat. I prefer cold pickles but sometimes I just don't have the room so I'll transfer a few to a more manageable (and chill-worthy) container for future enjoyment. Yum........
When I was a child - 1960's - no-one had fridges, so everything went in the cupboard/pantry.
From that I learned that if it's in vinegar, though the pickles will soften over time & become less palatable if kept a long time - maybe a year or more - they will still be OK to eat.
Pickles in brine I never saw until I was much older; perhaps because they wouldn't keep without refrigeration.
I find brined pickles will still go off far too quickly in the fridge unless topped up with boiled salted water.
I find the general guideline to still be true today. Vinegar cupboard, brine fridge. This extends to bottled sauces too; ketchup, HP, Worcester etc, cupboard.
The UK's consumer magazine, Which, did a study; well worth a look
Are you storing your condiments correctly?
I just bought a huge jar of Vlasic brand kosher dill pickles at Costco myself, 1 gallon jar. it says refrigerate after opening on the lid on this one..
I say refrigerate them. Throughout my life, I've notice that eating opened unrefrigerated pickles give me terrible diahrreah (sorry for the TMI). Not once has it ever happened with a refrigerated one.
Most commercial pickles also contain sodium benzoate, a preservative used in many acidic foods and sodas. What sodium benzoate does is reduce the chance of spoilage through the pickle vinegar absorbing benzoic acid. Chances are an opened jar of pickles stored outside of the fridge and in a cooler, dark location (eg, a kitchen cabinet) will last quite a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.494183
| 2011-01-31T18:48:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11698",
"authors": [
"Ayesha Grace Tharasingh",
"Carl Hebden",
"Cole Busby",
"Embedded_Mugs",
"Renae",
"Spammer",
"Tetsujin",
"Tom Secrest",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"blackberrystew",
"chappy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91577",
"littleturtle",
"rgb_jewel",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user24033"
],
"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
}
|
18330
|
Would honey and molasses be liquids or sugars in a bread formula?
If 60-85% is the percentage range for the liquid amount in a bread formula, and 0-10% for the sugar amount, my question would be if you are using honey and molasses in the formula would they be counted towards the liquid portion or the sugar portion?
Doesn't sugar traditionally count as a wet ingredient in baking?
@KateyΨ depends http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/564/why-is-sugar-a-wet-ingredient
@Katey in batters, the order of incorporation matters. There, sugar is added to the "wet" half, because 1) you want to dissolve crystal sugar in a liquid and 2) it gives you more air when creamed with butter or whipped with the eggs. Also notice that "wet" and "liquid" is not the same, also outside of cooking: "dry" cleaning is done with a liquid chemical. When used precisely, "liquid" should be a phase of matter, and "wet" means that the thing is capable of giving off water. But this precision is not usual in recipes.
Conclusion of my previous comment: In baking, "wet" vs. "dry" is not the same as "liquid" vs something else (usually flour, but also some bulking ingredients). The first is about order of mixing, the second is about ratio.
They are definitely counted towards the sugar.
The simple part of the answer is hydration. The primary purpose of the liquid in dough is to hydrate the starch in the flour. Honey and molasses are pure sugars and contain no water. Even though their phase is liquid, they shouldn't be counted as a liquid for making bread. You can't hydrate a starch with sugar.
In fact, the "liquid" part in the bread formula should mean water. There are breads made with liquids other than water (e.g. milk), but these liquids are mostly water with something dissolved in it. A liquid with no water in it doesn't count at all for hydration. This includes honey and oil.
The more complex answer should consider two other effects of liquid in the bread formula. First, there is the dough consistency. Bread is about texture. A liquid dry ingredient will not hydrate the flour, but it will still reduce the viscosity of your dough. Big amounts of it will make a very soft dough which doesn't keep its shape well, has a big oven spring, and in general doesn't behave like classic lean dough. So a recipe containing lots of such an ingredient will still need an adjustment of the amount of hydrating liquid (like water) even though the ingredient (like honey) is considered dry.
The second effect of adding a dry liquid ingredient is that it will make your bread softer. First, you are introducing new molecules into the dough, which keep the gluten strands from finding each other. So you get a less sturdy gluten formation, resulting in a more cakelike bread (yes, cake is cakelike because it has sugar and fat). Also, baked bread loses water over time and gets hard, but sugar binds some of the lost water, and fat prevents the evaporation of the water. A stale enriched (=containing fat and sugar) bread is still stale, but very different in texture from a stale lean bread. So again, you might still want to adjust the amount of hydrating liquid downwards a bit because of this effect your dry ingredient will have on your recipe (or maybe not, if you view the effect as desirable).
Thank you so much for your detailed response, I will certainly adjust to that effect. Thank you again Lisa
Honey is a good 17% water. It is very hygroscopic so it will help moisturize otherwise dry bread by pulling moisture from the air. Because of these things it can't always be substituted for sugar without adjusting the water in the recipe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/howtocook/primers/breadingredients
To be clear- I agree with everything else in this answer.
Minor nitpick, cake is also cakelike because it uses low-gluten flour. Sometimes milled differently (e.g., finer), too.
Thank you all for your answers. I will take them all into consideration upon fine tuning my whole wheat sandwich bread recipe.
@derobert Not in Europe - there is no "cake flour" here and I can assure you that our cakes are cakelike. We don't get flour graded by gluten content, and some types of wheat popular in North America are not grown here at all. But if you do use cake flour, this is of course a factor which changes texture.
@Sobachatina - in Peter Reinhart's formulas, which don't fail me, sugar and honey are a 1-to-1 substitute. Bread dough can handle a certain amount of variance in the wetness, which is seen by most recipes showing a range for liquid amounts.
@justkt that's not the same thing as "contains no water", though.
I accidentally discovered a softer bread by adding honey. I forgot to reduce the water and had to add at least a cup (or so) of flour to stiffen it back up again. I never did get the former feel of the dough (making bread) but it turned out better (and softer) than expected. I still used sugar, but not as much as before. An accidental discovery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.494715
| 2011-10-12T02:19:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18330",
"authors": [
"Katey HW",
"Lisa",
"Noor E Siddika Swapnil",
"Sobachatina",
"adrian",
"baka",
"blablatros",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7627",
"justkt",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user39661"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18422
|
Why do crisp bread rolls have more water than soft bread rolls?
I was wondering why my recipe for crisp bread rolls needed more water than soft bread rolls.
There's several things going on here:
Water itself doesn't really make it crisp or not...per se. What may happen there is that the water will release in the oven as steam and that contributes to a 'crisp crust'. More water will thus generally mean a crispier crust - because it steams more. You can accentuate this by baking in a closed container like a dutch oven or by creating steam in the oven artificially (thats what 'real' bakery ovens do, inject steam).
The reason bread is soft on the inside however has a lot more to do with two major things.
The sugar content
The fat content
Increasing both of these will make your bread softer. So if your softer recipe also includes more these, thats why they're softer - not the water content.
The flour type...kind of. Softness and chewiness aren't quite opposites, but if you're looking for Wonderbread, you'll want to avoid high protein flours and go for something like all purpose flour. 'Chewiness' can be perceived as less soft. Chewiness is generally a result of more gluten. With all purpose flour, you'll end up with less gluten and as a result, less chewiness. Using a high protein dough, you end up with something chewy like pizza dough or such. Since gluten forms easier with wetter doughs (thats what the whole no knead movement is about) - the water content also plays a factor here. It will make it chewier - which can be interrupted as less soft.
If you're looking for Wonderbread you should have your baking license revoked.
@Sobachatina Agreed
@rfusca: it's per se not persay :)
@rfusca: no prob. At least I find some use for sitting for 5 years in Latin classes when I was in high school :P
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.495112
| 2011-10-18T02:54:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18422",
"authors": [
"HlT",
"RianBattle",
"Sobachatina",
"bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"lahwran",
"nico",
"rfusca",
"sara zisko",
"user45944"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20114
|
Can I grill a chicken/turkey breast in the night and eat it 12:00 and 18:00?
First of all, I'm sorry for my English, I'm not fluent.
I'm on a diet where I can eat only chicken breast and ground muscle (don't know the right word for this but I tried) as the meat (and fish, but I don't like it). Since I work like 10 hours a day and I don't come home for lunch, I have to take my food to the work. So I usually cook the meal at night and I have lunch for like 2 days.
But when I tried to grill the chicken, the taste wasn't very nice. The only condiment I'm using is salt. So, here is my question: can I grill a chicken breast at night and eat it at 12:00pm and 18:00pm? Are there any risks of getting food poisoning or something like that?
BTW, can someone give me some tips about maintaining the chicken/turkey breast in the refrigerator (and not in freezer)?
Any kind of cooked meat or fish and most perishable foods in general are safe as long as they are fully cooked and refrigerated within 2 hours (although the quality will deteriorate rapidly with fish).
If you plan to eat the leftovers twice then refrigerate two individual portions. Reheating the same item multiple times raises the risk of bacterial contamination. That is really the only thing you need to concern yourself with for short-term storage.
For more information see the USDA Basics for Handling Food Safely.
Aaronut, thank you so much.
So I can grill it, put in the refrigerator and eat it 12, 24 or 48 hours later, as long as I heat each portion separately, right? I ask this because short-term storage is a little bit indefinate for me (sorry).
Dispite the taste, there's nothing wrong with that, right?
@Andre: I wouldn't keep any meat (raw or cooked) for much longer than 48 hours in the fridge, but yes, that's fine.
thanks a lot! After 24 hours the taste of the meat is a little bit different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.495285
| 2012-01-01T15:28:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20114",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andre",
"Destiny Autumn Bear",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8534",
"user43970"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22339
|
Difference between boiling and steaming vegetables?
I have eaten both boiled vegetables and steamed vegetables (e.g. broccoli, carrot, zucchini etc.), and I cannot tell the vegetables are cooked in one way or the other, whether by texture or by taste (unless they are boiled in broth; here, I refer to boiling in water).
Is there a reason why vegetables are preferred boiled to steamed, or vice versa?
To boil vegetables, you add the vegetables to a pot of water, and boil the water for a short duration until the vegetables are sufficiently cooked. One may add salt or other flavorings (such as broth, as you mentioned) to the water prior to boiling.
Steamed vegetables are cooked in a steamer basket, where the vegetables are not in the water, but are instead sitting above the water, and are thus cooked by steam.
Salt must be added to steamed vegetables after they are cooked rather than to the water prior to cooking, since salt does not evaporate.
Steamed vegetables can retain more of their original flavor and nutrients, since they do not leech out into the water during boiling. On the other hand, you cannot add additional flavors to your vegetables during steaming--since flavors cannot soak into the vegetables from the water, either.
Which taste/texture you prefer, of course, can be a matter of personal opinion.
In my experience, boiled vegetables are often mistakenly referred to as steamed vegetables. And often, many restaurants will sell "steamed vegetables" which are really just microwaved frozen vegetables, which may strictly be steamed (it certainly isn't boiled!), but really bears little resemblance to the true steaming process (and has relatively poor flavor, as well).
+1 - very comprehensive answer.I think the key thing to highlight here is that they retain a significantly higher amount of their nutritional value.
Is it true that steaming veggies cannot absorb any added flavors? I often add garlic cloves and salt to my veggies once they start sweating, and notice a world of difference in the taste.
@mdegges: That depends on two main things: The flavor, and how it's added. Most flavors, added to the water, will not be absorbed by the steamed vegetables, because the flavors don't evaporate, and the vegetables never come in contact with the water (only the water vapor). Some "flavors" might evaporate (alohol evaporates, for instance... if you would consider that a flavor), so the vegetables might absorb some of that.
I think frequently when vegetables are steamed over water with aromatics, they're referred to as being "scented". They certainly can absorb some flavors, but it's totally different than if they're boiled with the flavorings.
Steaming vegetables retain their natural flavor and nutrients. Boiling vegetables leave the vegetables tasteless and bland. Most chefs will then add salt and butter.
Vegetables that are properly boiled can remain flavorful, just as vegetables that are improperly steamed can become bland.
The flavor does evaporate if they reach boiling point. It's the temperature at which molecules get enough energy to "fly" and circulate. For example, the flavour of many spices is given by volatile compounds that "fly" even at room temperature. There are many other examples of volatile compounds in liquids. In those cases, flavor can be given (or taken, depending on the point of view) by the steam formed in the process
I don't understand what you are trying to say about the cooking results. How does the way the vegetables are heated affect the amounts of volatile compounds left or evaporated? I can cook my vegetables in 100 degrees boiling water on in 100 degrees steam, still all the compounds which evaporate below 100 degrees will fly away and all the ones which don't evaporate will stay where they are.
I believe this answer was probably intended as a comment on the other answer.
You Can Add Flavour to The food being Steamed. For example Steaming Mussels in Beer or wine you can also add thing to the bottom steaming pot such as blue cheese onions pepper, and those flavours will end up in the mussels in the top.
and some of the Mussel flavour ends up in the bottom pot which happens to make a very nice soup.
Hello and welcome. Your post does not answer answer the question as to the difference between boiling and steaming or why one method may be preferred over the other. I think I can read into your post what you are saying, but you should edit to make the intent clear. As you are new to the site it would benefit you to visit our Help Center (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.495473
| 2012-03-17T05:18:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22339",
"authors": [
"Achraf El",
"Cindy",
"Flimzy",
"Frances Lyons",
"Len Forder",
"Michael Platt",
"SourDoh",
"Steve Clarke",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96896",
"mdegges",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73298
|
Cast iron meat grinder; first time used had black stuff in it
I just bought a cast iron meat grinder; used it for the first time to grind a roast for hamburg. When finished there was some black residue around the handle and meant had some dark spots in it. Is this normal or should I throw away the meat?
Is there advice on cleaning before first use in the manual, and did you follow it?
If you did not clean and run an initial process through the grinder before using it for the first time, I recommend discarding the meat.
When the machine was packaged, oil was probably used to prevent sticking or corrosion during storage. Also, chemical residues from protectants and finishes may still be present in the machine. Before the first use, it is best to thoroughly clean the device and to put through a generous portion of raw meat fat to "sweep out" metal dust and filings and to clean up excess lubricant. Discard the raw meat fat where no animals will be able to scavenge it.
Cheap, plain dough could also viably get a lot of crud out on a budget (yes, meat grinders can handle dough. Some people own meat grinders JUST for pastry extrusion purposes and never grind meat.)
Sorry, but I can't imagine a food-processing piece of cast iron being coated with anything that is dangerous. I imagine the blackness you see is some remnant of cold seasoning. (Raw cast iron starts rusting immediately, within 30 seconds or less, if it does not have a protective coating of oil applied; in the case of kitchen equipment, it's food-safe oil. I suspect that not all the oil was cleaned off at the factory, given that the processes are automated now.) I don't think you should worry about it.
I refinish vintage and cast iron cookware as a hobby. I am well familiar with it.
If it comes with clear instruction to do X to get rid of unhealthy or unpalatable coating Y, I find that easy to imagine :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.495842
| 2016-08-21T16:49:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73298",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76967
|
What is the cocoa solids percentage of Hershey's semi-sweet chips?
What is the percentage of cocoa solids in Hershey's semi-sweet chocolate chips? Need to use it for a recipe that calls for 70-72% Cocoa solids.
You cannot just melt chocolate chips and use them in a recipe that calls for chocolate of a given percentage, even if it is the same percentage as in the chips! Chocolate chips have additives which totally change their melting behavior, so they won't work the same way chocolate does.
I don't believe any chocolate chips are going to have that high a percentage of cacao solids. According to Cook's Illustrated the percentage of cacao solids in Hershey's semi-sweet chips is 42%. Hershey's Special Dark chips came in at 45%. Of all the bitter-sweet and semi-sweet chips they tested 60% was the highest amount listed (in Ghirardelli 60% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Chips).
Guittard makes 63% chips I think, but yeah, 70% is pretty high for chocolate chips, and Hershey's is nowhere near the high end.
Equal Exchange dark chocolate chips are 70%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.496110
| 2016-12-31T15:44:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76967",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70986",
"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
}
|
111041
|
How can I fix my parsnip puree?
So I've been trying to up my cooking/plating game.
I see that in many Michelin Star restaurants it's almost a meme to plate some protein on a vegetable 'puree' base, put some flowers and greens on top, and maybe some herb oil.
So I found some parsnips in the store, and I made a parsnip puree after looking at a couple of youtube videos.
I basically used ~500g Parsnips, 4 chopped cloves of garlic, ~365ml Half and Half, and ~50g Butter, along with a bit of salt. After bringing it all to a boil, I simmered it until the parsnips were fork-tender and simply blitzed it in a blender until I got a smooth puree.
I served this by putting some sautee'd fish on top. Very simple just to see how the flavor combo worked.
I think I messed up by using Parsnip Puree instead of Cauliflower Puree - the parsnips are pretty earthy. While it worked with the fish, it wasn't as smooth as I would have liked.
It's definitely easy to play around with on the plate for nice platings/smears, but I'm just not sure if I love the flavor by itself. Very earthy - I mean, it tastes like parsnips - so I'm wondering how to fix this.
Should I add something crazy into it like a fortified chicken broth/demi glace?
Is it better with meats?
Does it need to go with an acidic sauce?
Any ideas?
Sorry, Mikhail...opinion based Q&A doesn't work well on Seasoned Advice.
To clarify Moscafj: you are requesting responses that are pure opinion. There is no way to have a "right" answer. For more, see: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
@moscafj : although "pairing" questions are frowned upon, he's stated that he has a problem (puree is too earthy) and has asked for what to add to it to make it more palatable. If he were asking about it as fixing a single recipe, and not as a pairing, that would be acceptable.
@Joe many posts can be edited to fit the context of the site. If the OP starts with the heading/initial question, then rephrases the issue in terms of your suggestions, I would agree with your assessment.
@moscafj : I'm not going to argue that it's a good question -- it's kinda all over the place. But even a sub-par question can be answered politely when the general intent is known. I view it as trying to build a community vs. being an arbitrary gatekeeper
@Joe I don't see any indication of being impolite...it certainly is not my intention.
@moscafj : what's considered polite is cultural and sometimes contradictory. (for a food example, take eating everything on your plate -- in some places, it's a sign that you enjoyed the food, while in others, it's considered rude as a sign that you weren't served enough). I wish there were a way to propose a recommended edit for the OP to approve (that I haven't screwed up their intent), but I think my reputation is high enough that it would just go through.
It doesn't even necessarily need to be a "pairing" but something that you can add to your existing puree to improve it.
I think you're on the right track with acid -- it's often overlooked in how it can brighten up otherwise dull & muddy flavors. You might try adding some lemon juice, vinegar, or even a prepared mustard.
I generally don't cook only turnips, so I'm not sure what's best in this case ... I'll do a variety of root vegetables, like carrots, potatoes, turnips, and onions. You can also look to recipes like colcannon or stamppot and mix in some cooked dark greens. You can then serve it with or mix in some sort of processed pork product like cooked sausage, bacon, or ham. (I wouldn't go with just any type of meat ... I think the salt & maybe the fat are the key here, as both can help mask bitter flavors).
If you're boiling the vegetables to make a mash, I'll also toss in a few garlic cloves, and mash them in with everything else. After the fact, you might try mixing in some chives or if it's still hot, some finely minced scallions or shallots (so they're cooked slightly in the hot mash)
You might also look to where the puree / mash is used as an ingredient in some other dish ... I would think that a shepherd's pie / cottage pie could be really good with a turnip puree on top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.496228
| 2020-10-05T21:03:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111041",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88691
|
cast iron skillet
I put my cast iron skillet on the stove top , turned up the heat slowly then turning it up high , when I removed the pan, I obseverd a ring/mark the size of my glass top burner almost like a burn mark on the bottom of the pan, ( the pan was larger then the burner ) It was unable to remove the stain/ mark with steel wool . How can I restore it ?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Did you overheat the skillet? And, does it matter if the bottom of the skillet isn't pretty?
One of three things happened :
If the spot is black, and the rest of the pan is kinda brown-ish: You fully cured the seasoning on the pan, so you need to bake the pan to get the seasoning full cured.
If the spot is dull and brown, while the rest of the pan is black or near-black: You just baked the seasoning off of your pan. You'll need to strip any rust, and reseason it.
You have enameled cast iron, the spot is brown or black, and the rest of the pan is some other bright color.
For the first two, see What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
For the third one, just be thankful that you didn't heat the pan enough to soften the enamel and have it fuse to the stove. But even then, you're shortened the life of the enamel. You just have to deal with the new look, and expect to get some crazing if you heated the iron so it expanded past what the enamel could stretch.
--
In general, I'd advise against heating cast iron on high. Not only can it ruin the pan's seasoning, but because it holds so much more heat than a thinner pan, the temperature won't drop nearly as quickly when you put food in ... making it way more likely that you'll burn your food.
Although it's possible to flip food in cast iron after you're built up the right muscles, the typical person is going to wear out if you try the 'keep flipping your food until the pan's cooled down enough' technique if you're doing it with a cast iron skillet.
(yes, I've done the second one ... and my brother fused a le creuset pot to the stove when he went to boil water and forgot about)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.496547
| 2018-03-28T00:56:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88691",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105394
|
Name for a master "cook plan" that describes how you prepare and serve all courses of a meal
I'm writing some software and could use some help (from some experts!) naming something. In cooking, culinary arts, etc. I have to imagine that there exists a concept where you, the chef, have a master "cook plan" for how you will execute a particular course, meal, set of servings, etc.
Meaning, you know what you want to cook for a particular meal: you know the ingredients, the recipes for each component of the meal, the timing of when you need to start prepping, cooking and plating each component, etc. A master plan. A "cook plan" for the entire theatre of operations so to speak.
This cannot simply just be a "recipe", as to me, a "recipe" is a sub-component of this plan as it takes ingredients in as input, processes those ingredients and produces (as output) just one component of a meal.
I'm talking one step above an individual recipe: a plan that covers everything you will do to produce all the courses of a large meal.
Is there a word for this in the culinary world?
No, there isn't such a word.
How planning is done
Such a word doesn't exist, and neither does the "master plan" you are envisioning. What exists instead is a menu, plus recipes, plus conventions or ad-hoc decisions.
First think of a situation where a caterer works for a big event, there is the need to orchestrate many people preparing, cooking and serving. These people are all professionals, and don't really need much information to get their jobs done.
The single most important thing to be planned and written down is the menu. It is just a list of dish names written in the order of serving. But really, not even the order is needed, since it is determined by convention.
A recipe will be available somewhere for each menu item, but for a high stakes event with professional cooks, they will probably not risk using too many dishes that are new to the cooks, so the cooks will likely know many of the dishes by heart and consult the recipe for these only cursory or not at all. Recipes may also be written down only as a list of ingredients, assuming that the list plus the name of the dish plus the cook's knowledge is sufficient to prepare the meal properly.
Somebody will have to take care of the logistics and create a shopping list (it probably has some other name in a large commercial operation), which will not contain all items needed, only the ones which are not currently available in storage. And that one will be used by those who are buying the food, not by the cooks or servers.
A prep plan as moscafj suggested might be made, saying what is to be made in which order, but this is entirely optional, and is not the word you are looking for, since it is a simple timeline which doesn't encompass most of the information you asked for, it is just one further element. Cooks are sufficiently self-organizing to be able to get the meal done with everybody doing their own timeline in their head or on personal notes without the need for documenting it.
As for serving, most of it is also determined by convention. On formal occasions, there may be a seating plan, but it is not done by the kitchen. Decoration is also part of event management, not catering. I imagine that in some rare occasions, e.g. a formal dinner at a private mansion, somebody will tell the caterer "please serve in the Villeroy Grey Pearl china, not in the Waterford" but once a server is equipped with a set of china, glassware and cutlery, there is no need to plan anything further, they know how to serve.
Other situations will involve people who are not seasoned professionals and thus don't have all the implicit knowledge, but these situatins also usually tend to be less formal, involve less cooking (fewer dishes, fewer guests, more parts such as bread being bought instead of made on the spot), and there are fewer people doing the cooking and serving, so less need to orchestrate a team. All three factors reduce the need of explicit planning. At the "easy" end of the whole thing is somebody throwing together a weekday dinner going with whatever is in the fridge, starting without a plan and making decisions while cooking. In the intermediate stages, e.g. 2-3 housewives from an extended family preparing a festive meal for a family celebration, people may do more explicit planning, but then they will also use some variation of the items listed above for the formal catering situation.
Even when these items (menu, recipes, shopping list, prep plan) are explicitely written down, nobody perceives the combination of them as one cohesive "thing", so it doesn't have a name.
Your information architecture
You give very little information about what your app is supposed to do, so I cannot give more than the most general advice. If you really need a single "entry point" for the cook/caterer, it probably have to be the menu. Since all other planning items depend on the menu (OK, the recipes don't strictly follow the menu, but the selection out of the pool of possible recipes does), it does have a bit of a "root of all things" role. So you could give the menu a more prominent role in the UI and have the user first visit the menu and from there navigate to each recipe, and possibly have the shopping list for the menu and the prep plan for the menu. Another option is to call the unifying concept an "event" and have the menu, the shopping list and the prep plan belong to the event entity, and link the recipes from the menu. I am pretty sure both will be intuitive for somebody organizing the cooking for an event.
Be sure to know that your users need these items before you invest the resources in programming them. The ability to jot down a menu will be central, but users may not care to enter a recipe for each menu item, since for many items, they are accustomed to doing them from either implicit knowledge or some existing storage system like a cherished grandma's dead-tree notebook. If the recipes are available, it can be useful to calculate a shopping list out of them, but make sure that you can deal properly with different units and with ad-hoc changes the user is making for the event ("this time, I want to make my aunt's panna cotta with strawberries instead of blueberries"). A space to enter an optional prep plan may be used under some circumstances, but find out from your users if they care for it. If they do, don't try to calculate it from information in the recipes, there are many implicit dependencies you won't be able to really place into your software. Just give them the blank space or maybe some minimal structure like time slots.
I used to volunteer-chef for some large events (150+ diners) and we'd do it like you described. A master menu/shopping list (google sheet or excel online is wonderful as everyone can keep editing what they want and you can sort the shopping list by department/store) for the logistics and an after-lunch meeting between chefs and cooks where responsibilities and plans were divided.
Recipes or formulas lead to a prep plan or a daily prep system in a restaurant or commercial kitchen. This plan is used to delegate work, ensure ingredients for individual recipes and dishes are prepared in an efficient manner, and to minimize waste.
Thanks @moscafj (+1) - so is "prep plan" a good word for what I'm describing, and is it a generally-accepted term in the culinary world?
A recent fancy dinner for 50 with a real chef in charge of a bunch of amateurs had just such a prep plan, but it was just called "Plan for NYE dinner" or "The Plan"; the rest of the meaning was obvious. "Prep plan" is fairly specific and doesn't need to be widely used to be comprehensible. (+1)
The name of the software system you describe sounds like a Quality Management System (QMS).
Give your QMS any name YOU CHOOSE, it's standard in the software biz. Microsoft calls their operating system - 'Windows', word processing application - 'Word'...
A Quality Management System (QMS) is a set of internal rules that are defined by a collection of policies, processes, documented procedures and records. This system defines how a company will achieve the creation and delivery of the product or service they provide to their customers.
A quality management system (QMS) is a set of policies, processes and procedures required for planning and execution (production/development/service) in the core business area of an organization (i.e., areas that can impact the organization's ability to meet customer requirements).
A quality management system (QMS) is a collection of business processes focused on consistently meeting customer requirements
A quality management system (QMS) is defined as a formalized system that documents processes, procedures, and responsibilities for achieving ... objectives. A QMS helps coordinate and direct an organization’s activities to meet customer and regulatory requirements and improve its effectiveness and efficiency on a continuous basis.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.496741
| 2020-02-19T01:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105394",
"authors": [
"Borgh",
"Chris H",
"hotmeatballsoup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73447"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6728
|
Minimum procedure for sterilizing mason jars for canning
My wife and I are about to do some tomato canning tomorrow. We have a bunch of mason jars that we didn't have time to sterilize. She thinks that just washing them in hot water is enough. After searching around all instructions require boiling.
What is the bare minimum necessary?
Before filling the jars, you should do the following:
Place the jars (right-side-up) on a rack inside a boiling-water canner
Fill the canner and jars with water to one inch above the jars
Boil for 10 min (or more for higher elevations)
Remove and drain the jars, one at a time
I toss the lids and rings in there as well, since the lids seal best when the rubbery-stuff is softened first anyway.
I have read that some people use their dishwasher's "sanitize" cycle instead, but you should contact the manufacturer (or check the user's guide) to see if it really gets hot enough. I don't know much about using the dishwasher for this purpose; perhaps someone else can elaborate.
If you're looking for great canning instructions, check out the National Center for Home Food Preservation. They will explain how to can safely, botulism-death-free.
Washing them in hot water is most certainly not enough. Sterilization via boiling under pressure is guaranteed to kill every harmful pathogen, particularly Clostridium botulinum, the beastie responsible for botulism. The "hot" water from your tap is not enough to kill the spores. C botulinum spores must be heated to 250 F for at least three minutes to guarantee they are killed.
Please do not compromise here under any circumstance. Canning requires sterilization, not sanitization. Botulism can paralyze and kill you.
What about the boiling of the jars after we've sealed them with their contents? Is it too late by then?
@hobodave I think @milesmeow was talking about how to sterilize the jars before filling them, in which case you don't have to put them under pressure, but you do have to boil them. @milesmeow No, it's not enough to boil them only after sealing. Check out the Ball site (freshpreserving.com) or the Nat'l Ctr for Home Food Pres. for more info
a textbook of mine mentions 'grave consequences like death'. LMAO.
@GUI: And there's a pun there! win
Acid products like tomato should be OK with washing only. http://www.pickyourown.org/salsa.htm
If 250F is required to kill Clostridium botulinum, then boiling won't do the trick, either. How does one address the gap between the boiling point of water and the point of death for the spores?
@Sean After washing with soap, the two easy methods that come to mind are by using your oven (for 30 minutes) and your dishwasher (if it has a sanitize setting that achieves 250 for an extended period of time). I haven't used them, but I have a neighbor who swore by the former until she discovered the latter: I could be wrong
Oven is dry heat, beware that dry heat typically requires much higher temperatures than wet heat to kill things.
All professional sources and manufacturers of canning equipment (Ball, Kerr, etc) now say "If processing for 10min or more, the only sterilization needed is hot soapy water prior to filling, the processing time will finish the job. If processing time called for is less than 10min, then you will need to do a full sterilization which consists of the hot soapy water wash followed by 10min at boiling in the water bath canner prior to filling." This does not include rings and sealing lids, as those have only needed the hot soapy bath for many years now (regardless of processing time or any and all other factors).
Link to the National Center for Home Food Preservation page on pre-sterilizing
https://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/nchfp/factsheets/sterilizing.html#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20actually%20sterilize,DURING%20processing%20in%20the%20canner. 4th paragraph down, this is just one of the numerous places that call attention to this.
You do NOT need to sterilize jars that will be processed in a pressure canner or processed in a boiling-water bath for more than 10 minutes. (Jars that you will process in a boiling-water bath for less than 10 minutes DO need to be sterilized by boiling them for 10 minutes before filling them with product.)
In any case, you need to wash the jars, lids, and rings in hot, soapy water before filling them -- and be sure to rinse them well so that no soap residue remains.
This is just my opinion, but if you're going to go to the trouble of canning in the first place, it seems worth it to properly sterilize the jars so that the food you're putting up will last. The boiling step is the easiest part of canning, really, and it doesn't hurt to do it. It would be terrible to spend the afternoon canning, skip the sterilizing part, and then have all your work be for naught if the stuff goes bad quickly later.
I have seen sources claiming that presterlization is not needed for tomatoes.
It really depends on the amount of time the jars spend processing. And that link firstly doesn't work anymore and secondly is about pressure canning, which is a lot different from hot water canning.
I always use freshly scrubbed jars, dip them in boiling water for 1 minute, then can using the water bath 10 minutes+. I don't want to take a chance and it only takes a minute. I seriously doubt if my jars are well cleaned, stored dry for a year that there will be much bacteria if any. I don't live in a 3rd world country...
First, it doesn't matter if you live in a third world country, bacteria are everywhere. First world country food chains may be even more contaminated due to mass animal husbandry. Second, what you describe is how you personally like to do it, but you are not giving any reason why this sterilization procedure is either sufficient or minimal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.497438
| 2010-09-04T02:43:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6728",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"BaffledCook",
"CJacob",
"Cathy Shaeffer",
"JuneSultan Lalani",
"JustRightMenus",
"LittleTyke",
"Sean Hart",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73321",
"lemontwist",
"mfg",
"milesmeow",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7958
|
How to clean a big butcher block?
I've seen huge butchers blocks that essentially is a table with a butcher block top. How do you clean such a thing if you can't wash it in the sink? Should those blocks only be used for vegetables and not meat because it can get messy and hard to clean (oil and 'juices')?
You can certainly cut meat on these, I have a large end-grain cutting board that is too large to wash conveniently in my sink.
There are a number of methods to clean them:
Soap and Water
Soap and hot water are best for regular cleaning. Just get a rag or brush and scrub it. Dish soap is just fine for this use. Make sure to rinse and dry it thoroughly.
Vinegar
If you don't mind the smell you can use undiluted white vinegar to clean and sanitize your surface. If you keep some in a spray bottle you can just spray it down and wipe it with a paper towel. If you have a big oily mess, I'd suggest starting with the soap & water method, and finishing up with vinegar.
Vinegar is apparently very effective at killing microbes, surprisingly more effective than harsher quaternary ammonium solutions.
Bleach
A little goes a long way with this. You only need a teaspoon or two for a quart of water. Just spray it down thoroughly, let stand 5 minutes. Finish with rinsing and drying. Like vinegar this is best as a followup to soap & water for a really messy board.
Lemon
If you have strong garlic, onion, fish, or other smells in your butcher block you can cut a lemon in half and rub the board down with the halves. Lemon juice is a weak antiseptic, so this should be used primarily for odor control and not as a sanitization substitute.
Note that regular cleaning also requires regular seasoning of your block surface. You should oil your board/block once a week, or more with frequent use.
See also:
http://whatscookingamerica.net/CuttingBoards/AllAbout.htm
+1, We recently switched to vinegar as our main surface cleaner in our kitchen. It works really, really well. I was kind of surprised.
Vinegar is also cost-effective, too. :)
Professionally you scatter the surface with sawdust and then 'scrub' the surface (dry) with a metal brush. This takes off the top surface and removes any blood, etc, which is why if you see an old butchers block or one that has been in good use it will be worn down considerably. In a domestic setting I suppose that would be more difficult (but by no means impossible). Vinigar is an excellent cleaner, as Hobodave and Yossarian said, but I wouldn't use bleach on a butchers block, or wood in general really. Better for plastic chopping boards if you are going to use it.
I can confirm this. When I worked in a butcher's, I had to scrub the block down with a hard metal brush.
Wow...so over time you can see your block get thinner or develop a depression?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.497948
| 2010-10-08T22:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7958",
"authors": [
"Will Sheppard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"milesmeow",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8711
|
What technique should I use to make latkes for a party so that I don't have to stay in the kitchen?
What usually happens is that I fry up fresh latkes during a party and I end up in the kitchen for the majority of the party.
Is there a way for me to precook the latkes and then still have them taste fresh and crispy when the guests arrive?
Here are some options that I'm thinking of but don't know if it will work well:
Fry them up as usual and keep them on a rack in a warm oven before the guests arrive
Do a quick fry and keep them in the oven...when the guests arrive refry them (hopefully this will take less time).
Get other to take turn to fry up the latkes. :)
Number 3 will give you the best results. There simply is nothing as great in this world as a latke crisp from the frying pan, having spent but a couple seconds on a paper towel receiving the blessing of a few flakes of good sea salt.
I've never tried number 2. If you do, please report back.
Number 1 will not give you crisp latkes. They will still have the delicious taste of homemade latkes, but they will be soft, not crunchy.
One possible 4th alternative, which I've never tried, so have no idea if it'll work or not.
Fry up the latkes 'til they're almost done, then put on a wire rack, on top of a sheet pan. Go ahead and let them cool. When the guests arive, pop them into a hot oven (450F or above), to crisp them back up. You might need to turn them over, to expose both sides to the heating element. (and, if that's the case, you might not need it on the wire rack, but it'll help keep them from getting soggy).
If you went with number 2, and went for a second fry, I'd probably use techniques from double frying french fries ... use a slightly lower temp for the first fry, so they cook through, and then a hotter second fry, to crisp them up. I don't even know if you'd need to keep them warm in the oven; it might be better to let them cool so they set up a little bit to make it easier to get them into the second fry in one piece.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.498193
| 2010-11-01T05:03:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8711",
"authors": [
"JamesK",
"Rishi Raj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17900",
"jongo45"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35478
|
What are some techniques to cool down a dish so that we can store it in the refrigerator safely?
My wife just cooked some 'plof' (an Ashkenazi Jewish recipe). A one pot chicken, rice, onion, carrots dish. All those are in their respective layers.
She just finished cooking it. We're going to go to sleep. She has set her timer to wake up in a few hours to put the whole pot into the fridge.
Is this gradual cooling safe? Especially for a meat dish? Does it matter whether it has meat in it or not?
I don't want to put this hot pot into the fridge because it will raise the temperature of my refrigerator.
I ended up unloading the plof into a 2" deep baking dish. I let it cool for a little while. Then, I actually covered it in aluminum foil and placed it on top of a cooled gel pad in the fridge (top shelf...that's where the cold air come in from the top freezer). I then put cooling packs on top of the foil.
There are several things in general that you can do to increase the speed at which food cools down, but two of the most effective are:
Increase the surface area. Spread it in a wide, shallow pan, like a sheet pan, rather than a deep pot. This will allow more cooling.
Use an ice water bath. Place the container with the food into an ice water bath, being careful not to spill the water into the food. Using a zip style bag to hold the food before putting it into the bath also can help.
A variation of this, especially for hot stocks or stews, is to freeze water in clean water bottles or zip bags, and place those into the food in addition to the ice bath.
For a pilaf, the first method should work very well.
You can also bring physics to the party:
Convection is far more powerful at heat transfer than conduction. A fan for air cooling will help, or running water for water for water cooling will also help, but these are not always practical in kitchen.
+1 for the great systematic answer. I just wanted to note ... that for pilaf to preserve the layers the second method might be preferable ... but when you are just trying to preserve leftovers this might not be important at all.
In my experience to leave a pilaf out to cool down at room temperature shouldn't be a problem when it is freshly cooked. But by letting it sit out for hours the risk of it going off gets higher (and in pilaf the rice might be more likely to go off before the meat, as rice often already contains heat-resistant bacterial spores, e.g. Bacillus cereus).
But to prevent having to get up in the middle of the night, you could place the dish in a cold water bath (with some ice, if you have it) to cool it quicker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.498484
| 2013-07-22T06:39:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35478",
"authors": [
"Ack",
"Gamma",
"George Michaels",
"Julie",
"Ken Phillips",
"Maira Bay",
"Martin Turjak",
"Mladen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82996",
"j3141592653589793238",
"lourene carlston",
"milesmeow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20753
|
How long does eggwash keep?
I don't use eggwash often- roughly once a week I make a speedy en-croute or pie with some shop-bought puff. Whatever I make, as it tends to be just for two, I rarely use more than half an egg's worth, and it feels a bit wasteful throwing so much away (for this reason I tend to use milk).
If I use a fresh egg (with at least a week to its expiry date), can I keep a cup of eggwash under cling-film for a week? If the expiry is further away, will that make a difference?
By egg wash do you mean just pure slightly whipped egg white or do you add anything to the egg white.
Beaten whole egg ('to add a golden glaze to pastry')
Don't forget that you can freeze eggs. I would beat one egg, divide it in small portions (perhaps using an ice cube tray), make it airtight and put it in the freezer. I think you would have enough with one cube and you don't need to throw away the rest of the egg.
@Mien I thought you could only freeze egg whites and not the yolk without changing it's properties.
@Jay http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5021/can-raw-eggs-be-frozen
@Mien, yea so you would have to separate the egg yolk from the egg white... then add some salt to the half yolk to prevent it from gelatinizing(is that a word) and store it in a tiny little container. Then store the other half of egg white in another tiny little container. That just seems like a lot of work to save half an egg a week.
@Jay - I suppose you could also just toss the half-egg in the same container for each week, to use in something where the gelatinized yolk won't matter (like scrambled eggs).
To make a long answer short, if you are using it once a week, then don't bother storing the egg mixture. The egg wash is definitely not safe after a week even if you store it in an air type container in the refrigerator.
If however you are using just egg whites, you can lightly beat half of it and use that and freeze the other unbeaten half in the freezer.
But to be honest... There are worse things to waste than half an egg a week. I think this is a case of not being worth the effort.
Lightly beaten eggs can be safely kept for up to two days - a week is definitely out of the question. (I believe whites last longer, up to four days, but the yolks don't.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.498745
| 2012-01-24T20:18:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20753",
"authors": [
"Anoor04",
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"Lexatron Prime",
"Megha",
"Mien",
"Tom Boardman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
}
|
6829
|
What's the difference between a Stromboli and a Calzone?
On the east coast Italian restaurants (or pizza shops) sometimes offer both Strombolis and Calzones. Sometimes it seems that Calzones are a 'type' of Stromboli, because the menu has a single Calzone but a list of different Strombolis. But I doubt that's an accurate assessment.
So, what's the difference between the two? I'd be interested in the technical reasons as well as whey they're listed separately on menus (if the reasoning is different).
Also, I give the east coast location because I've heard out west a Stromboli may be thought of as a kind of hot sandwich (basically an Italian roll hollowed out a bit and filled). That's not the Stromboli or Calzone I'm familiar with - but if the definitions change drastically based on geographic area I'm interested in that as well.
Need to mention that here in Italy we have just Calzone pizza. Stromboli, though having italian name, seems to have american origin.
I confirm what systempuntoout wrote: this is the first time that I read or heard of a dish called Stromboli.
In my experience the primary difference is that Calzones have Ricotta (and possibly Mozzarella) and Strombolis only have Mozzarella. In the Philadelphia area, both are folded over pizzas, basically.
Growing up, my mother made Stromboli and it was rolled, not folded. I rarely see that in a pizza shop these days, but I do prefer that in a Stromboli.
Edit: Just read systempuntoout's link to Wikipedia and it confirmed something that I was going to post and then deleted. When I was growing up, Strombolis were made from bread dough and Calzones were made from pizza dough; nowadays all of the pizza shops just use pizza dough. I remember bread stores as being the primary place to get Strombolis growing up because they were the ones that made the dough!
That's what I'm used to, as well. (calzones having ricotta) I'm also used to calzones not having a tomato sauce inside (although they might have sliced tomatoes), whereas strombolis may or may not have sauce inside. I've never seen a calzone that wasn't a 1/2 circle ... except at Ledo Pizza, which I won't count, as it wasn't even fully sealed after folding.
My understanding based on local experience (five Italian restaurants on every block) is that Stromboli and Calzone differ principally in (a) their filling, (b) the dough, and (c) the final shape.
Calzones are basically folded pizzas, made from pizza dough and stuffed with the same ingredients as pizza - almost always tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese, usually ricotta, often pepperoni and maybe some other cheese and cured meats - and then folded over like an omelette.
Stromboli are more like pizza rolls. They're made from a thicker dough (still pizza dough), the tomato sauce and ricotta are optional and usually left out, and they are literally rolled up into a tube shape (sometimes more of a blocky sandwich shape though).
Other than that, they are quite similar, and the differences seem to get murkier over time... I often see Stromboli with the sauce and cheese and Calzone without the sauce. But fundamentally, Stromboli is more like a sandwich and Calzone is more like a pie; if a particular restaurant doesn't do it that way, then that would have to be their own twist on the traditional recipe.
Similar to my experience. Calzone being a half circle in presentation (folded pizza), and Stromboli being a 'tube' shape. Although most of what I've experienced of Stromboli is less rolled (as in a pumpkin roll) and more folded into the center (kind of like a letter fold).
@Tim: I've seen that too, but rarely. I don't think it's traditional, just lazy. I'm accustomed to thinking of an "authentic" Stromboli as you say - like a pumpkin roll or jelly roll.
I thought the main difference between them was that a Calazone has the sauce on the inside, while a Stromboli has sauce served on the side so you can dip it in the sauce as you eat it.
That's what I always thought too. As a matter of fact, that's on the take-out menu of a local pizza shop. Maybe it's a regional thing.
Former New Yorker here, grew up on LI where there has to be a pizza shop in every strip center.
Calzone & Stromboli are different in SHAPE and ingredients. Calzone will have a red gravy and the Stromboli will have Ricotta cheese instead. Calzone is dress a half the dough with meats and sauce and Mozzarella, fold over other half of dough and crimp onnly center allowing sides to show what is inside.
Stromboli is stiffer dough if you have that available, place the ingredients in the center 1/3, wrap the two sides over to look like a loaf or sandwich.
I managed a Pizza restaurant in RI for a summer on Block Island, and this was the rule according to the Italian owner who's mom would come in ever once in a while to approve what we did.
The difference between a Stromboli and a Calzone is the ingredients. The Calzone will have Prociutto or Cappacolla and Ricotta. The dough is very light but not too chewy. The Stromboli is named after a place in Sicily, where it was made quite often. Usualy, the Calzone will have the Sauce on the side. Sometimes the Calzone will be made with Spinach or Escarole inside as well. Stromboli on the other hand has a heavier dough and is bigger because it will have Sausage, Pepperoni, Mozzarella cheese, Onions, garlic,Peppers, and sometimes olives and capers. Actually, the Calzone is the spicier of the two. Once I ordered one with Cappacolla and Procuitto. A little too spicey. Very Calienti(hot). Finding a place that makes both good is a miracle.
I have tried both a Calzone and a Stromboli, the former in Manhattan and the latter in Pennsylvania. Unlike here in England where all the folded pizzas are called Calzone, the difference on the East Coast is that the Calzone is filled with white cheeses (usually mozzarella and ricotta) and the Stromboli is a savoury dish filled with meat, onions, mushrooms, optional chillies and served with a spicy tomato based sauce on the side. The best one I ever tasted had fresh garlic grated and olive oil drizzled on top - absolutely delicious, but don't expect anyone to converse with you afterwards!!
the first job I ever had was at a pizza shop.it was owned by a New York Jew, who grew up among New York Italians. if you know anything about New York Jews or New York Italians, they know what they are talking about. traditional Stromboli is ham salami pepperoni and mozzarella cheese. the difference between a calzone and Stromboli is a calzone has ricotta cheese and a Stromboli does not have ricotta cheese. you can fill a calzone or Stromboli with whatever fillings you want just like a pizza.
I've read many comments and have never seen so many people mix it up.
STROMBOLI - pizza dough folded over in half filled with mozzarella, sausage, pepperoni, onions, peppers, and mushrooms. Sauce is served on the side.
CALZONE - small personal size pizza dough folded over in have filled with ricotta, ham, capicolla and sauce. This is how they are made in the Slate Belt of Pennsylvania.
From a historical perspective, calzone were imported from Europe (like normal pizzas) while stromboli are an American invention.
In Europe, following the Italian tradition, calzone are basically folded pizzas. They are made with the same dough, are baked in the same ovens, and can have the same toppings, although it is far more common in Italy to see eggs in calzone than in open pizzas. According to a book referenced in wikipedia, calzone originated in Naples (Italy).
I have never seen stromboli in Europe (I live in London as I write this) and calzone are not very common out of Italy.
In some countries (like Italy or Malta) there are things that are similar to a fried (not baked) calzone, but they are not called calzone.
(This does not exactly answer the original question, that is inherently USA-centric, but I thought it may be of interest to some people.)
I worked for a Napolitan pizza shop in Akron owned by 1st generation Sicilians. They made the calzones with ricotta and pizza topping and folded it over making a semi-circular pie. The Stromboli were rolled up with more cold-cut type meats & cheeses and some veggies and tomatoes and the top was lightly scored before baking.
The names are derived from Italian words. Stromboli is a volcano in Italy, and the Stromboli is 'volcano-like' in that you can get burned by the juice and sauce coming out of the stuffed bread. Calzoni are trousers or shorts, basically, so I think the calzone is supposed to resemble a stuffed baby diaper when folded.
My experience comes from native new Yorker!
Calzones are served with tomato sauce, pepperoni, Italian sausage sliced, mushrooms, onions & mozzarella all inside a pizza dough!
And no rants here... kurly, welcome to Seasoned Advice. I strongly suggest you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get a better idea of how this site works. In short, the part about Californians is not answering the question and violating our "be nice" policy, so I have removed it for now. Apart from that, note that we are an international site... We are looking forward to your well-informed contributions and again: Welcome! P.S.: the question was about the difference between Calzone and Stromboli.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.498986
| 2010-09-06T15:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6829",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrei-Catalin Craciun",
"Carol F",
"Christy Williams",
"Desiree",
"Diana Barclay",
"Douglas Baldwin",
"Joe",
"John Carey",
"John Paul Hall",
"Jolenealaska",
"MaD70",
"Rebecca Hinks",
"Stephie",
"Tim Lytle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"martin",
"systempuntoout"
],
"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
}
|
23270
|
Watery liquid on top of homemade yogurt
I made homemade yogurt tonight, except it didn't turn out as I expected. I followed this recipe with a few exceptions.
I made it with three quarts of milk instead of 4 (or two). I modified the amount of "culture" I used accordingly.
I also added flavorings after the milk had cooled and the new culture extracted. I added some lemon juice (thought it was lime, mixed up the bottle). And added some Jelly Belly Green Apple Syrup for icicle pops or something.
I also put it in 8 oz jars instead of 32 oz jars.
The jar with the new culture/start in it, turned out fine. Nice and solid. However, the other jars are about half liquid and half solid. Did adding an acid (lemon juice) mess something up? Is this expected?
What do I need to do next time to make sure this doesn't happen. I haven't tasted it yet so I don't know if it's good or not.
We also faced the same problem and found that when the quantity of water is more, the problem persits. The solution is very simple. Boil the milk as long as you wish. (Make sure you dont evaporate the liquid part). Depending on the consistency of the thickness of the milk, stop the heating and proceed with subsequent steps.
Also, make sure that the extracts that you add, should have low water content.
Of course! Both the lemon juice and the flavoring from Jelly Belly had high amounts of water.
Alternatively, to save time, add some dry milk powder to get some extra protein. This is a good idea even if not adding extra liquid.
My wife and I have made over 100 gallons of yogurt over the past year or so. We use a yogurt maker with 4 quart jars of milk in them.
We always make plain yogurt and add the flavorings and other additions like jellies or jams afterwards.
The separation you speak of is because lemon juice is acidic and it will cause the milk to curdle. The same thing is true of adding liquid yogurt as a culture - add too much and it will cause the yogurt to separate. We get fantastic yogurt with as little as a tablespoon of yogurt as the culture - just make sure to use a blender. You are trying to mix billions of bacteria evenly into the warm milk.
View my website if you want to see more of our experiences. www.mryogurt.info
Thank you for that information, I will be sure to checkout your website.
The separation is because the milk is too hot. Bring it down to 140 and you shouldn't have a problem.this is for plain yogurt..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.499962
| 2012-04-23T03:26:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23270",
"authors": [
"Crazy Cupcaker",
"Justin Savage",
"Kibby",
"Malfist",
"Panos Gr",
"Pat Lunsford",
"Patricia Crews",
"Sobachatina",
"Travis Needham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67659",
"user52676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18315
|
Discolouration when boiling green vegetables with lid on
Why do green vegetables discolour when they are boiled with the lid on?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/592/is-it-possible-to-preserve-color-in-steamed-vegetables
See mines's link. Also, leaving the cover on a pot of boiling water increases the pressure inside the pot, which raises the boiling point, which in turn increases the temperature of the water (as it can no longer bleed of excess heat through steam). This principle is used by pressure cookers to get the water really hot to quickly cook the contents.
Basically, you're overcooking the vegetables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.500190
| 2011-10-11T07:17:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18315",
"authors": [
"Arturas M",
"PapaBear71",
"Shazia Ijaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7425",
"mines",
"omg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27617
|
Is slow cooking for 24+ hours safe?
I've been cooking a 15 lb (7 Kg) pork shoulder for 24 hours, and the temperature has been around 140°F (60°C) for both meat and liquid. I didn't realize the temp was so low until just now when I stuck a thermometer in it.
Its a new (to me) slow roaster that is quite large, and has temperature written on the dial. I had the dial set to 275°F (135°C), but obviously the actual temperature is much lower that.
I've turned up the temperature and will get it to a cooking temp of 275°F, but will it be safe to keep cooking the meat this way? I think I should get the meat close to 190°F (90°C).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.500282
| 2012-10-05T13:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27617",
"authors": [
"Andrew Woolfe",
"Darren Rudd",
"Marcy O'Rourke",
"Rosemary Bruscella",
"Sinulae",
"Tony Campbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62352",
"user62319"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28267
|
How long do oven elements last under high usage?
If someone were to use their oven to cook five-hour pot roasts every 2-3 days, how long would the elements last before they would need to be replaced?
Welcome Keven! Have you done any research on this question yet? If so, can you please share your findings?
Some say many years, some say few. From two reliable sources, TFD's answer being one, if cared for they can last 10-30 years easily.
In theory the elements could last 10's of years, there is nothing in typical electric element design that limits their life. I would expect modern oven elements to last at least ten years with daily use
They may fail prematurely due to damage (being knocked) in the oven while hot, from surface oxidation due to improper cleaning, or because of slight manufacturing faults
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.500385
| 2012-11-06T22:48:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28267",
"authors": [
"Elifarley",
"Isabella",
"Jacob Burkett",
"Jeana",
"Kristina Lopez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65101",
"samseva",
"user441767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29697
|
Make Kiwifruit sauce less sour without sugar?
I've prepared a Kiwifruit sauce, adding also some sugar and honey.
I was wondering - is there a way to make it less sour, that is not increasing the sugar and honey content?
The recipe was:
4 Kiwifruit, ripe
2 tbsp honey
1 tbsp sugar
1 tsp cornstarch
Please post the recipe you used.
Also, did you use ripe or slightly unripe kiwis? When they're ripe kiwis are much sweeter and less sour than unripe kiwis.
@lemontwist, Kiwis are people whom live in New Zealand, you want Kiwifruit
@TFD :-) At least here in the US, we call you folks "New Zealanders", and the fruit are simply kiwis most of the time. Plus, I thought a kiwi was a flightless bird. :-)
@SAJ14SAJ SA is global though! The Kiwi bird is a cousin 50 million year ago from an Australian miniature Emu, how did it get to New Zealand then?
@TFD I am surprised you have to ask. The answer is obvious: on a kiwiwood raft.
@SAJ14SAJ They flew in on the totally awesome plane http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1.jpg
Do Australians cook and eat New Zealanders? Is that why there are now more sheep than people in NZ?
This is an answer I don't dare to post, because it's untested and possibly controversial: a pinch of baking soda.
I made a sauce using the ingredient ratios specified in the question. The sweet and sour in this sauce actually balanced each other and I thought this might invalidate any experiments until I considered that they also dominated the flavour of the sauce. In other words the sauce was a little too tangy (or tart if you prefer).
For the purposes of this answer, I'll make the following distinctions:
sour: A taste where there is not enough sweetness to balance the acidic notes;
tangy: A taste where sweet and acidic notes are balanced;
tart: A taste that is tangy, but the sweet and acidic notes together dominate flavour.
Note that I don't suggest that this is the accepted nomenclature. I think it is possible that the OP confounded sour with tart which may explain the specification of no additional sugar in the question.
Colour as a sweetener
As the Wikipedia article on Sweetness says,
The color of food can affect sweetness perception. Adding more red
color to a drink increases its perceived sweetness with darker colored
solutions being rated 2–10% higher than lighter ones even though it
had 1% less sucrose concentration.
The colour of this sauce became much duller during cooking, so I tested the effect on taste of using a green food dye. I didn't notice any difference in a side-by-side taste-test, even though the sauce with food dye did look much nicer,
I did one more test adding more dye and this time, to my surprise, the sauce with the more vibrant colour tasted very slightly, but nevertheless distinctly sweeter than the original.
I didn't quite believe this, so I taste tested this several times with the same result.
This led me to suspect the food dye itself and, sure enough, it tasted sweet due to an amount of glycerol in the ingredients. Despite invalidating my experiment, glycerol is neither sugar nor honey and as such answers the OP's question directly (if indeed the sauce was sour and needed sweetening). Adding to that the fact that the sauce now looks more appetising, I can recommend using green food dye whether or not colour has any effect on taste.
Salt
I also tested the suggestion of another poster, where salt is used to sweeten the sauce. I didn't hold out much hope for this technique, having experimented with salt on all manner of fruits a couple of days back.
Once again, I was surprised. Salt made a positive difference, although this time the sauce was no sweeter than before. Quite the opposite; sweetness was reduced (which is consistent with my earlier experiments). The sour note was also reduced, so sweet and sour were still balanced leaving the sauce tangy but not tart.
I adding a pinch more salt and now the salty taste came through and ruined the sauce.
I recommend adding salt if the sauce is similar to mine and excessively tart rather than actually sour. It is easy to overstep the mark when adding salt. I suggest making a little more sauce than actually necessary and putting an amount aside before adding the salt so that you can re-introduce some if you do go overboard.
Dilution
Finally I tested the advice to thin-out the sauce with water. This was the least promising result and it seems to me that sweetness disappeared faster than the sour taste. I tried various dilutions, but nothing compared well to the original and flavour was lost.
Possibly this could work if you dilute the sauce with something more flavourful than water, but I would recommend the other two methods over this if you want to stay true to the original recipe.
Awesome answer. Yes, the terminology you used is definitively more precise, and appropriate.
Salt will help make the fruit taste sweeter. Salt also makes food taste less bitter and will most likely help reduce the apparent sourness, too.
Salt will only make fruit taste sweeter if it is already sweet. Here's an experiment I tried with two glasses of dilute lime juice. I added enough sugar so that the mixture was just a little too sour. I added a very small amount of salt to one glass, stirred until disolved and tasted. The glass containing salt was noticeably more sour. I tried the same experiment using cocoa and too little sugar which confirmed that salt does in fact reduce perceived bitterness.
Kiwifruit typically has more sugar content than grapefruit, which is typically 'made sweeter' with a touch of salt. It is certainly much sweeter than lime juice; kiwifruit averages over 8 grams of sugar where the same amount of lime juice (as in your example) averages just over 1.5 grams.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2271?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=kiwifruit
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2279?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=lime
I don't have a grapefruit handy to test, but I think this could be an interesting discussion, so I'll throw it open to the community. What I understand is that salt acts as a flavour enhancer (except for bitterness). If a food stuff is predominantly sour it will accentuate that aspect, no matter what the sugar content is. If it is predominantly sweet, it will seem sweeter.
Posted a new question as I mentioned.
The answer lies in the kiwi. Choose a ripe kiwi - they are typically sweeter.
Another option you may want to do is to dilute your existing sauce with water and add more cornstarch.
Diluting the sauce will reduce flavour and without adding more sugar as well as cornstarch will not make it any sweeter.
OP's question is not to make more sweeter but to make sauce less sour. There is a possibility that the current sauce is too sour to utilize so diluting it a bit would make it more edible.
Ok, sure that might work.
I actually made a fruit sauce with some very small plums from a tree on my property. I added a lot of sugar and honey and it was still tart, so I added a little salt, which cut the tartness a bit. I'm afraid to add too much salt but still gave a lot of tartness. I'll let it sit and cool overnight and then retaste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.500511
| 2013-01-03T16:38:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29697",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy",
"Erika Lord Hodges",
"Fisher",
"Kara",
"Lastrik",
"Lois",
"Marcus",
"Nelson S. Hastings",
"Nick T",
"O_O",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samantha",
"Soulager Healthcare",
"TFD",
"c0ns0le",
"coolcool",
"gboffi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95702",
"lemontwist",
"mattia.b89",
"user69103"
],
"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
}
|
21511
|
Why does meat in the crockpot always end up dry?
Just cooked some chicken breasts today. All day in the crockpot and when done the meat was horribly dry. I put chopped onions, carrots, spices, and coconut milk and 1/2 cup water and 4 chicken breasts. There was plenty of fluid there when it was done, but the cooked chicken meat was really dry.
This seems to happen with beef roast as well.
Is there some trick to getting meat to be tender when cooking in the crockpot?
I think there's some lack of clarity in the answers because "beef roast" is a pretty vague term.
ANY meat cooked for hours at low temperature will loose all it's juices to the broth around it. The "moist" meats which you have had, are a reflection on the connective tissue content of the meat being cooked. Slow cooking methods allow for it to disolve and be eddible as opposed to tough string like bands of yuk. Get a lamb shank and cook it at 250F for 4 hours and it's great. Get a tenderloin and do the same it "tastes" dry and yuk but it's as tender or more so than the shank. The shank has just so much more connective tissue and it doesn't leach out so makes it taste moister.
If you want to avoid this and cook much faster, get a pressure cooker! They are amazing and you'll never use a CrockPot again.http://lifehacker.com/5954077/why-you-should-have-a-pressure-cooker-in-your-kitchen
Cooking anything really lean for a long time can result in super dry meat. Chicken breasts have little fat and little connective issue. The same goes for a lean beef roast. You can do chicken breasts in a crock pot - just not all day, more like a few hours on low.
Try something with more fat like a thigh (or any dark meat) or a beef chuck (shoulder) roast and you should have more luck.
OP mention it happens with beef roast as well. Any beef roast will be tender in a slowcooker, so something else is going on
@TFD An eye of round beef roast would not come out well.
It goes fine, plenty of liquid, on low for the day. What do you think is going to happen to it?
It's like sous-vide without the bag :-) Low is about 70°C to 80°C. A typical 2 Kg roast for 8 hours should be fully cooked, maybe an hour less
Hey, even hobo thinks it's a good idea http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7486/how-to-cook-eye-of-round-roast
@TFD look at his suggested cooking though, 350 for few hours - not the same as all day (although yes, i know the slow cooker is lower). Tell you what, I happen to have an eye of round roast in my fridge right now. I only need part of it. I have a nice crock pot that does not run too hot. I'll leave on low for a whole day and take pictures.
@TFD - btw, I haven't said I think your answer is wrong....his thermostat could be faulty, but you certainly can ruin things in a crock pot....my mother certainly did growing up.
if you are around and feeling "scientific", how about pulling it out every hour and checking it (photo, internal temp, cut a thin core wedge etc.). Time required depends on initial weight of roast, and starting fluid temp
@TFD my crockpot has a temp probe to shutoff at a temp - what temp do you want it?
I know I'm weighing in on an old question, but in my experience there are two things meat needs to do really well in the slow cooker on a long cycle (ie all day): the right amount of fat, and plenty of collagen.
We all know about fat keeping meat moist, that's true of other cooking methods, and as others have said, chicken breast does not do well cooked like this as it is too lean.
But the collagen is a lesser known issue. In my opinion it is even more important. We hear a lot about how you can cook cheap tough cuts in the slow cooker, but what many don't realise is they are actually better than tender cuts on a long cooking cycle. The collagen breaks down to gelatin which lengthens the cooking process and gives a moister, juicier result. IMO, the reason chicken thighs do better than breasts in the slow cooker has more to do with collagen than fat - they'll still do well even with the fat trimmed off.
So you need not just meat that's a bit more fatty, but a lot tougher. Use legs instead of breasts, chuck instead of lean tender beef roast, pork or Lamb shoulder instead of leg or loin. To really see the magic, use cuts that are usually impossibly tough - beef shin or short ribs, Lamb flank, oxtail, Turkey drumsticks.
If you want to cook tender, lean meat in the slow cooker, reckon on a much shorter cooking time, like 2-4 hours. Exact time depends on the individual slow cooker so be ready to experiment.
I had this problem for a while as well - it turns out my slow cooker was cooking at too high of a temperature (even at low), which would create problems, not only with my chicken, but other things as well (pasta sauces would boil and burn, etc). Reviews on Amazon revealed that this is a fairly common problem with certain brands of slow cookers (especially those at lower price points).
Once I learned this, I got a nicer slow cooker with a programmable probe thermometer built in, so it will switch to "warm" mode once my food hits the optimal temperature. This has helped keep my meat moist and my sauces unburnt.
which brands had problems and which brand did you end up going with?
Some people solve this with a dimmer (as for lights) - it need not even be all that heavy-duty, as a typical crockpot/slow cooker is 200W or less (ones that are not JUST crockpots may be a LOT different - check before buying a dimmer, especially if it also acts as a deep fryer...) I think mine is 150/75W on high/low. An external temperature controller with probe would be an alternate approach, but usually more expensive, too.
It's hard to ruin anything in a crockpot (slow cooker)
Does your crockpot have a thermostat? It may be faulty
Late here but that's not true. Read the other answers ans see why. Lean meat WILL end up dry as any juices it has are cooked out. Chicken breast is awful from a slow cooker/dutch oven.
Yep I found out the hard way that slow cooking boneless chicken usually dries it out. It is not a "tough meat". Speaking of roast beef though, I got a roast from my mother-in-law and it sat in the freezer for a couple of months so I decided it needed to be cooked. I had never cooked a roast before. I found a recipe online using a slow cooking method for 4 hours (dutch oven pot @275F). Because of the type of cut the roast was (rib roast) it was so tender it melted in your mouth. I tried the recipe again about a month later but bought "outside round" roast instead of rib roast (or chuck, shank, brisket etc.) and it ended up slightly dry. Why? it doesn't contain as much collagen as the other mentioned cuts. The collagen is the key to melt in your mouth texture and robust flavor for slow roasting. For pork, try a pork shoulder or butt not a tenderloin if you are slow cooking. The results will be amazing!
I was looking up possible answers to the question of dry meat cooked in a crock pot/ slow cooker earlier tonight, and one answer given was that meat also needs acid to ensure it doesn’t come out dry - tinned tomatoes or a cup of tomato sauce were suggested to prevent cuts like diced stewing steak coming out dry.
I would cook it in a cream of vegetable or chicken soup if you want the easy short answer. Even chicken breasts turn out tender and moist for me this way.
I crock a lot. Even with juice any meat you over cook will dry out.
I have switched to thighs and I remove the skin and fat. Cheaper and it crocks a lot better for me. You do end up with the bone to remove.
Bottom line. No chicken breast in crockpot. The meat must be fatty, tough, to do better in a crockpot. I will never cook a breast again in a crockpot. Once I thought cornish hens would do well..no, it was horrible.
I just purchased a pressure cooker!
I have cooked a whole chicken cut in to pieces in the crockpot for 20 hours straight and some recipes it turns out well and others not. Indian curry, Enchilada chicken and Chicken soup recipes I have turn out very well and the chicken is fine even after 20 hours. I also have an Italian meatball recipe which works wonderfully too. Recipes with large amounts of sugar though generally have the sugar burned even on low and effect the flavor (after 20 hours). I am not sure what it is about the successful recipes that have the chicken turn out alright though.
Ben
In my opinion, the trick is to not use a slow cooker for chicken at all. The dish you are describing (kind of simple tom ka gai, it seems like) would normally be built quickly in a wok. Here is how I would make a dish like that on a busy day:
Steam your carrots (or celery or broccoli or cauliflower if you want it) for about two minutes and then dump the hot water out and run cold water over them to stop the cooking. They will be just a little soft on the outside. You can do this the same day you buy them. The same day you buy your chicken, reserve the portion for the soup, chop it into half or three quarter inch cubes, salt and pepper it, and put it in a baggie in the fridge. Chop your onions, grate your ginger, etc. The day you want soup, if all of this is done, you will be able to prepare an amazing soup in less than 15 minutes. The key is do all the preparation beforehand.
To make the soup, lay everything out. This includes the utensils and even the serving dishes. When you are ready, heat your wok and add oil. Let the oil get hot and add garlic. About 20 seconds later, add the chicken. Let the chicken get nice and brown and toss in the onions and carrots. Let them get a little brown (keep everything moving by the way) and add any strong flavors like vinegar, mirin, fish sauce, etc. Let the meat and veggies pan braise in the liquid. At this point, I just reach in and grab the biggest piece of chicken I see and slice it in half to gauge the cooking. You want it to be just barely undercooked - this means no raw color, but a little less cooked than you want to eat. Add the coconut milk and the lime juice at that point. Taste the broth as it cooks and add salt, fish sauce, or lime juice until it tastes perfect. When the coconut milk is hot enough to serve, you are ready to eat. Add your cilantro at that point and maybe a sliced chili pepper if you want a little spice.
Again, just do the prep work the night before and it will only take a few minutes. As you make the recipe more, look for efficiencies. You can season your coconut milk and put it into a cleaned mayonnaise jar so you just shake it and dump it and don't have to fumble with the can opener-- that kind of thing.
This answer is turning into a novel, but I want to answer the question about beef as well. Beef is good for the slow cooker, but you want to get tough cuts of beef with big chunks. Think butt roast, shoulder roast, etc. The names in grocery stores can be really different, so the best strategy is to ask the butcher for a good cut for slow cooking. I like to cut the beef into two to three inch cubes-- really big pieces.
There is not consensus among chefs as to the best way to keep the meat tender. Some recommend cooking the outside to create a seal. Whether it makes a seal or not is up for debate. I personally do it this way. I either dredge it in flour and brown it in oil, or salt it heavily and pan sear it. Other sources recommend putting the raw meat into the cooking liquid at various times, either into cold or hot liquid. You will just have to experiment and find what you like. Six to eight hours cooking in liquid is a really long time, so you want to do what you can to not overcook it.
When done right, braising, or any other low temperature cooking is fantastic, but when any meat (or poultry) is overcooked in liquid, the tasty fats seep out and plain water seeps in. Once that has happened, it is the same thing as soaking an overcooked steak in broth; it is wet; not moist, tender and flavorful.
-1 - Not to be harsh, but...I don't see how describing a wok process answers "Is there some trick to getting meat to be tender when cooking in the crockpot?" There's some bad science in there too with with the 'seal in the moisture' bit and the last sentence (some of the most tasty dishes I've ever had were long, slow braises).
@rfusca: I answered the question the way I would have if a friend asked it. My opinion is the the OP wanted a better quality way to make the chicken dish. I agree that my opinion about how to prepare meat for a slow cooker is not peer reviewed science, but browning meat before slow cooking in liquid is an established practice. A few notable chefs also suggest beginning the process with raw meat, or even bringing the meat up to temperature with the liquid, so I can change the answer to reflect the variety of opinion.
@Gabe - Browning is about the flavor from the maillard reaction, not sealing in the moisture. Its not really a debate among chefs anymore. There are pretty established ways, that work, of doing a long slow braise.
@gabe I recognize that you meant well with your answer, but here on StackExchange, we like to stay ontopic and answer the questions the OP asks, not the ones we think they might have wanted to ask. If they recognize the answer is not what they needed, they are encouraged to clarify, or ask a completely new question. This makes sure that the information on the site is structured in a nice, reusable way, and is easy to find - nobody expects to find your favorite chicken soup recipe in a question about slow cookers.
@rumtscho: So what is the best thing to do? Should I edit the answer to remove the wok recipe? I see the logic of staying strictly topical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.501238
| 2012-02-20T01:31:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21511",
"authors": [
"Ariel Spear",
"Breezy Lewis",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gabe",
"Leonardo Naressi",
"Lola Jackson",
"Palomar",
"RichieHH",
"Rorschach120",
"Scott Hillson",
"TFD",
"Tony the Tiger",
"Ven Lii Leong",
"Vincent Bonhomme",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9213",
"marwaha.ks",
"nancy decker",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23464
|
Soda from fridge to room temperature
Does taking an unopened can of soda out of the refrigerator and leaving at room temperature compromise the taste, flavor, or carbonation of the unopened soda can?
I'm confused—soda here is normally sold unrefrigerated. Maybe we're referring to different things as soda? You mean things like Coca Cola, right?
Not being able to find an applicable tag usually means that the question is off-topic. I'm open to arguments as to how this would be considered a culinary question.
In order to create sparkling beverages, a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2) is dissolved in them, a process that goes under the name of carbonation.
When dissolved in water, CO2 becomes carbonic acid (H2CO3), following the reaction:
CO2 (g) + H2O <-> H2CO3 (1)
The double arrow means that the reaction is reversible, that is, you can go from left to right as well as from right to left. So, essentially you have two reactions going on at the same time:
CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 (2)
and
H2CO3 -> CO2 + H2O (3)
However (and here's the trick) the g next to CO2 means that it is a gas and, as such, is volatile and will leave the water when it is formed (that is why you see bubbles coming out of your soda).
There is a very important law of chemistry called Le Chatelier's principle which states that:
If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.
If CO2 was not volatile, what would happen is that, at some point, you would reach a chemical equilibrium, that is, the amount of H2CO3 formed by CO2 dissolving in water would be exactly the same as that of H2CO3 decomposing into CO2. But, as we said, CO2 escapes the water in the form of gas... So what happens is that you are always removing CO2 from your reaction and, as Le Chatelier's principle tells us, the system will react to counteract this loss, by decomposing more carbonic acid to forming more CO2.
This is why, if you pour soda in a glass it will slowly become less and less sparkly, as CO2 will leave the water, be substituted by the decomposition of some more H2CO3 and so on, until no H2CO3 is left.
So, why does a closed bottle of soda stay sparkling until you open it? Simply because CO2 has only a small room to escape (the small empty space on top of the liquid). All I said before works also for a closed can/bottle of soda, but at some point the air on top of the liquid becomes saturated with CO2, that is, it cannot make room for any more CO2. This means that the CO2 will restart to go back into the water.
All of these reaction will be influenced by temperature.
Carbonic acid decomposition is much faster at room temperature compared to 4°C, so what happens is that, at room temperature, reaction (3) will be more favoured compared to (2) and when the can will be opened more CO2 will exit the can, giving you a slightly less fizzy drink.
This effect is similar to that of shaking the bottle: in that case you are mechanically promoting the dissociation of carbonic acid and helping CO2 to escape from water.
Finally, carbonic acid is, as you may guess, an acid, albeit a very weak one!
It will therefore contribute to lower the pH of your drink in a more or less strong way, depending on the soda: the pH contribute of H2CO3 will be higher in sparkling water (bringing the pH down from 7 to between 3 and 4) than in Coca Cola, which already contains a strong acid (H3PO4, phosphoric acid) and has a low pH in any case.
To the downvoter: could you please explain the downvote?
So nitrogenated or hydrogenated water could have the same fizz but without the bitterness or acidity?
@endolith: not sure about what would happen with nitrogen... but definitely you don't want to put highly explosive gas into your soda!
The answer to the actual question is only reached after a fairly long amount of text. And it's a little unclear - if I understand right, you're just saying that it'll be less fizzy and possibly more or less acidic (which?) at room temperature than chilled. But the OP was asking about refrigerating then bringing back to room temperature - is that any different from just leaving it at room temperature in the first place?
@Jefromi he answer to the actual question is only reached after a fairly long amount of text I have this bad habit of trying to explain things clearly rather than giving unsubstantiated answers... As for the difference between refrigerating and RT or directly RT, surely that is different. As I say in my answer, reaction is slowed down at lower temperature, therefore 1h in the fridge and 1h at RT is different from 2h of RT. However, if the bottle is closed the difference may not be that big on the long term.
I read the question as asking asking about a can that'd come to equilibrium in the refrigerator, then came to equilibrium at room temperature. Is that any different from just leaving at room temperature? (I assumed the OP knew what soda at room temperature was like, could be wrong.)
@Jefromi not if you leave it long enough at room temperature, so that it reaches the equilibrium. As the system is closed, CO2 has no means to escape therefore the previous state (fridge or no fridge) will only affect how long it will take to reach equilibrium outside the fridge.
@nico Exactly - those are the kind of practical statements I thought might be useful in the answer. As long as it's unopened, basically just the temperature matters, with warmer meaning slightly less fizz.
If the question is asking if this impacts the integrity of the can, in my experience, the answer is no. You can chill and warm the can over and over and as long as it remains sealed it shouldn't have any noticeable effect on taste, flavor, or carbonation once you do finally open it.
Now if you freeze it, it will likely explode.
As others have mentioned the taste and flavor can be affected by temperature but a cycle of temperature changes shouldn't alter the end result compared to a can that did not experience those same cycles.
The temperature of food or drink can have a dramatic effect on the flavor, as described. Though I can also offer a counter-example from experience. When I made the switch from sugared sodas to no-sugar sodas I found that the colder the drink the more sweet the taste.
I've once experienced freezing a soda, and yes it exploded. As for I am doing a science experiment on "what's the fastest way to cool a soda" and it's pretty simple really and basic. I- in my opinion think whether you freeze the soda, place in a refrigerator, or place in any position the soda will have the same taste to it as long as the soda has not been opened and has had anything accidentally go inside it.
I'm sorry but I don't see how freezing a soda has anything to do with the question here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.502278
| 2012-04-30T02:00:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23464",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chelo",
"Des",
"Jason Saygnavong",
"KA Tasca",
"Kay",
"Keri Jones",
"derobert",
"endolith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"lois",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9355
|
How to convert a recipe calling for active dry yeast into rapid rise yeast?
I have a recipe for rolls where the first stage calls for 2 packages active dry yeast, 1 tbsp sugar, and 1/2 cup warm water to be mixed until the yeast is proofed, and then 1/4 cup cubed butter is added to the proofed yeast. Then all of that is added to half of the flour (2 cups) and 2 tsp salt and allowed to do the first rise.
If I wanted to use rapid rise yeast instead of active dry, could I skip the proofing step? Would I need to add the butter at all? Could I just mix all the dry ingredients, add the warm water and start the dough that way? What effect would this change have?
First off, it's good to understand the difference between active dry yeast and rapid rise yeast. Active dry yeast is a larger granule of yeast in which the outer shell is composed of mostly dead cells entombing the dormant nougaty goodness inside. It has to be proofed to seperate out all the cells and rehydrate the interior active cells.
Rapid rise yeast is a typically a combination of 2 different strains of yeast (so those with a very discerning palate might be able to tell the difference, I've never really tried). The granules of yeast are smaller and dried slower to preserve more yeast cells. Ascorbic acid is also added to push the yeast into overdrive a little faster.
A great video that helped me a lot is http://how2heroes.com/videos/dessert-and-baked-goods/yeast-101 I have noticed before issues with Rapid Rise yeast not proofing very well the second time around. Apparently it's designed to give you one really good proof and then die out (play hard and die young). Instant yeast however is Rapid Rise yeast without the hardcore party attitude. It's what they use at the King Arthur bakery test kitchen, so that's good enough for me! They say to use them interchangeably, but many other sites I see show a difference of about 20%.
2 Tbsp Active Dry yeast ≈ 1.6 Tbsp Instant Yeast
Rapid Rise yeast also calls for a slightly high temperature on water (120°-130°), probably to counter the temperature change when adding the warm water to the cold dry ingredients. http://www.breadworld.com/RR_vs_ADY.aspx
Other shell = outer shell?
@Aaronut Good call! Thanks for the spot check. That's what I get for trying to write after having just waking up.
The ascorbic acid also serves to counteract the reducing (weakening) effect on gluten that any dead yeast cells may cause (they contain glutathione, a reducing agent which can weaken gluten structure).
When using instant yeast (rapid rise), you can skip the proofing step. You should use warm (about 110 degree) water when pouring it in, but your yeast should be added with the dry ingredients.
The butter is added to the proofed yeast not for anything yeast related, but probably to soften the butter. I'd add it to your warm water. I'd continue to leave the butter in, because otherwise you will be dealing with unenriched dough, which has a different texture and flavor.
According to every source I've seen (my primary source being the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook), use 25% less instant yeast than active dry yeast. If you use the same amount, you will want to use more salt to counteract some of the more powerful yeast.
How much more salt?
@KatieK - maybe 25% more by weight, but it is an area where you would have to experiement. You can also use less rising time or a cooler rising temperature. You just want to make sure that your yeast doesn't overproof.
Usually when using live yeast, you need to use a little more than dry yeast, usually it's about 4/3 of the quantity.
Butter has nothing to do with yeast nutrition, it's probably part of the recipe already, so it doesn't matter which yeast you use for that. The difference will be that your yeast won't need to be activated, and you can skip the sugar and warm water part.
please site your source for your first statement. I have not seen this in any authority or experienced it myself.
@justkt - For example http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2010/04/chocolate-bread-recipe/
the OP is discussing instant yeast, which is not fresh yeast. They are different. Instant yeast (rapid rise) is more powerful than active dry.
Sorry, then I misunderstood the question. I even mention it in the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.502851
| 2010-11-22T05:57:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9355",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ant",
"Chesty Puller",
"Elton Carvalho",
"F masila",
"FoodTasted",
"Hutchette",
"KatieK",
"NSGod",
"RNM",
"Richard",
"SurDin",
"barbara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"justkt"
],
"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
}
|
126735
|
Pasta Bar for 250 people
My ladies church group has been asked to cater a wedding dinner. It is a pasta bar for 250 people- 3 kinds of pasta, 3 sauces, 3 toppings (broccoli, chicken, cheese), salad and bread. My question is how much pasta to prepare of each kind? I think it is spaghetti, penne, and macaroni. Sauces are red sauce, alfredo sauce, and cheese sauce. Also, would it be best to cook the pasta the day before, shock it in ice water, put it in gallon bags with oil, and then reheat the next day? We've done mostaccioli before with the sauce mixed in, but never plain pasta where the guest adds the sauce.
Can you check the answers with this question? They seem to answer most of what you want to know: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/86312/7180
Does this answer your question? How to make, store, and reheat angel hair pasta for 250 in a tiny church kitchen
I’ve added the ‘bulk-cooking’ tag which we use for large quantity cooking questions. You may want to look through those questions as some like https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43353/67 may answer part of your question
Oh, and if you want to look for other resources online, this is often called ‘quantity cooking’. We have a question about websites that focus on that topic at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/82964/67
A kick-ass antipasto pasta salad or macaroni salad would ease the burden.
You would end up going through a lot of gallon bags, so I wouldn’t recommend that. If you were going to take that approach, I would suggest instead using deep hotel pans, undercook the pasta slightly, shock in cold water, drain, toss in a bit of oil, and then place in the pans.
The penne and macaroni will be the easiest to deal with, as strand pasta might be more difficult to extract from the pan to refresh in boiling water before serving. (You can also steam it to reheat if that would be easier, although it takes longer). If you’re adding hot sauce to the pasta, it only needs to be brought back to room temperature.
As for quantity, it really depends on how hearty the sauce and toppings are, how warm it is outside (people eat more when it’s cold), and what sort of people you’re cooking for (college football players are going to eat more than small children).
I’ve seen recommendations for anywhere from 2oz to 4oz (57 to 114g) of dried pasta per person depending if it’s intended as a side dish or a main course. And those numbers were assuming you’re serving them, not self-service.
As for the proportions of each pasta, it’s likely that demographics might have a factor there, too. I suspect that children would be more likely to go for macaroni, while people in fancy clothes might go for penne (as strands like spaghetti can be messier to eat). Most people would be accepting of other pasta if their first choice is no longer available, so that one might not be as critical of an issue.
…
I would recommend doing a smaller test dinner for maybe 12-25 people, so you can test out your prep, cooking and reheating methods, and get a clearer estimate of how much you should cook for the group. It will also let you know how fast each batch takes to cook so how much time you need to plan for.
If the main course is just pasta with sauce I think 114g is a little on the short side for a grown up. If the pasta is the main source of calories I would go up to 6 oz/ 171g depending on age and gender distribution.
If food catering isn't something you're familiar with (especially with this many people), @Joe's suggestion about doing a test dinner is spot on. My wife and I serve a kids meal on a regular basis, and with just about any new meal we try, we always do a test of not only the food, but the prep time, plating procedures, etc. That way there are fewer surprises during the meal itself, especially if there are specific times that your wedding is expecting food to be ready.
@Milwrdfan : I assumed they had, from their comment about serving other food before, but if someone finds this who hasn’t, I would also recommend https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12068/67
Don't forget to make allowances for seconds, changes, and waste, especially if guests serve themselves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.503340
| 2024-02-22T20:43:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126735",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Milwrdfan",
"Phil Freedenberg",
"Tinfoil Hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81717",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
960
|
What is a proper Manhattan?
I've ordered these a few times, and had wildly varying results - hardly surprising, given the general lack of training among bartenders around these parts, but confusing none the less!
So now I'm curious: what should a Manhattan be composed of?
Where is "these parts"? Do you specify what sort of whiskey you want? Cheap bottom-shelf whiskey gives you a cheap bottom-shelf Manhattan!
Southern Colorado - I've actually ended up with something closer to an old fashioned (sweet and fruity) on at least one occasion.
You started this just to try to make a point about drinks being in scope, didn't you? Not only that, but it's also basically a recipe swapping question. Voting to close...
@Aaronut: this and the coffee one - both topics came and went on Area51 without any real consensus, so I felt they needed some real-world testing before we blindly slam the door closed...
I've added a link to this question from the meta post, along with a few remarks. We can continue the argument there. :P
Voted to reopen. Not off-topic. See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121/are-questions-on-alcohol-beverages-allowed/151#151
I do think subjective applies though.
Actually, according to the highest-voted answer in that same thread, this is off-topic.
@jmoeller: A thread that prior yesterday it looks like a full 10 people of the community had read.
Well, then you can't really conclude that it's on-topic either, can you? :)
How is this question different from "what is a proper quiche lorraine?" Unless the question clearly asks for something other than a recipe, it should be off topic. Indeed, this question asks specifically for a recipe, and the accepted answer consists of two recipes, so this question is precisely recipe request, hence off topic. Now because this question happens to deal with a product containing ethanol I'll be branded as a member of the fictitious "Prohibition Posse." Sigh. So be it.
Voted offtopic because this is a bartending question. If this question about pairing or using alcohol in food prep, I'd say that would be different and on topic.
OTOH, it's not really a recipe because the answer is basically just a list of ingredients. Food recipes require much more involved instruction.
Probably worth noting here that I'm not asking how to make a Manhattan, or soliciting favorite Manhattan variations. I'm asking for the canonical composition (if such a thing exists...) Consider it along with questions such as, "What is a roux?" or "What is creme fraiche?".
A traditional Manhattan is two shots of rye or bourbon, one shot of sweet vermouth, a dash of bitters and a cherry, shaken and strained into a martini glass. I prefer on the rocks in a rocks glass, myself.
A perfect Manhattan is similar, but uses a half shot each of sweet and dry vermouth. They tend to be more interesting when paired with a higher quality whiskey.
I'm also a big fan of white whiskey (aka, high quality moonshine) in Manhattans.
Given the discussion thread surrounding this question I would ask, "What is your 'source' for offering these compositions as 'Proper'?" In the context of the OP's question, citing authority makes this more of a definition of a Manhattan rather than a recipe for a Manhattan. (Ok, this is splitting a fine hair, but it could quell the riots brewing above..)
Standard pour (maybe a little extra) of your choice of whiskey (bourbon preferred) though brandy is also acceptable. Add a splash of sweet vermouth and a dash of bitters if you prefer. Then garnish with something, I prefer a cherry.
Manhattan's were originally made with Rye rather than Bourbon, but times change and the modern trend for the latter means that Rye often isn't the first choice. Cocktail supremo, David Wondrich, notes that a decent proof Bourbon will work just as well as Rye in an Manhattan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.503712
| 2010-07-14T15:51:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/960",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chad",
"Cos Callis",
"DavidGouge",
"Elazar Leibovich",
"Fara",
"Gert van den Berg",
"Harlan",
"Mike Sherov",
"Ocaasi",
"Rui Vieira",
"Shog9",
"efalcao",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"jumoel",
"kevins"
],
"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
}
|
23613
|
Why are poblanos sometimes called pasillas?
Background information: poblano peppers are one of the most common peppers in Mexican food. Pasilla peppers are something entirely different - the dried form of the chilaca.
I'm originally from Texas, where poblanos are commonly found in grocery stores. I moved to California a while back, and here they're still pretty easy to find, but they're always labeled "pasilla". Even at a local produce market with a decent amount of Mexican food (and Spanish-speaking employees) - and just recently I noticed they even have anchos (dried poblanos) labeled as "dried pasillas". I did manage to find one local Mexican restaurant menu online describing a chile relleno as a stuffed poblano, but otherwise it seems pretty universal.
So where did this come from? Via the above-linked wikipedia article, I did find a website saying it's the fault of the California produce industry for labeling them this way, but that's not the original reason. Is it all just the result of a single person getting it wrong a long time ago, and an entire produce industry building off of that?
I'm generally finding "we can't figure out why anyone would confuse/conflate the two. Looks like a grocer or distributor mixed them up and it just stuck" when I search.
I have not been able to find any kind of detailed history of the pepper crop in California online.
However, I will observe that I've only seen chilaca peppers available in Northern California in the last 5 years. Previously, one never saw them, even at Latin markets. On the other hand, California grows enormous quantities of poblano peppers, which are larger, hardier, and have a longer shelf life than chilacas when fresh. Based on that, I suspect that some enterprising, dishonest produce supplier started supplying ancho peppers as pasillas to Mexicans in California decades ago, and after several decades of misnaming, the new names stuck.
I'll also observe that the dried poblanos sold as "anchos" in NorCal are a bit hotter than the ones sold as "pasilla", so it's also likely that there's two different varietals, bred here. So it's also possible that whoever bred the milder poblanos named them "pasillas" to differentiate them from the hotter ones, confusing everyone.
We use 100's of "pasilla" chiles at work each week (in California). Although they are all labeled as pasilla, it is obvious that they are poblano. The poblano, as previously stated, is a dark green, wide shouldered, about 4-5" in length, medium to hot chile. Also correctly stated earlier, an ancho ("ancho" actually translates to "wide") is a dried poblano. Pasilla's are actually a fairly difficult chile to obtain on a regular basis. I wanted to note, however; that the poblano's that we receive are more often than not grown IN MEXICO AND LABELED AS PASILLA. Curious. Pasilla chiles are a bit narrower at the shoulders, a bit longer than an ancho and depending on the growing environment, are about the same in heat index. Most pasilla that are commercially grown are used for dried chile.
I asked a checker, who is from Mexico, in my local market why the market mislables anchos as pasillas. She said some areas of Mexico call the ancho a pasilla and other areas call it poblano and so it depends on where the chilis come from. The problem with that explanation is that most chiles in American markets come from California.
Ancho generally refers to dried poblanos, not the pepper in general - though the Spanish Wikipedia article on poblanos does say that in some regions of Mexico poblanos are called anchos. It doesn't mention anyone calling them pasillas, though. (And the pasilla article doesn't say anything about poblanos.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.504057
| 2012-05-06T17:58:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23613",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Michael Chang",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Robert Pacl",
"SmileBot",
"Tom Daniel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53510",
"taxoof"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56385
|
Is it safe to eat baby-potatoes?
I kept several potatoes in a box dark cool cellar. Now, after 6 months, I am surprised to see that they grew a lot of sprouts, and among them, many "baby potatoes", with radius between 1 and 10 milimeters. The "mother potatoes" look and smell OK, but they feel softer than usual.
I wonder if there is anything here that can be cooked and eaten?
I have read that the sprouts themselves are poisonous, and the softer potatoes are also unsafe. But what about the baby potatoes - are they safe?
personally, I'd plant them.
Definitely plant them, you'll have a half decent crop of new potatoes within a month.
Plating is fine (I encourage gardens), but this last summer, I spent a day at my cousin's potato farm, and we ate some baby potatoes (all under 2 inches) from an injured plant. They were raw... and delicious!
Planting will get you a better return. Cut the potatoes up into sections with a sprout each, let the cuts callus at 70 F/21C for a few days, and plant.
If you remove the sprouts and the potatoes are not green, or any green parts are removed, they should be safe, if not of particularly good quality.
Planting the sprouted ones and buying others to eat would be your best bet, better quality, and not too costly. Next year, put some apples in the root cellar with the potatoes to help prevent/reduce potato sprouting during storage.
In the well-managed root cellar we're supposed to somehow find time to to go through every couple of weeks to check for and remove the various sprouting or spoiling food before the process gets too far along. I can't say I have arrived there myself yet...but if you at least look for the sprouted ones when you are grabbing tubers to use, you can remove small sprouts from firmish potatoes and use them up, and be aware if the whole batch is sprouting away and needs to be used up soon, before it gets to this point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.504377
| 2015-04-05T10:43:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56385",
"authors": [
"Anthony Martinez",
"Doug",
"Joe",
"Johanne Mercier",
"M A",
"Nat John",
"That One Actor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leone ebbett"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43265
|
What is the quickest way to defrost a vegetable curry without a microwave?
I use gas stove.
What is the quickest way to defrost a vegetable curry without a microwave?
Why not simply plan ahead and put the frozen curry in the fridge one day before you want to eat it? Just warm it up the next day.
Extract it from the container (run the container under the hot tap to loosen up the edges if necessary) and put it in a saucepan.
Add a little bit of liquid (water, juice from canned tomatoes, milk... whatever would go with the particular curry you have) just to cover the bottom of the saucepan so it isn't getting heated dry.
Put it on the stove on a medium heat.
Use a sharp, serrated knife to saw the "frozen lump" into smaller bits, being careful if you have a non-stick saucepan not to scratch the pan surface (you can saw half way through and then prise the halves apart carefully instead of sawing right through the lump).
Keep stirring and turning the lumps over so all sides are getting heated. As the lumps start to loosen up, keep sawing them up into halves.
Within 10-15 minutes all the lumps will be gone and you can make sure it's thoroughly heated through before serving.
Another approach:
Transfer to a heat-proof bag. Remove as much air as possible, seal bag. Put in simmering water (actually, you can put it in the water as you're heating the water—and you can use hot tap water to start). As it starts to defrost, every few minutes remove from water and using some plastic utensil or the back of a spoon (to avoid damaging the bag) mash it a little to stir it.
This will take longer than throwing it in the sauté pan, but greatly reduces the risk of burning it.
Note that standard Ziploc bags can not take boiling; it's supposedly not a safety concern, but the bag becomes extremely soft and will probably break when you try to remove it. There are sous vide zip-close bags that can take boiling (and so can many vacuum sealer bags).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.504584
| 2014-04-04T09:57:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43265",
"authors": [
"Cindy Kimpson",
"Katie Banks",
"Monica Dammann",
"Spam",
"WingedWolves",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"miran"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7639
|
Removing turmeric colour from mortar and pestle
We have a large granite (I think) mortar and pestle, and while keeping it clean generally doesn't seem too difficult, I have absolutely no idea how to avoid it staining when it's used with turmeric powder when cooking curries.
Generally, we'll ground the spices then add garlic and a little water to create a paste which is then fried; the only solution I can think of to avoid the yellow stain is to add the turmeric separately to the pan and leave it out of the mortar entirely. Would this work satisfactorily, or is there a way to get the colour from the mortar?
Funny, I had the same exact issue this weekend with a plastic white spatula that is now a plastic yellow spatula, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to remove the color short of diluted bleaching (which is probably what I'll end up trying). Can't wait to see what the community has to suggest!
For cleaning granite, check out the tips (and what not to do) at this resource.
I would leave the turmeric stain in. It would not affect the flavour of any future mixture I wish to pestle. Because turmeric is a food known to reduce risk of dementia, I would want it to seep into everything I eat.
Turmeric is an intense stain. I would use a little bit of bleach, let it sit until the stain disappears, then wash the mortar very thoroughly. Another option is just to accept that the mortar may develop colors over time, and think of it as character.
Apparently, if you washed the mortar with a mild soap and water, and let the mortar dry out in direct sunlight or a sunlamp for 5-10+ minutes, the stain will "magically" fade or completely disappear.
It may take longer than 5-10 minutes, but sunlight makes excellent bleach.
yeah likely... the longer you leave it, the more it will fade... fixed that above.
if you're worried about extra tumeric getting into your spice mixes, i'd recommend adding a little bit of water (like 1 tsp) and grinding salt into the mortar. this should remove most of the extra bits of the spice, but it may still leave a little bit of color.
if the color STILL bothers you, the only thing i can think of that isn't mentioned above is making a poultice like i do for my granite countertops. here's a site with some pretty easy-to-follow instructions: http://www.mrscleanusa.com/en/cleaning-tips/stain-removal/granite-stain-removal.html
curcumin (the colour compound in turmeric) is broken down by UV light. If the stain is the main issue here, leaving the mortar outside where it can receive sunlight directly (without going through a glass window) may be enough
Let it soak in vinegar for a day or two, then scrub. Repeat process if there is still color remaining or let it sit for longer periods altogether (if nothing else, throw in a pinch of baking soda as well.] this worked when i needed to remove a ginger stain. But vinegar is considered acidic, so please use it as a last resort!
you might try soaking it in lemon juice or ammonia, too.
As mentioned at the site that justkt linked, it's probably not a good idea to use any kind of acid on granite, as it will tend to etch the surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.504796
| 2010-09-27T15:17:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7639",
"authors": [
"Andrew Maier",
"CokoBWare",
"Cynthia",
"Eclipse",
"Glenn Stevens",
"James Stopford",
"Taeraresh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"justkt",
"luiquao",
"smessing",
"stephennmcdonald",
"useCase",
"user15731"
],
"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
}
|
15166
|
How much Finger Food to make for a 'crowd'
I am helping a friend plan and prepare 'finger foods' for a post-funeral gathering of about 50-75 people. Right now we are thinking in terms of a meat & cheese tray with breads and crackers, a 'typical' veggie tray with ranch, etc., little smokies...
What I would like to ask is "how much" should we make?
Any great suggestions for what to include beyond the basics will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks to all who contribute.
ps.. I tried a lot of things for tags, finger-foods, quantity,
snack-foods, snacks that don't
currently exist. If anybody has a
suggestion the right 'tags' for this
question I will appreciate the input.
What is the expected time and length of the gathering? Are there events that people are expected to attend before / after and how long will those last?
people will be coming from a memorial service to the family visitation. It will be a come and go affair for a couple of hours.
Time of day might be a factor, too ... if you're at noon or naer dinner time, people would likely be hungrier than if you had it in the early afternoon, when they'd have likely already eaten.
This is the rule we use for kids parties in Brazil, where pretty much all that is eaten is finger food (besides the birthday cake), you can use it as a starting point for other regions as well (since portions are typically larger in the US I'd increase it a little):
6-8 snacks (savory) items per adult, 4-6 per child
4-6 sweet items per adult, ~4 per child (who will eat most of the cake)
Lots of drinks (soda, juice, alcohol for adults), which I don't remember the amount
A savory item is roughly the size of a 1" / 2.5cm diameter ball, while the sweet ones are a little smaller (1/2" / 1cm diameter).
With those quantities nobody ends up completely stuffed, and there isn't much leftover either. For kinds of food which I can reuse later I tend to get a little more than the "recommended" amounts, since I'm able to use the leftovers the following day.
I found this a very interesting answer. I'd also like to see one in terms of total weight, like maybe 8 ounces / 450 grams per person for a light appetizer meal?
Thanks for your thoughts. I think this will help us arrive at a good portioning.
Not exactly what you're after, but I've heard the guideline of 1/2 pound meat (main course) for dinners, then just proportion side courses appropriately. This might give you a rough starting point, which you could just proportion down depending on where you want this to fit between snack or meal.
As others have pointed out, time of day and other activities will affect how much people eat. Type of snacks can have quite a large impact as well; smaller, easier to handle items will go faster. You can even play with presentation to control how much people eat; placing small serving dishes out, and refilling them from a storage container will subconsciously cause people not to take as much, because there doesn't look to be as much.
Finally, your estimated numbers (50-75) is a HUGE gap. That's a 50% increase! With that large a gap, you're either going to have lots of leftovers, or no where near enough food. There's no way to plan for exact. So, plan things you'll like to eat for the next 3 days. ^_^
As for things to make...
Funeral/memorial snacks tend to be cultural. Are there any local foods or religious foods that are expected? Next, are there any favorite foods of the deceased? Of the family? Also watch for cultural taboos, and voluntary dietary restrictions: a meat-heavy spread in memorial of a vegetarian is probably inappropriate.
If you just want random snack items, most any appetizer would work. Look for things which can be prepared, stored, then served, as kitchen space gets to be a premium in the last hours before the event. Dips are nice, and stretch well. Wrapped items (like pigs in blankets, or boregs) are easier for guests to handle. You may even consider a roast of some sort and making mini sandwiches as a good-sized roast would stretch quite a way (hunt down slider buns, or buy/make small rolls). Picnic foods can be another great source of inspiration.
Thank you for your input. I am sure it will prove valuable in planning.. Yes, we expect to have leftovers, but are trying to get into the right ball park.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.505102
| 2011-05-31T21:20:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15166",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18304
|
Buttermilk + Butter =?
Watching an episode of Alton Brown's "Good Eats" (episode: House of the Rising Bun) and AB is demonstrating a recipe for cinnamon rolls. In the "wet" mix he includes both buttermilk and butter.
Now, since buttermilk is milk after the butter has been churned out, why would a recipe call for both?
Obviously, proportion would be an issue, but whole milk + (less) butter should equal buttermilk + (full amount) butter, shouldn't it?
@Aaronut: fundamentally this question is about the choice of Buttermilk + Butter vs. Milk + Butter as an "ingredient selection"
One of those tags does not apply and the other should never be used, period. Please read the tag excerpts and wikis on the ingredient tags for more information.
@Aaronut, if you are going to 'remove a tag' remove it, there is no legacy value in allowing it to linger on out there were it can be found. Particularly one with a prima-facia value that should not require the 'reading of the wiki'. As for "ingredient selection", if this isn't included in the meaning of that tag, it should be. What tag would you recommend for "what reason is there to use X over Y"
@CosCallis I had to learn that one the hard way too, it's rather confusing. "ingredient-selection" would be things like "How do I choose an apple that's ripe", not "why did the recipe author select to use apples in this recipe".
Buttermilk is not "milk after the butter has been churned out." Traditional buttermilk is fermented (soured, not sour) cream after the butter has been churned out. If you happen to get your hands on raw milk, skim the cream, and let it ferment for a few days, maybe you could substitute it for traditional buttermilk + butter. But most recipes these days assume cultured buttermilk anyway, which is slightly different and has absolutely nothing to do with butter manufacturing. The assumptions in the question are wrong, so the question does not make sense.
Hah, I get to cite my new copy of McGee's "On Food and Cooking" for the first time! There are several things going on here (all of which can be found in the 2004 edition of McGee, most on page 50).
Firstly, as Nathan indicates in his answer, most of the liquid that is sold as buttermilk these days is in fact not "real" buttermilk, but so-called "cultured buttermilk", made from ordinary skim milk and fermented until acid and thick.
Secondly, even traditional buttermilk was somewhat sour, though less than cultured buttermilk. To find out why, let's examine the processes that were involved in making it. If you want to make butter, you start by separating milk into cream and whey. Since the 19th century, we typically do that with a centrifuge and it goes quite quickly, but before then, we would leave it to gravity. That would take a while, and the milk would start to ferment while it happened - especially in warmer environments. This fermenting is essentially lactic acid bacteria converting lactose into lactic acid, which sours the milk a little.
So in either case, you would have more lactic acid in butter + buttermilk than in butter + whole milk.
Great breakdown. More to buttermilk than meets the eye there is.
Two things:
First, commercially available buttermilk is actually milk that has been slightly cultured to increase the amount of lactic acid; that's why it tastes tart. My grandmother used to make 'buttermilk' by leaving some milk on the counter to let it ferment. Because of the increased amount of acid, a lot of recipes (like buns or biscuits) mix buttermilk with baking powder to leaven the mix.
Secondly, the order that they are added might matter. I'm not familiar with the recipe, but he might want to add the butter at an earlier or latter time. He might do the former to cream the butter (mix butter and sugar at a high speed to create bubbles of air in the butter; it's what you do with cake), or he might fold the butter into the mix later on to help create flakiness.
The ingredients are added together in the 'wet mix', but still your first point is interesting and your second could well apply in other situations. Thanks for your input.
The second point is the main one, I think. Baking is about texture and the distribution of air and hydration. Fat emulsified in water (=milk) has a very different effect from a blob of fat (=butter) together with some water. Saying that buttermilk+butter is the same as milk is like saying that a pie shell is the same as a roux sauce, because both is butter + flour plus some liquid.
The need to mix buttermilk with butter comes from needing a substitute for sour cream in baking since some people cannot use milk, being lactose intolerant. See "The Milk Sugar Dilemma: Living with Lactose Intolerance", substitutions, page 120, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded by Richard A. Martens, M.D. and Sherlyn Martens, M.S., R.D.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.505548
| 2011-10-10T23:38:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18304",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Athanasius",
"Cos Callis",
"G. Allen",
"John",
"Kevin",
"RMorrisey",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"rumtscho",
"starzest",
"user135520",
"秋水无涯"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15119
|
How to layer a Lasagne
I have a made a number of meat lasagne's that taste great (IMHO) but I have always had a problem getting them to preserve that "layered" effect. When it is cooked and even partially cooled the first slice out of the pan and it practically turns to goulash.
I would love some advise on this.
Can you specify the order of the layers if you make lasagne?
Last night it was Pasta, Mozzerella, Cheddar, Meat Sauce, Ricotta, Repeat All, Pasta on top.
Bet your meat sauce is on the damp side. If you want the layers, the whole dish needs to be drier, so it'll hold up.
actually I tighten up pretty well, though maybe it does need to be thicker. Thanks for the input.
this answer has some good pointers. for me, letting the lasagne 'rest' really helps with solidifying and helps maintain the effect you want when you slice into it.
I've always done a layer of bechamel, pasta, meat, pasta, meat, pasta, meat, pasta, bechamel, cheeses (mozzarella and parmesan, from bottom to top). If you put the cheese in the middle the liquid in it (especially in the mozzarella) won't evaporate and you will have sloppy lasagne.
The other factor is the liquidity of your sauce - a thicker, meatier sauce is better for lasagne so it keeps its shape.
No problem. FYI, I bake the lasagne with a foil lid for 40 minutes, then take the foil off for the final 20 so the cheese can crisp and turn golden.
How thick do you make your white sauce? I've never had a problem with it in the middle, but I make it quite thick for the lasagne (but thinner as a sauce on the side), and let the lasagne rest for at least 30-45 min after baking so it sets back up again.
Quite thick. I just feel it gets lost when you put it in the middle. As long as you don't put the cheese in the middle though, the exact order isn't important I think.
There are several factors in this, in my experience.
Thickness of the sauce. If your sauce is too watery, then the pasta layers will soak up too much liquid and have less structural integrity. This is the obvious issue.
Thickness of the layering. A layer of pasta can only hold so much weight. A layer of sauce about half an inch deep is usually the limit. This isn't an exact measurement though, merely experience.
Unemulsified fat. When you add things like Mozzarella and Cheddar, they melt and release lots of fat. This will get soaked up by the pasta, making it a little "gooey". These cheeses generally stay on the top, where the water can evaporate and the fat can brown nicely in the air above it.
Space between the pasta leaves. The pasta shouldn't have any spacing between leaves, as this allows a lot of shifting in the baking tray. I generally set it up with quite a bit of overlap (about 3/4 of an inch). This way the two leaves can combine in certain places, giving a thicker layer of pasta, and no spacing can form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.506271
| 2011-05-29T16:23:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15119",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
}
|
8223
|
Good techniques for stirring dough
Is there any particular technique for stirring dough (particularly cake dough) that is to be recommended? When I stir dough, I find that I develop too much gluten (i.e. it gets too chewy) and don't get all of the flour mixed in.
Any suggestions?
edit: Reference to cake.
What kind of dough?
As hobodave suggested in his comment above, this question is impossible to answer without knowing what you are making; different baked goods call for different mixing techniques.
different types of cake use different techniques (ex: sponge, pound)
You generally don't stir cake batter at all.
Where I learned to bake, we were taught that if you want a light and fluffy cake, as is generally the case, then you should fold in the dry ingredients (including flour). That means using a flat surface - a silicone spatula works great but you could even use your hand in a pinch - sliding it down the edge of the bowl, and using a turning motion (i.e. folding) to incorporate the flour, repeating several times until there are no longer any large clumps of dry ingredients.
When you fold, it's very difficult to over-mix. And particularly with cakes and quick breads, under-mixing a little is actually OK, because the batter tends to be quite moist and eventually the moisture will seep through to any unincorporated flour - and if it doesn't, you'll get a nice spongy texture.
Commercial mixers actually have paddle attachments for folding large amounts of batter. You don't need a special mixer, though; you just need to be gentle and conservative with your mixing.
Not every cake is the same, and some recipes may specifically call for you to whisk the batter (for which you should use a balloon whisk, not a spoon or spatula) instead of folding, but if it just says to "mix" the batter then I would using the folding technique.
Well, I can answer now that I know it's a cake --
Most cakes don't need to be fully mixed. So long as you don't have large lumps of flour (which you won't if you sift it, but you can also take a wisk to the dry goods if you're lazy like I am), it'll be fine after it's baked.
If you overmix most types of cakes, you'll get 'tunneling' where the gluten traps larger air bubbles, which end up looking like a worm's been tunneling through the cake. (it seems to happen the most w/ the muffin method).
Personally, I use a mixer for cakes (hand mixer normally, but I'll break out the stand mixer if I'm making really large cakes) If you don't have one, stick with a wooden spoon or a spatula. You can even fold in the flour, if you think you might've been mixing it too much.
Here are a couple suggestions:
Sift the flour
Use a low gluten flour (cake flour)
separate the yolks and whites, beat whites and fold into your batter (dough) as last step in the mixing process (makes it lighter)
Use a spatula instead of a whisk to do the mixing, or the paddle attachment on your mixer.
Also be aware that not "all purpose" flour is not all the same -- southern US brands (eg, White Lily) tends to be lower gluten than other those from other regions.
Cake batter is usually mixed using the creaming method. Start with room-temperature butter and the sugar. Beat until light and fluffy. Then you can add your eggs slowly, and add your dry ingredients once all the wet ones are mixed.
Like Aaronut said, not all cakes are created equal. Different cakes may call for a different method, but the creaming method is usually best for light, fluffy cakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.506537
| 2010-10-17T17:09:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8223",
"authors": [
"A. Row",
"Celine Solaas",
"Gabriel Scavassa",
"Joe",
"Phil LaFond",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"kevins",
"polm23",
"rootkit007",
"xref"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17528
|
How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature?
If I leave fully-cooked food (particularly meat) out at warm temperature - say on the counter or in a crock pot that's been turned off - how long will it stay safe to eat?
Does it make any difference if I re-cook the food afterward?
@aaronut: I always find this one interesting, especially for slow-cooking. Generally, a slow cooked meal will be cooked effectively sterile (3-6 hours at 150+ kills damn near everything), thus if it is prevented from bacterial combination it should be fine forever (a la Pasteur's flasks (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method5.htm)). I'd be interested in seeing how that played in the real world, but I've never found anyone who actually did the experiment...They always assume contamination occurs.
@Satanicpuppy: I'd generally agree that the insulated environment of a crock pot is less hospitable to bacterial recontamination than open air, but no amount of time at 65° C will render the environment sterile. In particular, the spores from spore-forming bacteria such as B. Cereus (rice/pasta) and almost all of the Clostridium species can survive boiling at 100° C. That's why low-acid foods have to be pressure-canned before storage. The spores aren't normally dangerous when eaten, but if they survive the cooking (and they will) then bacteria will start to grow again as it cools.
The USDA has this to say on it:
Storing Leftovers
One of the most common causes of foodborne illness is improper cooling of cooked foods. Because bacteria are everywhere, even after food is cooked to a safe internal temperature, they can be reintroduced to the food and then reproduce. For this reason leftovers must be put in shallow containers for quick cooling and refrigerated within 2 hours.
You'll find similar statements from government agencies around the world. The safe limit for raw or cooked food is 2 hours in the danger zone (40-140° F or 4.4-60° C).
If you're a restaurant owner or cook, you must follow this rule, hold hot foods above 60° C and quick-cool other foods before refrigerating. If you are not working in a professional capacity then you are not legally required to follow it, but if you are serving guests then it would be irresponsible (and possibly actionable, if someone gets sick) to do otherwise.
If you're an individual serving only yourself, then take whatever liberties and break whatever rules you want; it's your food, and your body. But there's no table or chart anyone can give you; there's no single specific point at which a food transitions from "not entirely safe" to "probably will kill you" because it depends entirely on the food, the environment, your immune system, and a plethora of other variables. The rule is 2 hours, period; any longer and there is some non-trivial risk to your health.
Some hints, tips, and warnings:
The 2-hour rule is a conservative estimate with a safety margin. Don't ask what that margin is. It's like asking what the "real" speed limit is on a posted road; you might know from experience, but it could change depending on circumstances and exceeding it by any amount means you take your chances and accept the risks.
Don't put large, hot items (such as an entire pot of soup or chili) directly into the fridge. The residual heat will warm up and potentially spoil other items in the refrigerator.
To quickly cool large cooked items, use an ice-water bath and/or divide them into small containers. (Note: Don't use an ice-water bath for cast iron.)
Don't assume that re-cooking an improperly-stored item will make it safe. Most bacteria produce protein toxins, which are actually the primary agents responsible for food poisoning, and several of these toxins are heat-resistant. Cooking will not kill or inactivate these toxins and eating the re-cooked food will still make you sick.
Don't assume that cooking "kills everything" and that a cooked food or cooking surface is absolutely sterile. Cooking kills enough to make the food safe to eat, but some organisms - such as bacterial spores from bacillus and clostridium - can survive the cooking process and immediately start producing more bacteria. Sous-vide bags, crock pots, etc. are not safe environments for cooked food in the temperature danger zone.
UK Food Hygiene Regulations (see UK FSA web-site) state that cold foods must be kept at 8°C or below and hot foods must be kept at 63°C or above. This is a legal requirement throughout the UK.
However when you are serving or displaying food, you can keep it out of temperature control for a limited period of time: Cold foods can be kept above 8°C for up to four hours. You should only do this once. If any food is left after this time, you should throw it away or keep it chilled at 8°C or below until it is used. Hot foods can be kept below 63°C for up to two hours. You should only do this once. If any food is left after this time, you should throw it away, reheat it to 63°C or above (82°C in Scotland), or cool below 8°C This applies to the UK with relatively temperate ambient temperatures - there have been nasty food poisoning cases where poorly prepared foods have been held in hot cars for relatively short periods.
Having said this, cold foods should always be served cold as soon as possible, and hot foods served hot as soon as possible after preparation.
Potted meat, meat held in hardened (( Rendered/clarified) animal fat, can last for quite some time without going bad.
EASILY SEVERAL days without refrigeration ! ! At normal room temp. 72F...
The problem with this method is that AIR on the surface of the fat can oxidize the lard and make it go rancid, but that takes much more than 4 days.
If you put saran wrap on top of the hard lard and poured water you could move all the air out, and preserve the lard even longer.
Lard potted meat using proper snow white lard or double clarified butter can last for months and months in the cool cellar or ground ! !
My grandmother used lard potted meat that was over a year old kept in the fridge ! !
No frezer burn, tasted amazing ! !
It was PERFECT ! !
Dont try this in direct sunlight of a hot summer day.
Pickled meats last a long time, pickled eggs...
You can pasteurize many different ways.
Bacterial spores can be killed by double flash pasteurization, though its usually done 3 times.
New methods are being invented, especially a modified microwave which could kill 100% of bacteria is VERY promising. Lasts 10x longer than irradiated food ! !
I ate 50 year old bacon( fetal pig) that was kept in pure ethanol when i was locked in a basement storage facility of a university during summer break at Indiana university.
As far as i know you can eat 100+ year old specimens preserved in alcohol. Besides being tasteless and getting drunk it was fine.
Potted meat might be stored at British room temperature, but American room temp tends to be much warmer. I know there are more answers on here about preservation via fat, but they tend to be voted down because of potential food safety concerns. If done correctly, you're pasteurizing the meat, and then sealing it from exposure. See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/8070/67
Aside from the gross factor of eating the fetal pig specimen, it is also very dangerous to drink or eat meat preserved in lab grade ethanol. Lab grade ethanol will rarely be 100% and will often contain amounts of methanol. Methanol even in small amounts will blind(10mL) or kill you(25mL).
I left a crockpot full of broth, smoked turkey, turnips seasonings and spices(Onions red green & yellow peppers) mistakenly, out overnight & it was covered. That was around 8pm. I went somewheres, returned at 10am. Yeah, it was left all night long. But I said, "bump that", reboiled it, threw in some sun dried tomatoes & fresh spinach, threw some hot sauce on it, served over rice and I ate it, damn everything these germophobes say! Then I washed it down with some ice-cold gingerale!
This just means you got lucky once. It doesn't mean this is at all safe.
This has been flagged as not an answer a few times; in my view it is an answer (it's implying it's safe) it's just not a good answer, as I said in my first comment.
Though I do the same myself, as I'd only be responsible for killing... me;) I'd hesitate to delete it or even downvote any further. -3 answers cannot be seen by new users, so at -2 it serves its purpose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.506854
| 2011-09-06T20:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17528",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexander Leon VI",
"Carole",
"Cascabel",
"Chandan Soni",
"Dave Y.",
"Javad Torabi nejad",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Lisa",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stephanie",
"Tetsujin",
"Vikram",
"Wildrose VI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87673",
"recognizer",
"user27635",
"walt crocker"
],
"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
}
|
19888
|
What causes lemons to be bitter when cooked and how to avoid it?
I know that the bitter taste in lemons is due to the rind (the white part), but I don't understand why there are recipes where it's ok and others where the taste is just terrible.
I recently experimented by mixing curry with limes and lemons. I cut the lemons and placed the slices over chicken thighs that I cooked in the oven. At one point I tasted it and the flavour was good but the meat was slightly uncooked. I left it for another 30 min and when I took it out it was really bitter, so much that there was just a hint of curry.
So, is it time dependant then? Does the cooking method (direct heat, wet heat) have any influence? Can it be avoided by taking out the lemons at a determined point? I love the "citrusy" flavour, specially with chicken and fish, but never seem to get it right. Thanks for any help.
Some dishes do expect you to cook with lemons, then remove them, leaving the flavor in the rest of the dish - in that case it doesn't matter if the lemons are bitter.
You can try a few things.
Use just the zest from the peel, and then slice and remove the pith and use just the inside.
Pre-boil the lemon peels, then add them to your main dish.
Remove the lemons before the bitterness gets too strong (i.e. when you tasted the dish the first time) but while there's still a strong taste.
This works because the citrus oils (which are a major primary flavor contributor) are just in the top layer of the peels, while the acid is in the inside. The pith is just plain bitter.
How does pre-boiling the lemon peels work? I tried a recipe that called for this and it ended up tasting terribly bitter.
@ashes999 I need to double check some references, but I believe the bitter compounds are water soluble (the citrus oil isn't). Did you discard the water before using the peels?
Yes, I discarded the water.
Or try using preserved lemons. Here you use the peel but it is not bitter.
My theory is that peels are bitter due to alkaloids. In preserving, these react with the acidic juice and both are neutralized. The salt acts to preserve it.
Why it turned bitter later - most likely it took the extra cooking for the bitterness to transfer from the peels to the meat.
Unsolicited advertisement isn't welcome here. If you have a website you can link to it in your profile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.507519
| 2011-12-22T07:29:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19888",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debby",
"Eli Lansey",
"ashes999",
"ericcartman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"user43377"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27341
|
Should I not sear and broil eye of round the way that I do filet mignon or chuck tenderloin?
I recently started cooking filet mignon for my wife (I hate steak/beef myself) every once in a while by (1) coating the steak in a melted butter rub (that has a bit of salt and pepper), then (2) searing each side for 2-3 minutes over medium-high heat, and finally (3) broiling in the oven for approximately 8 minutes. The results have been fantastic (or so she tells me), despite my mere aping of some instructions I found online.
After a while, I decided to try another cut, and repeated the same process with some 1-inch thick chuck tenderloin steaks. These happened to curl up quite a bit while searing, but the end result was apparently again quite delicious (and my wife liked their curled up shape to boot :-). So far so good.
Well, I tried the same method with some 1-inch thick eye of round steaks, and the results were quite disappointing. When I seared them, they failed to brown quickly, and perhaps because I then overdid the searing, the steaks came out pretty tough (and visually unappealing too IMO). Should I not have tried to cook this cut this way, or is that aspect just a red herring? There was one other difference: in my previous efforts, I completely neglected the idea of letting the steaks come to room temperature for a while before cooking, whereas this time I let the steaks sit out for a little over 30 minutes before proceeding. But since that is apparently what one is "supposed" to do, I wouldn't think that that would yield my one poor result so far, but I really don't know.
If it's at all possible to determine from the information I've given here, where did I go wrong?
Comments deleted, as the first one from the thread got an "offensive" flag.
Eye of round is very lean. Very, very lean. So as a steak, it would not stand up very well to any cooking method that gets it much beyond rare. And even then, it's going to be a tough piece of meat. My suggestion would be to prepare that cut differently (such as macerating it and making country fried steak or Swiss steak), or omitting it from your rotation. Your method is sound for preparing a steak, but I would limit it to:
Tenderloin
Strip
Ribeye
Chuck eye (not chuck steak, which is a tough piece of meat, but chuck eye, which is cut from the eye roll).
If you want cheaper beef, the last in the list is your best bet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.507751
| 2012-09-23T09:59:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27341",
"authors": [
"Bonnie",
"H. Jabez Frolibert",
"Jessica",
"Superbuggg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61673",
"rumtscho",
"user61673"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59132
|
Cut Onion Safety
I was dehydrating some diced onions overnight on my patio. When I got up I noticed the dehydrator was not running and the onions were not dry as we had a power outage overnight.
Will it be safe to go ahead and dehydrate them? I was going to make onion powder. I hate to lose all the onions and the work but I'm not sure they would be safe.
Onions shouldn't degrade that quickly at room temperature anyhow, even if they weren't partially dried. This food safety and preservation site specifically addresses inadequately dried foods:
Check containers within seven to 10 days to see if moisture is
present. If you see moisture, remove food and redry at 140 to 160
degrees Fahrenheit. If food is moldy, discard it, throw away the
plastic freezer bag or sterilize the jar.
So, if your onions were partially dried, it should be safe to continue drying them. If they weren't very dry yet, I'd treat them as fresh onions at room temperature, which should also be stable enough not to go bad overnight.
(By the way, I assume part of the motivation for this question may have to do with a well-known myth which was circulating a few years back about cut onions "attracting" bacteria. This is certainly false, and here's a food scientist's explanation in more detail. Unless you sliced the onions with a highly contaminated knife, there should be no danger.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.507965
| 2015-07-17T18:43:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59132",
"authors": [
"Andrew Salvin",
"Diane Edmonds",
"Durga Maya Thapa",
"Ian Le Page",
"Venkatesan R",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141515",
"robert richter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28657
|
What ingredients should be avoided in stock?
The common wisdom is to store all of your vegetable trimmings (cleaned) in the freezer, and then chuck everything into the stock pot when it's time to make stock. For a meat stock, it's common to throw the bones, giblets, neck and any other left-over bits into the stock pot as well.
There must be some things which are undesirable or ill-advised for stock. What should one avoid as an ingredient for making stock, and why?
There isn't anything that is necessarily "bad" or should always be avoided in stock, but some ingredients have qualities you won't always want.
Dark greens (spinach, kale, etc) can make a stock bitter and of course greenish in color. Cabbage also can impart a overwhelming bitterness.
Potatoes can cloud a stock from their starchiness, so they are not good when you want clear stock for something like a soup or consomme.
Tomatoes may overpower flavors in a light stock, but are a critical component in most dark stocks (browning tomato paste improves the color)
Onion skins add a deeper flavor, but yellow or red skins can change the color of a light colored stock dramatically.
Skin and extra fat from the meat used is sometimes avoided to reduce the amount of skimming required later on (I personally don't skim, the extra fat doesn't bother me)
The bones of very oily fish (mackerel, salmon, and trout for example) are usually avoided because they can make a stock too strong in specific flavors to work in any other dish. Oily fish stocks also tend to have an unpleasant odor.
Additionally, beets would add their bright red color to stock, but the beet leaves did not add any color.
I haven't had good luck with turnips and other 'bitter' root vegetables. Maybe I cooked it too long or too hot, but I had a whole batch of stock I had to throw out because there was nothing that could match the bitter taste. So YMMV, but keep in mind that any tastes you find slightly unpleasant in a vegetable could be amplified during the cooking process.
You want to avoid salt, until the time of use--especially after reduction.
Similarly, unless you know the use for the stock in advance you might want to avoid strong herbs like sage or lemongrass.
Tomatoes probably are not suitable in my opinion for most meat stocks.
And no fingers. Definitely avoid the fingers in the stock. It is really hot, and can hurt!
I threw in tomato "hearts" (that star structure with the seeds) for my last beef stock since I was using the "shell" for a tomato soup. It tasted fine except for the orange colour.
The only avoidance I've ever heard is staying away from the Liver in your stock recipes, at least until the last few minutes of cooking. This can apparently make your stock bitter.
Other than that, I'd say experiment with anything you want. The worst that can happen is you get a funny taste so long as you're cooking everything above a temperature that will kill any bacteria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.508238
| 2012-11-26T00:12:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28657",
"authors": [
"Ankita Ranjan",
"Crashalot",
"JSM",
"Jon S",
"KatieK",
"Megasaur",
"Rufus Xavier",
"WhoThat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66316",
"maureen",
"saeid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24434
|
What is the purpose of bitters in cocktails?
What is the purpose of small amounts of bitters in cocktails? For example, 1/32nd tsp angostura bitters in a Manhattan? Do they provide any function other than flavor, such as binding, texture, or mysterious chemical reaction?
Can you narrow down what you mean by bitters? Are you talking about the kind that is measured in "dashes" like Angostura, or Orange Bitters? Or perhaps something more (volumetrically) dominating like Campari, Fernet, or other Amari? Jaegermeister is even referred to as a bitter.
I've edited the question - hopefully that helps! I didn't even know there were other things in the "bitters" category.
Bitters originally were supposed to have medicinal properties, which is why some still have "tonic" in their names. Now they're just a flavoring agent, a concentrated way to enrich the cocktail and bring out more subtle flavor notes.
Given how little bitters you put in most drinks, it's unlikely they alter mouthfeel or other qualities much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.508515
| 2012-06-14T02:58:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24434",
"authors": [
"Kasper Peeters",
"KatieK",
"Ray",
"Riaz Qadeer",
"htmlcoderexe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55647",
"lebelinoz",
"majaha"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29209
|
What ingredient changes will make this cookie dough more workable?
When I make a particular cookie, the rolling and shaping steps are very frustrating because the dough gets very soft and tends to fall apart when I'm working with it. Chilling the dough makes it more workable, but I only have a short time to shape the dough before needing to chill it for another half hour.
Here is the recipe:
½ cup (110 gr) butter, softened
1 cup (208 gr) shortening
1 cup (225 gr) sugar
1 egg
12.5 oz (1,562 gr) flour
1 tsp (5 gr) baking powder
¼ tsp (1.4 gr) salt
3 dozen Andes Chocolate mints
Stir together flour, baking soda, salt. Cream butter and sugar. Add egg, then flour mixture to creamed mixture. Divide in half, cover and refrigerate overnight. Roll out dough into two 1/8" thick rectangles; refrigerate when not working. Evenly space mints on one portion of dough, and place other portion of dough on top; cut between mints and press edges down to make individual cookies. Bake at 400° F (200° C) until brown at edges, about 12 - 14 minutes.
I can get the dough rolled out OK; the problem is in the cookie shaping (mint-adding and cutting) phase. Since the dough is flattened out, it warms up very quickly, and I'm constantly fighting the softness and stickiness of the dough.
How can I increase the workability (either the stiffness or the amount of time I have to shape it) of this cookie dough? I would prefer to change ingredients - rather than my process for cooling and working the dough - for the sake of simplicity.
I know you said that you didn't want to change the process -- but if you have space in your fridge or freezer, place a metal sheet pan in there ... then if the dough gets too warm, you can pull it out and place it on top to help cool things back down.
You could also divide it into 4 bits, so that each portion spends less time out of the fridge as you work it.
The kitchen was pretty chilly since I was baking last night with the windows open (in Seattle, WA, USA). I've chilled the dough on a sheet pan for half an hour at a time, and still I don't get enough working time. So I feel I've already done everything to my workflow / procedure that's going to get me anywhere.
Have you considered using something which will let you "package" multiple candies at once? I was thinking of those ravioli makers. Never used them myself, but maybe they can help you make all cookies at once (keep the second rolled sheet in the fridge while filling the first with candies). http://www.amazon.de/Ravioliform-Chef-mit-Teigrolle-Ravioli/dp/B002SBK9EG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1355936610&sr=8-5
Sounds an like you may just need more flour. That recipe has more fat per flour than common cookie recipes - for example, the canonical chocolate chip cookie recipe has 10 oz of flour for 1 cup of fat, while yours is only about 8 oz flour per cup of fat. So I'd definitely expect the dough to be on the soft side to begin with, and since the fat softens at it warms up, as you've seen, it just gets worse.
If your kitchen is on the warm side, it's possible that you'll also need to chill in the freezer instead of the fridge, but I'd certainly start with more flour (or less fat).
I find it easiest to roll out dough by placing it between two sheets of parchment (or wax, in a pinch) paper. You can also try adding flour as you work the dough, although that can result in a drier cookie (although, since your recipe has such a high butter/shortening content, it might not affect them too badly). In the future, you might want to look for a freezable dough board. I have one which uses gel packs you place in the freezer; you can keep them stored there, then remove and place in between the plastic trays when you want to use it. You can find them in cooking supply stores. Hope that helps! :)
P.S. (missed the recipe part of your Q) In terms of changing ingredients, my immediate thought is to reduce the amount of shortening. It sounds like you get a very buttery cookie. You can also keep that the same, but increase the flour. You're the best judge of how much you want to do either of those by, since you know what the finished result tastes like...
Try further halving the dough so you have a smaller amount out of the fridge at one time.
Though you're looking for a way to affect the workability of the dough through altering the recipe, that will also likely affect the texture of the cookie so if you are happy with the cookie, overall, consider this suggestion as a compromise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.508644
| 2012-12-17T03:45:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29209",
"authors": [
"Clarinetist",
"Cooky Yeoman",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Kirk Fertitta",
"Okko Kooks",
"Payal Bhatia",
"TNT",
"Tanya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67960",
"rumtscho",
"wvinyl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19085
|
How can non-hydrogenated shortening exist?
I'm having a hard time looking up this question, but I have some palm oil shortening and I see some coconut oil shortening that are both non-hydrogenated. I thought the oils would be more liquid than solid at room temperature, if they aren't hydrogenated.
Am I confused?
I guess I'm curious about the method of making the oil a shortening thickness if it isn't hydrogenation.
Most vegetable oils are predominantly some type of unsaturated fatty acid - that is, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated. This type of fatty acid is a liquid at room temperature ("oil"). On the other hand, saturated fat is a solid at room temperature, which is easily demonstrated with butter or animal fat (lard) - which are primarily what vegetable shortening is supposed to substitute for.
Wikipedia has a breakdown of the various types of oils and the proportions of fat types. What's important to note is that while the majority of oils have little to no saturated fat, palm oil in particular is approximately on par with butter, and coconut oil is actually higher than margarine (the most common hydrogenated vegetable oil product).
In fact I've actually never heard of "coconut [oil] shortening" - the idea baffles me because coconut oil is already quite solid at room temperature. It doesn't need to be processed any further to be used as a substitute for butter or vegetable shortening. It's not quite so simple with palm oil though, and there is a "palm shortening" which is different from palm oil.
Hydrogenation is, in a nutshell, converting unsaturated fat to saturated fat by adding hydrogen. Most of the time the hydrogenation is not 100% complete which also leaves trans fats. Palm oil isn't quite as solid as coconut oil so it does need processing in order to be used as a shortening, but hydrogenation is not required; all that needs to be done is to separate the saturated (solid / stearin) fats from the unsaturated (liquid / olein) fats. This is done through crystallization, which is completely different from hydrogenation.
Some companies may indeed also put the coconut or palm oil products through an emulsification process to add volume or make it easier to work with, but that is entirely incidental; these products are made solid due to the very high amount of pre-existing saturated fat and the removal of all or most of the unsaturated fat.
To sum it all up, it's not hydrogenation that makes fat solid at room temperature, it's saturation (of hydrogen atoms), and hydrogenation just happens to be one way to achieve saturation. For products already containing plenty of saturated fat, hydrogenation would be redundant.
An alternative chemical change, called interesterification, is well established as an process for hardening dietary fats. In this case, a direct wikipedia quote seems appropriate:
Interesterified fat is a type of oil where the fatty acids have been
moved from one triglyceride molecule to another. This is generally
done to modify the melting point, slow rancidification and create an
oil more suitable for deep frying or making margarine with good taste
and low saturated fat content. It is not the same as partial
hydrogenation which produces trans fatty acids.
Apparently at least one company uses nitrogen and whipping to make the oil have a shortening consistency instead of hydrogenation.
This would make a viable spread, but be terribly short of the qualities shortening needs.....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.509021
| 2011-11-23T07:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19085",
"authors": [
"Bob Davies",
"Cathy",
"Marina Dunst",
"Matteo",
"Per Eriksson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8068",
"miahelf",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8684
|
What can I do to help prevent flatulence from beans?
I love the feijoada (typical Brazilian recipe). For optimal cooking, beans should be soaked in water for 12 hours, but it seems this is the cause of flatulence.
What is it in beans that causes flatulence and what can I do during cooking to help neutralize it?
In fact, soaking helps reduce the flatulence-causing sugars and starches. See this answer, for example. Soaking alone won't completely neutralize the problem, though. Certain spices may help; according to Wikipedia:
Many herbal substances have been observered since antiquity for reducing flatulence, particularly gas from eating legumes. Cloves, cinnamon, and garlic are potent in reducing gas. The potency of garlic increases when heated, whereas the potency of cinnamon decreases. Other spices have a smaller effect in reducing gas, including turmeric, black pepper, asafoetida and ginger.
Another possibility is to take an enzyme supplement like beano to break down the starches before they get to the large intestine. See Wikipedia for more info.
You can also eat yogurt afterwards to help reduce flatulence. And you should throw away the water you soaked the beans in. This water can be used to water the plants.
The effect in question is caused by the high content of oligosaccharides--short sugar chain molecules--in beans. Humans lack the enzyme to digest these, and so they reach the large intestine intact, where resident bacteria eat them producing gas. Therefore, there are two ways to mitigate the effect:
Remove the ogilosaccharides
Provide the enzyme
This paper from the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition says, in regards to the Seker bean (a legume variety from Turkey), emphasis added, tells us the most effective way to remove the oligosaccharides:
The highest removing, to the extent of decrease up to, approximately,
70% was achieved by soaking in 0.5 % sodium bicarbonate solution for
18 hour followed by cooking in pressured kettle. These conditions
could be recommended to remove undesirable [oligosaccharide] contents of the Seker
bean used for culinary purposes.
The underlying science should be extremely analogous for any bean. Note the three techniques:
Using a tiny amount of baking soda to decrease pH
Long soaking (and then discarding the soaking liquid)
Pressure cooking
However, they suggest that the consumer may wish to use simple plain water, and accept a higher level of flatus, because the above method will also further reduce the the availability of Vitamin B contents, especially thiamin and riboflavin.
Per The Accidental Scientist, you may also wish to (among their other suggestions):
Try an over-the-counter digestive aid, such as Beano, which contains
the sugar-digesting enzyme that the body lacks. Use Beano just before
eating so it can break down the gas-producing oligosaccharides. It has
no effect, however, on gas caused by lactose or fiber.
Another source of galactosidase besides Beano is kombu.
I've found it helps reduce gas (and also tastes good) if I add one or more of the following:
Fresh ginger
Cumin seed
Fennel seed
Coriander seed
The seeds can be ground or whole. Obviously, either way you need to season them by lightly toasting or frying.
(Adding these spices for this purpose is actually common in traditional Chinese and Indian "medicinal" cooking. Works well for cabbage too.)
Asafoetida is antiflatulent.
Asafoetida reduces the growth of indigenous microflora in the gut thereby reducing flatulence.
S. K. GARG, A. C. BANERJEA, J. VERMA. and M. J. ABRAHAM, EFFECT OF VARIOUS TREATMENTS OF PULSES ON IN VITRO GAS PRODUCTION BY SELECTED INTESTINAL CLOSTRIDIA. Journal of Food Science, Volume 45, Issue 6 (p 1601-1602).
From my experience eating beans regularly helps better than anything, after two-three days of at least one dish per day of legumes and I can eat them as any other food with no effects.
That study does not support (or deny) the antiflatulent ability of asfoetida. It only mentions it offhand while saying that it has not been studied much. The spices it tests are ginger and garlic, and it finds those to have an effect.
One of the best ways that I've seen over the years - actually common in Brazil - is to eat oranges along with your meal. Additionally - putting fresh lemon juice in after the beans are cooked helps tremendously as well. I've been cooking and eating Feijoada for 15+ years and can testify to the efficacy of both.
PS - Lately I've been cooking with organic "Turtle" black beans, which are amazingly easy to digest.
This sounds like an old wive's tale... what is it about the citrus that changes the way oglisaccharides in beans are handled, and the level of flatulence they cause?
Feijoada is always served with the oranges, maybe this is the reason.
@SAJ14SAJ the level of flatulence is the same, it just smells nice and orangey.
I was told that the indigestible membrane round the bean causes flatulence, although other causes are mentioned. Nevertheless, the following works for me.
I par-boil the beans for 20 mins, add lots of cold water and remove the membranes by hand. I do this for butter beans which are the right size for this operation.
Only way I know is to eat beans often enough to build up the necessary enzymes to overcome the problem. I have heard that eating the beans with rice helps, but I do not suffer from this problem to supply any first-hand information.
One trick that chefs use is to soak overnight and dump the water, rinse and then boil for 10 minutes and dump the water before cooking. This gets most of the indigestible sugars out of the beans.
One recipe for cuban black beans calls for a whole orange to be cooked in the pot with the beans. it has an interesting flavor.
It helps to include plenty of tomatoes.
Can you provide any kind of reference for that?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.509297
| 2010-10-30T14:00:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8684",
"authors": [
"Apostle",
"BaffledCook",
"Beth Couch",
"Brad Werth",
"David Vanderveer",
"Drew Anderson",
"Greenie",
"Irena",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luis Valencia",
"Martin Peters",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"atom scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81334",
"ian",
"mic"
],
"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
}
|
12010
|
How can I know how long home-cooked food will stay good in fridge?
As through the week we too busy to cook we have gotten the idea of cooking a big bunch of food in the weekend, storing it in the fridge and eat it later in the week.
I am a bit concerned how long things will stay good in the fridge. For example mashed potatoes (which is prepared with milk), minced meat steaks or a cream-based sauce.
Are there any general rules of thumb that can be used to estimate how long things will stay good? And are there any 'dangerous' foods, foods that can be spoiled but not show any mold or smell strange, but are not good to eat?
Food tends to become unpleasant before it becomes actually dangerous. I would try to eat things within 3 days of making them, though that's just my personal guideline and isn't based on any scientific data. If you aren't going to eat it that quickly, freezing it after it's been cooked and thawing it the day you want to eat it is probably a better idea.
The USDA says to eat refrigerated leftovers within 4 days.
Be aware that how long you leave something out before refrigeration and the size of the container can shorten the edible lifetime. The gist is the longer it's warm, the more [likely] pathogens will be able to multiply to unsafe levels. A large container holds heat longer and takes longer to reach 40°F.
There's also some other interesting information on the linked page about safe storage durations for many store-bought items as well, including recommendations for how long it will stay good in the freezer. To be fair to @Allison's answer, many of the durations listed in that chart are 3-4 days or 3-5 days, though some are longer or shorter.
My 3 day guideline is partly just based on quality ... even if something is fine from a safety perspective after 5 days, it might not be as nice in terms of yumminess as if you froze it on day 1 and thawed it on day 5 to eat.
The USDA site has US specific and tailored (simplified) info. e.g. most countries don't put raw eggs in the fridge. And other things are way off. I suspect this is commercially driven, rather than actual science and health!
You're free to -1 this, but the USDA is all scientifically researched and should apply just fine to any modern nation with refrigerators, which is the context of the question.
refrigeration of raw eggs, in specific, has to do with standard practice for processing of eggs: in the US, eggs are required to be washed before sale, which removes the protective, waxy coating that makes them safe to store at room temperature.
@DDav wow, that's very interesting. I did not know that.
The point of the fridge is to slow down the sex life of bacteria.
So try and cool food down as quickly as possible - put slowcooker/casserole pots into a sink full of cold water for a 30mins before putting them in the fridge. A big pot of stew can stay warm in the fridge for hours if you take it straight from the stove.
Make sure things are well cooked before you store them, if it starts off with most of the bugs dead it will take longer for them to come back again.
Biggest problem in the fridge is cross contamination. Keep everything sealed. Put anything raw/defrosting on the bottom shelf and cover it if possible.
Apart from the obvious shelfish, mayonaise risky foods - one food to be careful of is rice. Regular boiled/steamed rice can grow nasty bugs very quickly even though it looks/tastes fine. Ideally use leftover rice the next day.
Finally don't worry - unless you are have some serious existing medical problem the worst you are going to get from last week's sausages is an extended time in the bathroom. Did your grandmother have FDA approved labels on everything she baked?
+1 for grandmother. One would wonder how generation of humans have survived.
StillTasty has got lots of information about how long specific foods will keep for.
I have found that food stored in GLASS containers lasts longer and tastes better, compared to plastic, though stick to USDA guidelines
Watch out for putting hot food in the fridge, it will warm everything else up. In the commercial kitchen I worked in, we would put the hot food (container) in an ice bath in the sink before putting it in the fridge
Get a fridge thermometer and make sure your fridge is very cold (1 °C)
Throw out bad food regularly, so it doesn't transfer smells to good food
Get some masking tape and a marker and write the date the food should be thrown out by (not the # of days, because you'll forget the starting date). Attach these near the fridge
fyi re #2, another question talks about this as well
I've lived by a simple rule for many years now: if it looks ok and smells ok, it is ok. Just use your common sense.
I can tell you from experience that I have eaten leftovers that were many weeks old, with no ill effects. As Allison mentioned, if your food was cooked properly in the first place, it will become unpleasant long before it becomes dangerous.
I think Allison hit on the key point. Below 40 degrees F, dangerous bacteria are not multiplying anymore, but other breakdown processes are still happening. Some of these can even improve flavor the first couple days, some not so much. If it was safe when you put it in the fridge, and it doesn't smell rotten or have any obvious mold, there's minimal risk.
People have been doing without refrigeration for a long time. There's an evolutionary reason we naturally reject food that smells rotten.
I have found it's important to cool hot food just to room temperature and then refrigerate right away. Putting it in the fridge still hot, or keeping it at room temp too long (more than an hour is the rule, but for me it's even less time) does not seem to affect the taste, but leads to unpleasant side effects like long bathroom visits. For example, when I make a stew I put it in shallow glass dishes and stir every 10 minutes so it cools evenly, then refrigerate enough for 3 days when it reaches room temp, and freeze the rest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.509828
| 2011-02-10T07:33:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12010",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Craighead",
"Dan Davies Brackett",
"Darren",
"Earlz",
"Hana Bzh",
"Hugh Bothwell",
"Izzydorio",
"Paughka",
"TAMMY BENNETT",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/693",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18832
|
Cooking frozen Pizza in the microwave
I am totally new to cooking, I just boil eggs :). I am staying alone for sometime, and I want to cook some stuff at home instead of eating outside every day.
I thought that Pizza might be a good start. So, I am trying with pre-made frozen pizza (well, that is not actual cooking!)
The problem is that all the frozen pizzas I found are created to be cooked in oven (put 15 minutes in the heated oven), and my oven is broken. I have the fan grill, the oven top and a microwave..
can I cook pizzas using any of these?
You can't buy microwave pizzas where you are? I lived on them at college. Granted, they were liked cheese on cardboard, but they were cheap...
A toaster oven can be a wonderful thing if you're living on your own, cooking in small quantities, and wanting some of the benefits of an oven. It won't be like a full-size oven with a pizza stone, but it'll be a whole lot better than a microwave! (Assuming you get small pizzas that fit in it, or hack up bigger ones.)
No, you can't bake pizza in the microwave. See Why do my pizzas get such hard crusts? for details. The short answer: it gets as hard as brick.
I won't say that baking a pizza with a stove and a grill is impossible, but it is definitely not something for beginners. So this, too, is out. Really, a pizza needs an oven.
If you insist on pizza, the cheapest way is to buy a toaster oven. They start at 50 €.
If you just want to ease into cooking by preparing pre-made food, look into frozen pre-seasoned vegetable mixes for the pan, or fresh dumplings from the refrigerated goods aisle, or noodles with easy sauces. All of these can be prepared without an oven, and don't need much time or cooking knowledge. They won't let you experience all the benefits of home cooking, but neither will frozen pizza, so this is probably not a problem in your case.
+1 for the hard crust.. I already saw this is my first trials :D
If you check secondhand and discount stores, you can often find toaster ovens much cheaper - mine was $15 and it works fine. You'll almost certainly have to cut up the pizza. Ah, memories of growing up....
I've seen some really big toaster ovens in recent years. 12 inch isn't the max. :)
I've "developed" a way of heating pizzas in a microwave which is fairly practical and easy:
Before you put the pizza on the plate, put some sugar cubes (wrapped ones work best!) on the plate to support the pizza, five is enough for small pizzas but more may be needed for larger ones! This gives the moisture coming off the bottom of the pizza a chance to escape and prevents the base from being soggy.
Then microwave the pizza for a few minutes (trial & error!), and after taking it out of the oven remove the sugar cubes (which will probably be stuck to the base of the pizza). If you used the wrapped cubes, just discard the wrapping and put the sugar cubes in the sugar bowl for later.
Enjoy your pizza!
Yes, you can absolutely cook a frozen mini pizza in the microwave. I put mine on a plate and microwaved it for about 3.5 minutes on high. It has a soft crust and it's a little gooey in the middle, but it's cooked and totally edible.
Another option to look into, if you're a huge fan of frozen pizza and can't see yourself using a toaster over for anything else, is the Presto Pizzazz Pizza Maker, which gets pretty rave reviews as long as you work it right, and there's a whole community out there devoted to tweaking it into making the perfect pizza. (Works for crisping other things, like wings, as well.) Wish I'd had one when I was in my daily frozen pizza phase, but I've never personally tried it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.510447
| 2011-11-08T17:15:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18832",
"authors": [
"Adrian Harvey",
"Amy Peterson",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Inês Barata Feio Borges",
"Jeoyramone",
"Jimmy Jam",
"Jimothy",
"Laura0703 ",
"Leon Markham",
"Sampath Niroshan",
"SilverbackNet",
"Yousf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7921"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25505
|
Melting sugar on creme brulee with blow torch
Whenever I try to melt the sugar on top of a creme brulee with my kitchen blow torch, I find that the sugar takes forever to discolour even slightly, let alone melt. Eventually isolated patches of sugar start to burn. At this point I usually stop as I don't want to eat burnt sugar.
I hold the torch so the flame ends just above the sugar, and I move the flame around constantly.
What I end up with is sugar that isn't totally melted into a nice layer, but is still granular but somewhat stuck together. The texture isn't right at all - I want that smooth layer of sugar.
What am I doing wrong?
I thought that this is expected - when I have had creme brulee or creme catalana in restaurants, the caramel layer was always slightly gritty. This is what makes the difference between creme brulee and creme caramel for me - the caramel melted on even heat before the custard is added has exactly the smooth quality you describe, which creme brulee doesn't. But I am interested in seeing the answers - maybe I have only been to bad restaurants.
What kind of torch are you using? Is it one of those tiny butane micro-torches?
@Aaronut:- This isn't exactly the torch I have, but it's roughly the same size: http://www.procook.co.uk/product/procook-kitchen-torch-14-8cm
I'm not sure if this justifies another answer being posted, but FWIW, I've never had much luck doing making actual crème brûlée with a "crème brûlée torch". It's far easier (not to mention faster) to do with a half-decent propane torch. To boot, they're usually less expensive than the torches marketed in kitchen stores.
Never had much luck with those types of torches. Go buy yourself a torch with a flexible hose that attaches to the propane bottle and seperate hand unit-plumbers carry them on their belts. It allows you to keep the bottle upright but the hose lets you twist and turn the flame as you like without hassle. Also, not too much sugar on top. I like to cover the top and pour excess off then add a 1/4 tsp back again. You get a coating of sugar everywhere and the extra bit will melt fast so you can then let it flow around the top to even things up.
The technique for creating a proper layer of melted sugar on your creme brulee involves three important elements:
After you add the sugar, gently swirl the ramekin to create smooth layer of sugar. You don't want it too clump or be uneven.
Gently 'kiss' the sugar with the tip of the flame, moving the flame around to heat evenly, just until the sugar starts to flow.
Hold and rotate the ramekin to cause the melting sugar to flow around the cup and form an even layer.
Your goal is to distribute the heat, and sugar, evenly and smoothly around the top of your custard.
The technique to use is easier to pick this up by seeing it rather than reading about it. Alton Brown did a segment on Creme Brulee on Good Eats where he demonstrates the technique.
(if the link fails, you can Google "Alton Brown Creme Brulee on You Tube")
Video link was broken, replaced with a new link.
A few tips follow that may apply in your case:
Before baking the brulees, use the torch on any bubbles formed in the liquid custard so that uneven patches don't become baked-in.
Use fine grained (caster) sugar so that any unmelted crystals will be less noticeable.
Swirl the sugar around in the ramekin and then get rid of excess sugar by tossing it onto a tray. This way you only have a very thin layer of sugar crystals to melt.
Brown the sugar in two passes of the flame to avoid overcooking the top of the custard. The first pass should only melt the sugar, brown it on the second pass.
Use the tip of the light blue part of the flame for browning (at least this is the case when you are using the smaller brulee torch). Sweep back and forth as if mowing a lawn.
I've caramelised thousands of creme brulees and I find that these points will help you.
1) Dry your custard surface of water/condensation
2) Use caster/ demerara sugar that is dry (not clumpy from moisture/humidity)
3) Put a spoonful of sugar in the middle; swirl ramekin or you can turn the ramekin in your hand and tap the side with your finger.
You want an even layer of sugar
4) Before you use a torch, it is important to understand the following concept.
: Familiarise yourself with how water boils ; the point where it turns from liquid to gas.
In the same way, Sugar will melt from the heat of the torch. At the point there are bubbles, it is the point before it burns. (Ie - Water to gas)
5) With a blowtorch, what i feel works best is to use the hottest/strongest flame and to hit the sugar as close to the surface as possible.
With reference to point 4, you take away the heat when your caramel starts bubbling. As that is the furthest point u can take your sugar before it becoming totally burnt.
6) Moving the torch in a circular motion, you should end up with a fabulous caramelised sugar crust that cracks. ( And yes. it only cracks when the top has cooled down adequately - Patience is difficult at this time but oh so worth it when u crack through into an amazing lush custard)
7) Time is of essence as too much heat for too long will heat up the custard beneath. You want it to be slightly warm on the caramel layer and a cool custard.
Enjoy folks!
Please don't add links unless they're a direct part of answering the question. (See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion)
Use powdered sugar/ icing sugar dust lightly using a sieve and build layers of golden crunchy caramel
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.510798
| 2012-08-06T12:25:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25505",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"CIVDC",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Cos Callis",
"Fil",
"Joseph O'Neal",
"Kareem Husaini",
"Marianne COLLIER",
"Nicholas",
"Raouf Zaidan",
"amal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"rumtscho",
"user117748"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26178
|
Recommendations for leak proof containers?
I regularly take lunch to work which requires a leak-proof container. The food doesn't necessarily need to be kept hot or particularly cold. An example meal would be a bean salad.
I am struggling to find a container that is leak proof. The container will be upended and shaken (not too much!) when in transit from home to work. The container will ideally have a wide mouth to allow me to eat directly from it.
Have you got any suggestions for a suitable container of capacity approximately 500 mL (17oz)?
I hate storing food in plastic, so the best option I found and use myself is http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?sku=112870 which does have a plastic top and silicone gasket but is otherwise glass. Been using for 3-4 years and love them. No leaking problems.
Love GlassLock products. We started buying them and have gradually phased out the rest of our containers. One note though... Costco (at least here in Canada) sells GlassLock containers that are stackable. I have not seem them anywhere else and it's a very awesome feature, as it makes storing these things much easier.
I have found two types of containers which work for this. First, there are containsers as lemontwist recommends, where the body is either glass or plastic, but the lid has a gasket and a secure-closing system which prevents leaks. There are multiple brands which sell them. Second, for such small sizes you can use a jam jar with a screw-on lid. Both work really well, but you might consider placing the whole container in a small plastic bag in case you don't seal it properly before transport.
I love using mason jars but I can never get the lids on tight enough to avoid leaks (unless it's a preserve I haven't opened yet). I wonder if there is a better sealing cap out there somewhere.
Not sure where in the world you are, but an excellent leak proof system is made here in New Zealand called Kip It by Sistema
What makes them good for your purpose is that they have a proper gasket with a 100% seal. The gasket can be simply removed from the lid (pop out with a toothpick) for proper cleaning
You can find it online on the local trade site in NZ dollars, or Google your own country for a supplier?
.
Note: I do not work for Sistema, just a happy customer
I am going to answer my own question. Many thanks to all who offered suggestions.
We bought a pair of 470mL (15oz) plastic containers from Lock & Lock.
They were a reasonable price, made from plastic (I didn't want glass owing to the risk of shattering during transit) and I can confirm, leakproof.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.511299
| 2012-09-15T12:24:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26178",
"authors": [
"AwesomeLiga",
"Fred Belanger",
"TMonty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61634",
"lemontwist",
"talon8",
"user61209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8155
|
A definitive method of dicing an onion
It bugs me that I've just sort of self-taught a method of turning a whole onion into a nicely diced pile. I'm going to assume my method is inefficient and wasteful.
Could someone explain how I should be dicing a whole onion?
Unusual and clever methods also appreciated!
Good question! The "official" sources always instruct to cut the onion in half then radially and then turn it and cut across the radials. With radial cuts the chunks on the outside edge of the vegetable are much larger than those on the inside. Vertical slices, instead of radial, produce much more consistent results for me. I'm hoping an expert answers this one.
@Sobachatina - the last time I had a chef show me how to do it, he cut vertically rather than radially, as you say.
@justkt - Thanks! I will gladly accept your anecdotal evidence suggesting that I'm not insane.
At some point, I heard that the vertical method was the "classic" way to cut, and radial cuts were the "new" way. Or, maybe I have that backwards...
I don't have a definitive way, but using a very, very sharp knife and making sure you are using the slicing movement instead of just pushing the edge through the onion makes for cleaner slicing, instead of some crushing, and makes it easier on the eyes.
First, remove some, but not all, of the end. Make sure to leave a little of the root intact, as this will make the next steps easier. Peel the onion and discard the peel.
Stand your onion on one of the now-flat ends. Chop in half with your chef's knife.
Lay a single half on the flat end. Working from root to cut end, make several cuts at dice width that cut almost to the root end, but leave a little bit still attached.
Working perpendicular to your last set of cuts, make another set of cuts at dice width. This will leave you with cut pieces. When you get to the portion with the root, discard it.
Repeat for your other onion half.
During cooking, the layers should flake apart leaving dice sized pieces.
See this demonstrated by Jamie Oliver. It differs only slightly from how Gordon Ramsay recommends. IMO, leaving the root is a hassle, and still burns my eyes.
Peeling is easier if you chop it in half before the peeling
I've seen a few cooking shows where they tend to slice the onion vertically before slicing it horizontally ... I find it much easier to go the other way ... a few horizontal slices, and then slice vertically across almost the whole thing. I've also been known to slice diagonally one way, then the other, rather than horizontal & vertical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.511531
| 2010-10-15T13:28:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8155",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sobachatina",
"groovingandi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15952
|
Cleaning a clogged espresso machine Portafilter
Can anyone recommend a method for cleaning the clogged holes in a "Basket" of an espresso machine Portafilter? I had this problem with both DeLonghi and Saeco home espresso machines.
For example, in Care of Saeco Pressurized Portafilters (regarding
Saeco Manually Pressurized Portafilter) they caution against using metal pins.
Any suggestions of methods or cleaning materials?
This is an awfully specific question. Is there any way to make it applicable to a broader audience?
Rephrased to be more general
What is the basket made of? A hot acid bad is usually good for this kind of thing, but there are some materials which react badly to it, e.g. aluminium.
I alone on the planet seem to have solved the endless problem of cleaning the fine holes of an espresso portafilter, or a Moka express fine steam filter. None of the liquid or abrasive cleaning apps work, period. Instead, in the past, one had to use a pin to poke out the minute holes — task so laborious and hopeless than most espresso and Moka machines in the world are hampered by limited filtration.
No longer. The pin-holes are plugged with coffee fibre, which burns. Place the filter over a gas flame, either side, for 10 minutes, tapping it with tongs occasionally, and bingo...
A CLEAN FILTER. All the minute coffee fibre plugs burn or pop out. Best to use a small coffee pot rack on top of your smallest hob gas burner for this. And metal tongs.
Will I be knighted for this?
Note from Teo: I didn’t have gas flame, but I took the little metal basket out and put it directly over my glass stove heating element. It worked really well, in less than 5 minutes all the little holes were clean!
@Mike welcome to the site. We prefer answers to offer new information on the question; if you liked an existing answer, the proper way of showing your appreciation is to upvote it, making it more discoverable and giving its author reputation. As you yourself don't yet have the reputation required, I converted your answer to a comment this time.
Wow this worked amazing on a Cuisinart - I held it over a grill flame for like 3 minutes, heard some hissing, then ran inside, through it in the machine and let it fly and right through the first time.
I would let the basket soak in a hot water ( just from the tap ) bath of Cafiza for about 15 minutes to dissolve the coffee oils. If the problem is scale buildup I would try a soak in a citric acid bath, about 2 tablespoons to 1 liter of water. Of course a good stiff brush could do the trick too with both the methods described here. An old toothbrush maybe.
I would also recommend getting on a routine cleaning schedule. I do a complete espresso machine and grinder cleaning about every 4-5 weeks and it keeps some of these problems from happening. Once you get into the habit of doing it and develop your own personal system it is not too hard to keep up, and you learn a lot about the internals of your machines, which can come in handy if you want to mod or need to do repairs.
Here is a pretty good how-to on cleaning the portafilter and basket link
BTW--I've found that a toothbrush is a very good "stiff brush" for this purpose and easily reaches the holes from either side.
Cafiza is good stuff but from experience it needs more than 15 mins if the thing is blocked: I'd recommend soaking in several changes until no more brown stuff comes out.
If the clogging is a result of mineral deposits, soak the "basket" in vinegar for a few hours. Then use a wooden toothpick to gently dislodge any deposits.
The Chad Evans method worked. I had no idea how much coffee sludge I had that was visible at the bottom of the portofilter. I thought this was a small rubber ring or something! It easily crumbled out with a gentle touch with a dental tool.
I did not want to damage the finish so I chickened out after 4 minutes of cooking over a flame. This successfully fully opened one passage of the portofilter. I am soaking the whole thing over night in espresso cleaner to see if that will free up the other side, but I have a feeling I will be cooking it again to free up the other side.
There are special detergents for dissolving the coffee oils that are usually used for backflushing portafilter machines. Search for Coffee Clean or Puly Caff
I am at this moment using hot vinegar and after soaking in that for a while, adding baking soda, getting lots of coffee residue out!
How hot should the vinegar be? Do you use just vinegar or is it mixed with water? If so, in which proportion?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.511805
| 2011-07-04T20:34:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15952",
"authors": [
"A Hale",
"Al Rosine",
"BobMcGee",
"Di Bar",
"Itamar",
"J.A.I.L.",
"PW Kad",
"Paul Newman",
"Penelope",
"Sam Washburn",
"Sheryl",
"Webster",
"coloratura",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6668",
"ketil",
"little 'erb",
"onedaywhen",
"osmsushi",
"rumtscho",
"user58728"
],
"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
}
|
15987
|
Is honey considered vegan?
I was thinking of following a vegan diet for health reasons. I tried it for a week during a "cleanse" and it wasn't so bad, even though I love steak and eggs. I was just curious though if honey is considered vegan or not. It's an animal (bee) byproduct, right? The only difference maybe is that it's something bee's make naturally, although if we farm them for the honey it's not exactly humane (see A Bee Movie).
If you're doing it for health reasons, I don't think this is the important question. Yes, it's an animal product - but does it share the nutritional characteristics of other animal products that you're trying to avoid? Corn syrup is vegan, but is it really going to be better for your health than honey?
To be honest I do not understand the problem. You do not seem to be concerned with the fact of eating animal-derived products, so if your only reason to follow a vegan diet is to eat healthy food, well then honey is quite an healthy food if eaten correctly, pretty much as any other food. Sola dosis facit venenum :)
Well I don't actually tend to eat that much sugar or sugar substitutes anyway. The question was mainly just a matter of curiosity. Regardless, I think having some kind of strict rule helps me to avoid temptation, so the theory is if I can just pretend to be vegan I'll generally eat better. I grew up on microwave dinners and cheese-filled hot dogs so I'm trying to retrain my diet and I'm trying to become better educated in the nutrition department.
If there was ever a question tempting to just put a complete answer of "No." .... :)
Honey is not vegan. In short, the core tenet of veganism is living without exploiting anything in the animal kingdom, and most (if not all) vegans consider taking honey from bees a form of exploitation.
A direct corollary would be milk. Also, honey can sometimes contain insect parts apparently.
+1: If you take anything (other than excrement...Probably) from anything that has eyes or a face, it's not vegan.
@Satanicpuppy: Earthworms aren't vegan either! ;-)
All vegetable mater has animals or animal parts in it. You try growing something without bugs getting in to it!
@TFD: You're right. We should all just become freegan fruitarians! ;-)
@TFD: There are some ultra-orthodox Jewish and Muslim communities who are actually refusing to eat or serve broccoli, cauliflower, herbs, etc., because they might have tiny insects. Wouldn't be that much of a stretch for the truly obsessive vegans to start doing the same... once they cotton on to the trend.
Honey is food for bees, and bee babies they don't make it for fun... if I was the sort of person who wanted to be a vegan I wouldn't eat it.
"Most (if not all) vegans consider taking honey from bees a form of exploitation." I'm calling citation needed.
Also, core tenet according to whom? I know people who are vegan for environmental purposes and are not (very) concerned with whether animals are exploited.
I've met one person who was otherwise vegan who had an exemption for honey. Her reasoning was that bee keepers set up environments that allow the bees to create far more honey than would be 'naturally' possible, with the same amount of work. As a result they produce more than they actually need, so taking the excess is ok and not exploitation but more of a reciprocal relationship (bees obviously cannot be imprisoned - if the conditions are not to their liking they will leave). YMMV, obviously.
@djechlin Unlike "vegetarian", the terms "vegan", "veganism", and the "vegan diet" are all defined terms. The Vegan Society was created at the same time as the term to protect its meaning. See http://www.vegansociety.com/
@tudor I know this is stackexchange and pedantry is to be expected, but please keep in mind that the way the Vegan Society uses the term is not necessarily the same as the rest of the world; for example the OED says "A person who abstains from all food of animal origin and avoids the use of animal products in other forms." and other dictionaries simply say things like "a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet." You're fighting a battle that's already lost.
@Jefromi. If you look at the history of the term "vegan" you'll see that it was created to avoid confusion that had occurred with the misuse of the term "vegetarian". It may be pedantic but it's an important distinction to make as the end result is quite different. I disagree that the battle is already lost. I have experienced many people's misuse of the word, but that doesn't mean that the definition has changed.
@tudor I'm just telling you what people here (and a couple dictionaries) are understanding it to mean; we're a cooking site, and we don't really want every question that mentions veganism to turn into a debate about its meaning. Take it to http://english.stackexchange.com if you want to ask what it actually means or debate about whether the definition has changed.
@Jefromi This may be a cooking site, but definitions are important. I've experienced first hand the medical outcomes of people's mistakes in misusing a defined term.
@tudor That's not what's going on here. Please go to [meta] if you want to discuss further.
I'm vegan, and don't eat honey, but I think it very much depends on why you went vegan. If it's for health then I don't think it makes a difference. If you want to get into a moral argument you can make the case that it's closer to using wool than using milk... (I don't make the argument, but I respect that people can) but the choice is yours - it was a pretty easy choice for me as I didn't like honey to start with... :)
As for environmental, economic, and animal cruelty reasons, wool and milk and honey are equivalent. They all rely on support of "exploitive" animal economies. I don't want to come across as argumentative as honey can make for flames with some vegans, but I fail to see your argument contrasting milk and wool, could you expand on that in your answer?
Um... I was being quite careful not to make the argument, I was mentioning it in the context that I've been in the presence of people who used the same reasoning. :)
This is purely a semantics question. It depends on how you define "vegan." If you define vegan to mean something like "contains no animal products," then honey is not vegan. Can you be vegan if you eat honey, or can honey be part of a vegan diet? Those are more slippery questions. I know many people who identify as vegan and practice veganism for various combinations of health, environmental and ethical reasons, who choose to consume honey.
In my experience, there isn't really a such thing as being a vegan for health reasons, because I do not know of any vegan diets whose purpose is to optimize nutrition. For instance, the American Heart Association recommends eating fish (particularly fatty fish) at least two times (two servings) a week. I have never met someone who identifies as vegan primarily for health reasons. The only people I know who never "cheat" on their vegan diets are vegan strongly for ethical reasons. However, it may be a healthy step for you to take in your diet because exposing yourself to the vegan community may lead to you eating a lot more food that is healthy for you and a lot less food that is unhealthy for you. Would the vegan community accept you if you still consumed honey? Depends on the people, but in my experience with vegan communities as someone who still consumes fish, probably.
Could you identify as vegan if you still consumed honey? Sure, that's up to you. Will other people agree that you are vegan or accept you as a vegan? In my experience, non-vegans will consistently think of a honey-inclusive diet as vegan, partly because they, like you up to before you asked this question, haven't given it much thought. Strict vegans who don't eat honey might not, but I don't see any reason this should be important to you.
Semantic question, I subscribe, but I'd like to add a consideration. Let's think to the reason why people became vegan.
Cultural reasons? Surely this is not the case of western vegan movement (on the contrary, not rarely vegans are despised for they choice)
Religion reasons? Surely some eastern religion push to veganism, but in western context religion plays no role in vegan choice. Personally, I'm atheist, like the few vegan I know.
Health reasons? Man is omnivore, why don't eat animal food should be healthier? (normally vegan diet is not dangerous, but evidently this is not a reason to became vegan)
Love for animals? I don't find this plays an important role in vegan movement. Personally, I hate that stupid and smelly being (but not so much to improve torture on them with my food choice)
In most of cases western people became vegan simply because they don't like causing terrible pains (castrations, spending life in a cage big as your body, violent killing, etc., look for example to mercyforanimals investigations and sites) for very frivolous reasons (meat taste, urban legend that veganism is normally dangerous for health, etc.). Maybe there are more important problems in the world, but none with a so simply and not demanding solution. Most of western vegan did this choice after consideration that only for very important reason (medical research, for example) we could eventually cause pain to a living being (I said "pain", so I'm speaking about living being with a complex nervous system, not about vegetables or micro-organisms). So veganism has many roots (economic, ecological, etc.) but fight against useless pain is surely the first one. Now, having said all that... what about honey? The question is: "bees feel pain?", or more precisely: "honey industry cause pain?". I'm vegan and I eat honey, because I suppose the answer is "not" (but I'd like to know biology answer).
However, for culinary purposes, above recommendation to not consider it vegan is proper. The fact that products with honey or beeswax in them do not usually get labelled vegan by manufacturers that do label their vegan/vegetarian products should paint a clear picture of the accepted norms around that term.
Of course I agree, product labeled vegan in market doesn't have honey. Anyway I wouldn't use this fact as unquestionable criterion about the meaning of the word vegan. Food producers logically take a decision prudent, that doesn't give any trouble and match all potential buyer. Anyway I suspect that many vegan eat honey. I won't quarrel about this question, simply I think that the meaning of this word, as it is used in society, is a bit ambiguous.
Most groups advocating veganism will also discourage honey.
For ethical vegans (i.e. for whom ethical reasons alone are enough to follow a vegan lifestyle) the question of whether honey is vegan largely a question of whether bugs feel pain, and if they do, how much of suffering does a bee life contain.
Since insect sentience is an open question, and knowing the farming industry's usual horrific treatment even of mammals and birds, honey is seldom considered vegan.
My visiting vegan ate our honey, because he knew for a fact that the bees had set up home in the (stored, empty) hives, and that we had moved the hives out of the shed for them and given them wax frames to store their honey in, saving them all the energy of making that wax, in exchange for which we took half the honey. (I know, they didn't fully consent to the deal, just moved into the hives, but hey, I didn't consent to their moving in.) He considered them volunteers and so ate our honey, but not honey from stores. Your vegans may vary. PS we never hurt our bees and we protected them too.
@KateGregory unfortunately, a typical bee farmer, for whom honey is a primary source of income, seems highly unlikely to be that benevolent toward the honey-producing machines. Personally, I deem irresponsible bringing into existence any sentient being.
Typical bee farmers provide wax frames, insulate the hive to reduce winter kill, medicate to kill mites, and provide sugar water if the fraction of the honey left behind is not enough to sustain the hive. Unlike say dairy farmers (who choose when to breed cows and with what bull, then take away the calves after they're born) apiarists don't interfere in the reproduction process, except that a weak nonlaying queen is typically killed and replaced. My sister does that and has only one hive not kept for money but for the sake of her city ecosystem.
@KateGregory still winter kills, accidents, interspecies conflicts, and just a general expectation from a Darwinian life-form to be vulnerable and conditioned to suffering, make me prefer to not having bees in the first place. Alas, vacant places in nature never stay so for long: freed resources the bees currently consume would allow for more other bugs. Plus, agriculture still largely depends on biological polynators. Thanks for your story, btw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.512246
| 2011-07-06T18:42:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15987",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexis",
"Cascabel",
"David Rice",
"ESultanik",
"Fausto Vezzaro",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lyn Brown",
"Nil",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Skittles",
"Slavatron",
"TFD",
"Utku Özdemir",
"djechlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801",
"jam",
"kccu",
"mfg",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"redbmk",
"tudor -Reinstate Monica-",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55827
|
Why is my sassafrass root bark tea always so bitter?
I've been on a quest for a while now to make my own root beer. I've tried all sorts of recipes using all sorts of ingredients, and I now have this huge collection of spices and roots and leaves... but no root beer to show for it. It always comes out bitter and kind of gross.
I tried to get down to basics. From what I've read, sassafrass is the key ingredient, so I thought I'd make a tea out of just that and see how that goes. (Yes, I know there are claims that sassafrass has a cancer causing agent, and that it's not used anymore, and people use wintergreen or sarsaparilla instead. But, health concerns aside, everything I've read seems to have a consensus that sassafrass is the original flavour for root beer.)
When I open my bag of sassafrass root bark, it has a smell lightly evocative of root beer, but also kind of earthy (I'm bad at describing smells). Most recipes I've seen call for steeping the sassafrass for about 20 to 25 minutes, with a ratio of about one tablespoon of sassafrass for each cup of water.
Starting with that basis, I've tried various combinations of adjusting times and ratios, and also two different brands of sassafrass, but the fundamental problem remains. It's always bitter. Too bitter to cover up with any amount sweetener or other ingredients. Sweetener and other ingredients (cinnamon, vanilla, star anise, allspice...) don't cover bitterness, they just exist alongside it.
When I look on Amazon at reviews by people who have bought the same sassafrass root bark that I did, there are all these statements saying "we made root beer and it was great!" or "brought back childhood memories of home made root beer!" and that sort of thing, accompanied by five stars. But all I have is a brown liquid that is on one level a pale imitation of root beer, and on another level has a bitterness that won't go away.
Where am I going wrong?
As far as I'm aware, it is supposed to be bitter. If you don't like it, you probably should try making a different drink.
Or try sarsaparilla, it probably is in actuality the flavor that you are trying to achieve.
Do you find black tea and coffee excessively bitter as well?
@logophobe, not particularly, no. I'm guessing you're checking if I might be particularly sensitive to bitter, but so far as I know, I'm not.
@Escoce. from things I read, I got the impression that sarsaparilla was something that people used to replace sassafras only because sassafras fell out of favour because of the health scare.
@rumtscho, thank you for responding, but what you're saying contradicts all the Amazon reviews I've read. I've added a link to the question, so can you explain why this product, that you think is supposed to be bitter, gets such rave reviews as a root beer ingredient?
I see no contradiction, nobody in the reviews said that it's not bitter. My point is that these people probably expected bitter root beer, got it with this product, and were very happy about it, writing positive reviews. Of course, plants don't always taste the same, so if you think that you happened to get a batch much more bitter than usual, you can try getting another package and compare. But if it's the same bitterness after two packages, then it seems that you simply don't like sassafras.
@Questioner that may be true, but it may also be true the rootbeer taste you are looking for is actually more sarsparilla-like and less sassafras-like. The only way you'll know is to try.
@rumtscho, I guess in all the root beer I've tried, I've never encountered any that I would describe as "bitter". Can you name a brand of root beer that is bitter? I'd like to try it and see what that is like.
No, I can't name such a brand. But as far as I am aware, none of them is allowed to use sassafras, so none of them can taste like homemade sassafras root beer by definition. Your best way to compare would be to find a relative or acquaintance who remembers the times of widespread home brewing of root beer, and tell you if what you made comes close to the original taste or deviates. Comparing it with commercial root beer does not make sense by definition, because normally the reason to make your own is to have it taste differently from the commercial brands.
@rumtscho, I wasn't looking for a sassafras based commercial brand, I was looking for any kind of bitter root beer, at all. The idea that there is this hidden trend of traditional root beer that is bitter and completely unlike any modern counterpart is somewhat suspect to me. So, I'd like to try any example, from any source, in any way, of bitter root beer. If you don't know of any, then I'm sorry, but it just kind of seems like you're not talking from a place of knowledge about sassafras, but just trying to make the Amazon comments fit into your original assertion.
I am talking from a place of knowledge about sassafras not derived from drinking root beer, but from reading about it. This is why I know that sassafras is bitter, and conjectured that the people who like their homemade sassafras beer like it that way. I don't remember where I read that originally, but there are enough sources out there which confirm it: sassafras is bitter. Examples are http://theepicentre.com/spice/sassafras/, http://eattheplanet.org/archives/1472, http://eattheplanet.org/archives/1472
Sassafras tea will naturally taste a little bitter. When I was younger, a friend of mine used to bring us some sassafras root in order for us to make this tea. He always recommended never to make it too strong because of the affects of the bitterness on the stomach. Try using smaller doses of sassafras in your tea. It should be more on the pale shade of color rather than too dark. Here is how to make sassafras tea.
It is true that the original root beer was derived from the sassafras root, however the modern root beer does not contain any sassafras in it confection.
In my experience, homemade root beer can not be made with sassafras alone. You need a blend of flavors. Cut back on the amount of sassafras and add some wintergreen oil or sweet birch. Also throw in some licorice root, vanilla, or sarsaparilla. For sweeteners, use some sorghum or molasses. Find a blend of spices and flavors that you like, which contains sassafras as a component. Sassafras will always be bitter.
Thanks for responding. I'm not familiar with sorghum. What qualities does it have that make it especially good for root beer?
It's similar to molasses, but has more of a maple syrup flavor. It's just another flavor to play with.
a small pinch of salt really helps
Can you please elaborate on your answer? How does it help? Where did you find out about this tip?
This is a helpful answer. We would appreciate it more if you could flesh it out a bit. See our tour and help center for more information.
I'd love to hear more about this. How much salt, how does it help, when to add it... if true, it would be great to know the hows and whys.
Some salt can help as was suggested. This is because salt, specifically sodium, blocks the taste buds from sensing the bitterness to a degree.
Here's another post discussing bitterness in coffee
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.513588
| 2015-03-18T16:07:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55827",
"authors": [
"Arnold",
"Bobby C",
"Carolyn Stevenson",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Matt K",
"Questioner",
"Rebecca Edwards",
"harry Charman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6715",
"kees steketee",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51924
|
Ideal way to cook a chicken
To get a marinated chicken to be golden brown on the outside, maybe a bit crispy, and tender on the inside, which is a better approach:
Cook it on high heat until it browns, then cover it and cook it on very low heat until done
Cover it and cook it for a couple of hours on low heat, then uncover it and blast it on high until it browns
Other
In the past I've cooked it on low heat, circa 190 celsius, for three hours, uncovered. It's tender and juicy, but it doesn't crisp.
Have you considered brining? I think that might help with the crispy. Check out previous SA articles on [tag:brining] like this one. You might also get a different outcome with a lower temperature (175C / 350F) rather than 190C (375F). Good luck (and welcome to SA)!
You make no mention of basting. 190 is more than high enough though 3 hours sounds a bit long. Basting fat over the skin throughout cooking is the key to crispy skin. Covering it is a sure way to soggy skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.514142
| 2014-12-24T15:22:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51924",
"authors": [
"Amanda Irving",
"Brittany Bowser",
"Laurie Scheck",
"Pastry Borneo",
"Patrick O'Connor",
"Sandra Marsh",
"Simon S",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36882
|
How can I estimate cooking time for a brined and roasted turkey?
For previous Thanksgivings, we have brined and roasted our turkey. (Here is the detailed process.) After brining for about a day, we roast the bird for 30 minutes at 500°F and then bake it at 350°F until it's reached 160°F internally.
The bird is stuffed with an apple and half an onion (sliced), a cinnamon stick and some sage leaves for flavor. During the high-heat phase, the breast is protected with a foil sheet. The turkey legs are pulled inward towards the body; we do not spatchcock it.
The problem is that it's always taken much longer than we'd estimated for the turkey to come to temperature. We end up serving dinner 2 or 3 hours later than expected which is certainly sub-optimal. Based on the turkey's weight (and preparation process), how can we estimate how long it will take to cook?
We do use an independent thermometer to verify oven temperature.
Ideally, I'd like a formula for how to calculate cooking time from weight, and how to adjust based on details such as brining.
Please describe how you prep your turkey.... stuffing or no? Trussed or no? Are you open to spatchcocking?
@Yamikuronue - The other question has conflicting information and is not focused on a brined turkey (to me, anyway). The answers say either 15 or 20 minutes per pound, but also that brined turkeys don't take as long. The recipe I linked to says that it should take around 2.5 hours to cook.
KatieK, brining does not really change the cooking time, so much as mitigate the risk of overcooking.
I thought I recognized the Good Eats method.... the thing is, that time and temperature should be pretty close for a 16 lb or so turkey. Even bringing it cold from the refrigerator to the oven (which I do) doesn't add that much time to the roasting. If you are not getting a roasting time in the 2-3 hour range, I think something else is badly wrong, but if you are using an oven thermometer, I cannot guess what it is.
A 16 lb turkey - using the 15m per lb + 20m formula - would take 4h 20m. So how does Good Eats get 2-3 hours?
The formula is nonsense? 4 hours would give you dry and leathery jerky turkey.
I voted in favour of the duplicate because brining doesn't have any effect on cooking time; there might be some other hidden problem implied by the question, or the answers to the other question might be wrong or misleading, but there's not enough info here to disambiguate.
I've never roasted an entire turkey, but my grandmother followed Delia Smith's advice every year and it never failed us. Typically it worked at at around 15 - 20 minutes per lb of bird.
Cooking times for other sizes of turkey:
8-10 lb (3.5-4.5 kg) – 30 minutes at the high temperature, then 2½-3
hours at the lower temperature, then a final 30 minutes (uncovered) at
gas mark 6, 400°F (200°C). 15-20 lb (6.75-9 kg) – 45 minutes at the
high temperature, then 4-5 hours at the lower temperature, then a
final 30 minutes (uncovered) at gas mark 6, 400°F (200°C).
Is this for a brined turkey, or some other kind of preparation?
Sorry, I forgot to clarify - No it's not for a brined Turkey. It's for a normal roast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.514278
| 2013-09-17T17:09:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36882",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam C",
"KatieK",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89645",
"that other guy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61892
|
Can I use Bisquick instead of All Purpose Flour?
Can I use Bisquick instead of All Purpose Flour?
Hello and welcome to [se] and [cooking.se]. When posting, you'll get a speedy answer in most cases -- regardless of urgency! Please also describe the substitution you're trying to make -- e.g., in what application (e.g., pancakes, loaf bread, pie crust, ...) or recipe to you need to make this substitution?
There might be a few places where you could get away with it (eg, as part of a three-step breading), but they'd be exceptions, not norms.
You cannot directly use Bisquick in place of AP flour.
According to the company web site and Wikipedia, Bisquick consists of bleached all-purpose flour with several other ingredients, including fat (shortening), leavening (baking powder), sugar, and salt. It is essentially a self-rising flour with added fat. Because of all of the extra ingredients, it will not behave the same as regular all-purpose flour.
Depending on the recipe or application, you may be able to substitute or remove some of the other ingredients to make use of a pre-mixed flour like Bisquick.
Yes, sometimes you can use Bisquik instead of flour. I rarely cook, but I had been ending up with overripe bananas fairly often so I decided to make banana bread. I thought the container in the top shelf of the cupboard was flour. After making four batches of banana bread and one of zucchini bread over a couple of months, the container of flour was almost empty. That's when I found the back of the Bisquik box under the container. I had been using Bisquik all along, thinking it was flour. (I told you I rarely cook! I remember now I bought Bisquik to make pancakes eons ago.) All the bread turned out great. I took it to work, where it quickly disappeared, so that's more than just my opinion. So maybe sometimes you can't just substitute Bisquik for flour, but sometimes a 1:1 substitution works just fine. In fact, I'm a little leery of using real flour next time! :-)
Yesterday, I had made scones. I wasn't sure it was going to work with the Bisquick powder but it came out great. I put all the ingredients needed plus the Bisquick powder. Although in some recipes it may not work, so just be mindful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.514555
| 2015-09-20T19:07:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61892",
"authors": [
"Barbara Alba",
"Dean Sanchez",
"Dennis Hirt",
"Irma Sorg",
"Joe",
"Kimi Taylor",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"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
}
|
116727
|
What mill would you recommend to grind allspice?
I recently buy allspice berries thinking that IKEA grinders could grind it. However, the berry is just too large to this mill.
What type of mill or grinding appliance should I be looking for when I need to grind allspice?
Most grinders are meant for peppercorns. There are ones out there for coffee that I suspect would work for allspice unless you’ve got a goal strain that’s larger than a typical coffee bean
I use a mortar and pestle without any problems. It also works for other spice seeds and is good for garlic, basil, etc.
I've been known to break them up a bit with the pestle and mortar, then finish the job with a pepper mill (I wanted fine+even)
I have a coffee grinder that is dedicated only for whole spices. It's faster than grinding by hand. I just knock it out in the sink and wipe out with a cloth when I am finished.
Third alternative: an Indian Food Grinder. I own one; it's capable of grinding any spice, including super-woody ones like dried galangal. Only makes sense if you're grinding a lot of spices often, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.514759
| 2021-08-07T12:12:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116727",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68618
|
Making KFC-like chicken
I brine my chicken and use only salt, pepper and garlic powder in bleached flour to taste. I think this comes close to the Colonel's. Can anyone taste other spices in the original recipe?
We have a rule where we support people trying to recreate a dish they had in a restaurant, even if they seem to be worded like recipe requests. I added the correct tag and reworded the title.
Try Google. Many many people have attempted this. Another ingredient is suggested to be MSG. Note: you may successfully duplicate the flavor, but duplicating the crust and texture will be difficult because the Colonel uses pressure fryers. Not many home cooks have that.
It's possible that the breading/spice mixture has been revealed, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune. They also provide a full recipe here, though as far as I can tell, the solid part is the spice mixture, and they're filling in the rest of the recipe.
They say it seems to be a good match... with the addition of MSG:
But more important, did it taste like the Colonel’s secret blend of herbs and spices? It came very close, yet something was still missing. That’s when a reporter grabbed a small container of the MSG flavor-enhancer Accent (how did that get in the test kitchen?) and sprinkled it on a piece of the fried chicken. That did the trick. Our chicken was virtually indistinguishable from the batch bought at KFC. (Does KFC add MSG? A KFC spokesperson confirms that it does use it in the Original Recipe chicken.)
The full story: a nephew of Colonel Sanders spoke with a reporter and showed him a recipe he claimed was the original recipe, then later downplayed it:
"That is the original 11 herbs and spices that were supposed to be so secretive," he says with conviction.
(In a subsequent phone interview with a Tribune editor, Ledington dialed back his certainty and expressed reluctance about sharing a recipe that — if it's legit — ranks among corporate America's most closely guarded secrets. "It could be; I don't know for sure," he said about the handwritten list of ingredients, adding that this was the first time he'd shown it to a reporter. "I've only had that album for four years, since my sister passed away.")
KFC's official responses were of a "neither confirm nor deny" flavor, so it's pretty hard to say if this is real or not, but it certainly could be. The clearest they said was:
"Lots of people through the years have claimed to discover or figure out the secret recipe, but no one's ever been right."
The handwritten recipe:
Transcribed:
11 Spices - Mix With 2 Cups White Fl.
1) 2/3 Ts salt
2) 1/2 Ts Thyme
3) 1/2 Ts Basil
4) 1/3 Ts Origino
5) 1 Ts Celery Salt
6) 1 Ts Black Pepper
7) 1 Ts Dried Mustard
8) 4 Ts Paprika
9) 2 Ts Garlic Salt
10) 1 Ts Ground Ginger
11) 3 Ts White Pepper
Most of the other spices are difficult to impossible to detect. I've gotten as far as paprika, onion powder and rosemary for sure. I think there is parsley powder involved as well. There is another couple that I'm close to identifying, but no luck yet.
I want to learn what to put together, too, because I love KFC but my body can't handle it, so I want to learn how to make the coating for my own foods.
Interesting that my answer was marked down, considering the question: "Can anyone taste other spices in the original recipe?" I would be interested in hearing the reasoning behind the downvote. Just curious. I'll happily delete if the explanation makes sense.
Here is a recipe, referenced by @Jefromi, as it was printed in the article by Joe Gray in The Chicago Tribune on August 23, 2016 (which I've not tested):
Makes: 4 servings
2 cups all-purpose flour
⅔ Tablespoon salt
½ Tablespoon dried thyme leaves
½ Tablespoon dried basil leaves
⅓ Tablespoon dried oregano leaves
1 Tablespoon celery salt
1 Tablespoon ground black pepper
1 Tablespoon dried mustard
4 Tablespoons paprika
2 Tablespoons garlic salt
1 Tablespoon ground ginger
3 Tablespoons ground white pepper
1 cup buttermilk
1 egg, beaten
1 chicken, cut up, the breast pieces cut in half for more even frying
Canola oil
Mix the flour in a bowl with all the herbs and spices; set aside. Mix the buttermilk and egg together in a separate bowl until combined. Soak the chicken in the buttermilk mixture at room temperature, 20-30 minutes. Remove chicken from the buttermilk, allowing excess to drip off. Dip the chicken pieces in the herb-spice-flour mixture to coat all sides, shaking off excess. Allow to sit on a rack over a baking sheet, 20 minutes.
Meanwhile, heat about 3 inches of the oil in a large Dutch oven (or similar heavy pot with high sides) over medium-high heat to 350 degrees. (Use a deep-frying thermometer to check the temperature.) When temperature is reached, lower the heat to medium to maintain it at 350. Fry 3 or 4 pieces at a time, being careful not to crowd the pot. Fry until medium golden brown, turning once, 15-18 minutes. Transfer chicken pieces to a baking sheet covered with paper towels. Allow the oil to return to temperature before adding more chicken. Repeat with remaining chicken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.514887
| 2016-04-28T01:28:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68618",
"authors": [
"Paulb",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78106
|
Why are chickpeas sprouted before grinding them into flour?
I am about to make (or at least try to) my own chickpea flour. Having had a good look around, my understanding is that I need to sprout my chickpeas first. My question(s) therefore: Why do I have to sprout my chickpeas? Do I have to sprout my chickpeas? What happens if I don't sprout them? And lastly any other help...
Hey dougal, nice question. The title was a bit too generic though, I edited it to fit the body so others will know what the question is about.
Not a problem, I agree - thanks for your effort.
The chickpeas are currently doing their 'thing' - so let's see what happens!
There are chickpeas and there are chickpeas. If you're planning to use this flour for Indian recipes, ensure that your chickpeas are Bengal gram and not garbanzo beans. They're both varieties of chickpea, but not the same thing.
Hi verbose, could you expand on that for me please.
The one most North Armericans and European are familiar with are kabuki chickpeas. These are the large beige round chickpeas. The other basic kind is the desi chickpea. They're smaller and more angular. Most Indians where I live are Punjabi and they use both kinds. Kabuli is usually made into a spiced roasted snack (like peanuts in NA) or cooked whole in a curry. Desi are usually hulled and used as dal or ground into flour (called channa or chana flour). Dal are any number of dried split and hulled legumes. Desi dal ground up yields the type of chickpea flour (also called besan flour).
To see the differences, take a look at this photo. https://tce-live2.s3.amazonaws.com/media/media/180299e2-8dc8-4e60-9778-24810084657a.jpg
Blimey - All I wanted to do was make some chickpea flour for my Roti's. Jude you are a mine of information.
Kabuli chickpeas are garbanzo beans. If there are Indian grocery stores near where you are, @dougal2.0.0, you can buy Bengal gram flour to make your rotis; ask for "besan". See also this Quora answer
Ah, a bit more info - I have to admit that my chickpea grinding was not a resounding success, so pre bought ideas are great, many thanks.
You don't need to sprout your chickpeas, but there are benefits when you do, as sprouting substantially increases nutritional value. By allowing the legume (or seed or grain) to germinate, the phytic acid within it is neutralized, as are enzyme inhibitors.
The Nourishing Gourmet Kimi Harris describes:
Phytic acid binds with calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc, making it hard to impossible for you to absorb those nutrients. It’s also irritating to your digestive system. By sprouting your grains, legumes or seeds, you are neutralizing phytic acid very effectively. You will also be neutralizing enzyme inhibitors, which unfortunately not only inhibit enzymes in the actual seed, but can also inhibit your own valuable enzymes once they have been eaten.
Beyond even anti-nutrients that are neutralized by sprouting, there are other changes that take place during sprouting that make it easier for us to digest our seeds/legumes/grains.
In Nourishing Traditions, Sally Fallon writes that:
The process of germination not only produces vitamin C, but also changes the composition of grains and seeds in numerous beneficial ways. Sprouting increases vitamin B content, especially B2, B5, and B6. Carotene increases dramatically-sometimes even eightfold.
Sprout People offers comprehensive nutrition information and a chart listing the proteins, vitamins, amino acids, and minerals.
As a side note, while chickpeas are gluten free, sprouting grains that do contain it breaks down the gluten, a benefit to those with gluten intolerance.
Wow Dorothy, all of that is amazing - even though I am currently sprouting my chickpeas I see that I don't really have to, if say for example I want to make some flour straight away. So, what I will do is do two different types, one sprouted and one not sprouted. The added nutritional benefits really aren't an issue for me, but they might be for others, once again you have come to my rescue. Many thanks.
What a great idea! I bought my chickpea flour (called channa flour) from the Indian ( Punjabi) section in a grocery store which 'm pretty certain isn't sprouted.
Any problem with gas will be reduced by sprouting. Sprouting converts indigestible oligosaccharides (complex sugars) to simpler sugars easily digested. It's bacteria in our gut metabolizing these oligosaccharides that gives us flatulence. I couldn't find verified data on how much these oligosaccharides are reduced but I found a number of references saying beyond 48 hours, the difference isn't significant. Chickpea prouts start becoming bitter after that.
You'll not just get decreased gas formation but a significant increase in protein and protein bioavailability (i.e. how well you digest it). Bonus all around! (So guess who's going to buy some chickpeas and try making sprouted chickpea flour too?) I already knew all that about sprouted seeds and grains but never thought of using sprouted legumes as flour before. I plan on trying soy beans too now.
Well the peas are sprouted and dried, and today is d-day for grinding, will also grind some non-sprouted and see what happens. I wouldn't normally go to all this palaver, but can't buy it here.
Yes, good reason but admit it. It's fun to experiment, isn't it? You not only learn more but this way you can share what you learn with others who might not be so adventurous. Bet that your sprouted bean flour is the one you prefer. I can't do much now as we're having a lot of snow and I don't have winter tires. Normally, we'd be having early sprig bulbs starting to flower not, not 2 feet of snow!
Aw, sorry about the snow - hot sunshine here (and it's only 8.30am)! Didn't get round to grinding yesterday, so doing it today. And OK OK, experimenting is fun - and I do have a tendency to get carried away with it sometimes - fortunately we have strong constitutions here!
I've been busy with other things so just checked in today. How did your sprouted chick-pea flour turn out? I'd like to learn more from someone else's experience before I try spouting soy beans to make a similar flour.
Sorry, forgot to answer your comment before! I gave up in the end - some things are just easier to buy! Also living on a boat means that I have to limit my experiments - so this one eventually went in the bin.
Ha! Like my last mung beans went in the compost able bin. Got sick of picking broken bits out each time I rinsed them. Tomorrow I'm going to buy the simple rectangular flat Asian plastic dish with a colander shaped the same that nestles in it. No more broken sprouts.
wow that sounds like a fantastic piece of kit - I have to make everything multi-functional - like my steamer/colander/strainer for the pressure cooker - it's a space requirement thing - I am envious! Mind you - how many people on here have a life-raft in the galley?! There I think I win!
Legumes in their raw form contain different kinds of toxins (trypsin inhibitor, goiterogenic factors, cyanogenetic glucosides, saponins and alkaloids). Those toxins can be broken down when the legumes are soaked/sprouted. Soaking them release enzymes that hydrolyze nutrients and other compounds that are essential for the soon-to-sprout plant.
Source: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/11/4/281.abstract
Yes, but chickpea flour is cooked anyway, at least when used in eg traditional indian recipes - it is rather bitter and unpalatable raw :)
@rackandboneman - I am no expert on this but once I tried to make bean crisps out of raw beans and that went very bad for me so I don't mess with raw beans anymore ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.515396
| 2017-02-04T05:29:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78106",
"authors": [
"FlukyFood",
"Jude",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75033
|
How to clean ginger for tea
I have recently taken up making homemade ginger tea.
I am living in Korea and most produce is very dirty and has to be cleaned.
The ginger is very..curvy with small lumps all over it.
I find it very hard to peel and clean..it seems to take forever.
Is there an easier way?
There are some black spots on the outside of my ginger. Can I just cut them off and continue to eat the clean portions?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. A picture of this... curvy... ginger would be helpful. And, recipe requests are off-topic here.
Hello Aleah, and welcome! We work differently from forums, and one thing we insist on is to have information where it is easy to find. This includes always asking a single question at a time, or at most a few very related ones. We would be glad if you ask your third question separately (how to store ginger), as it is a good fit for us. As a side effect, you will get upvotes for it. I'm afraid your fourth question is of a type we don't take, because there is never a single best way to prepare something. See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
I drink ginger tea many times a day, so I purchase large pieces of ginger. They always have nubs, bumps and curves, as they are actually the root, or rhizome, of the ginger plant, and that's how they grow. I don't have one on hand at the moment or I'd do a pictorial demonstration.
I call the sections that jut out from the large piece "fingers" because the big piece sometimes looks like a hand. I have no idea what the technical term is! Sometimes before peeling I break off some of those fingers, especially if they're very tight with little or no ability to get in between them. My peeling method is the same, I just do more separate parts at a time.
My favorite way by far to peel ginger is by scraping it with the edge of a spoon. It works in a similar way as a carrot peeler or paring knife, but is much easier because the spoon slides over and around the nubby parts, and gets into those v-shaped bends. Also, it takes off just the thin outer skin while leaving you with the most amount of ginger.
I'll explain one method, and once you see how easy it is you can customize the same basic idea, without needing to strictly follow my directions.
Hold the spoon with the side against the ginger, with the inside of the round part facing you. Tip the spoon gently on its edge and scrape towards yourself in such a way as to gather the peel inside the spoon. Clean off the spoon with your hand once the skin covers the spoon or gets in your way. You can scrape with the spoon faced the other way, but I find it harder to handle and not as efficient.
You can do short, quick motions, or long scrapes if there are large sections that aren't bumpy.
When I'm all done, I'll use my fingernails to get at any left over cracks and crevices. You don't have to worry about leaving those bits. As others have said, peeling isn't even necessary, but I'm kind of obsessive about it!
As for the black spots, I don't know if there's a general rule, so I don't want to steer you in a wrong direction, but I'm with JoseNunoFerreira in terms of removing them. Many times they're just dirt, as ginger is grown underground and, at least in the United States, undergoes minimal handling on the way to the market. If I can rub the black off easily with my finger, or if it smells like the earth, I feel pretty sure that it's dirt. I cut that section off to the point where all the black is gone, and use the rest.
However, if there's any trace of mold anywhere, I throw the whole piece out. A lot of people I know just cut off the moldy areas, but I always err on the side of what I know to be safe, which to me means no mold!
I also remove those nubs, or any other area, including the ends, if they're shriveled. While not necessarily unsafe, it means they're dried out and won't make yummy tasting tea anyway. They're also hard to peel. Just cut or break those off.
I agree with Dorothy that frozen ginger can be much easier to peel. I don't freeze mine very often, but when I do, I use the same spoon method for peeling. That's just my preference, because I'm less coordinated and not very good at handling a microplane! Perhaps that could be a trial and error thing for you.
I believe that ginger doesn't absolutely require peeling.
I have washed it thoroughly and chopped it finely for infusion in the past, with no noticeable flavor alterations..I suppose it's not harmful.
If the black spots are dirt or mold, I'd remove them.
Extra credit:
This is described widely online, ginger is not recommended (in high doses, at least) while:
you are pregnant
you have diabetes
you have a heart condition
This is likely to be an issue if you drink ginger tea every/most days, and probably fine if you do it only a couple times a week.
To address your question regarding storage, it's recommended that you put the unpeeled ginger root in a resealable plastic bag, with the air pushed out, in the crisper drawer of the refrigerator. That said, I'll confess to storing mine in the freezer in a ziplock bag, and microplane grate the unpeeled root when needed (a breeze when frozen).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.515947
| 2016-10-26T10:19:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75033",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86936
|
Has the oil started to smoke here?
Following the question posted here concerning the safety of cooking with olive oil
Is cooking with olive oil bad or toxic?
I wasn't quite sure how to tell when the oil actually starts to smoke especially when cooking with liquid
https://youtu.be/VOBihHeZuXE?t=1m35s
What is smoking/vaporizing when he adds the wine? The oil or the
added liquid?
He later adds a vegetable chicken stock (at 1:45) and brings to a
boil; Can the oil smoke while the water is boiling?
https://youtu.be/TYmDpxY9_hM?t=3m20s
Hi Dan, our site only discusses standard food safety rules (basically, how long to store food before the chance of bacterial poisoning gets higher than the FDA likes) and questions about potential long term effects of food are off topic. You saw already from the other question that oil over its smoking point does not fall under "unsafe", so it makes no sense to ask if oil below the smoking point is "completely safe" - there is only "safe" and "not safe" anyway, not gradations. So I had to remove that part.
@rum tscho I've further read in the question posted here link It seems rather unsafe to get above the smoke point (based on the studies they referenced) but my main concern was how to tell if the oil was smoking at these particular moments in the videos
Oh, I see. This is something which is confusing to new users, and you had no way of knowing - the question you linked is from the first few months of the site's life, when we had not yet determined the exact terms and our scope. After the question was posted, we realized that we don't have the qualification to answer health-related topics and if we let questions about them open, they get answered but nobody can say if the answers are correct, so that area is now off topic for us. We then had to define where the line is between food safety (which we can answer) and health.
So we now stopped mixing up health (which is the vague, unknown and unprovable risks of something like smoking oil) and food safetey (which is the regulations meant for preventing foodborne illness). THe old question has been dormant for so long, we have overlooked it. I closed it now.
The smoke point of extra virgin olive oil is about 375F (190C), which is above the boiling point of water. Most likely the pan temperature is close to 350 or so for sauteing in the first recipe, or at least above 300F, so when wine (which is mostly water) hits the pan it starts to boil off, so what you are seeing is water vapor. When stock is added later it's still just water vapor. Once you add liquid the oil will typically sit on the top, which is the coolest place to be because of evaporation.
A big reason to avoid burning oil is that is creates off flavors which are undesirable, and the smoke itself is unpleasant smelling. For that reason if you want to do high temperature sauteing (think wok) or deep frying you would want to use an oil with a high smoke point, for instance peanut or canola (rapeseed).
Health discussions are off topic here, please don't start them even if new users ask for them in the question. The appropriate thing would have been to edit them out of the question, or cast a close vote instead of answering if you think that removing them leaves nothing to be answered.
Mea culpa @rumtscho, it was a moment of weakness. I have added part of the deleted section back in as it dealt with the culinary consequences of burning oil rather than any health issues.
@GdD If I get it right, the pan temperature is the same as the oil temperature? Can I measure the oil temperature by any means? (a very thin layer of oil rather than deep frying oil measured using thermo)
A thin layer of oil will be pretty much the same as the pan temperature, you can measure with an infrared thermometer @Dan.
@GdD Well noted, that pretty much covered my concerns!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.516362
| 2018-01-07T04:23:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86936",
"authors": [
"Dan B",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61938",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10363
|
How do I make paneer firm and chewy like in the restaurant?
Recently I've taken a liking to Indian cuisine and am trying to replicate the curry experience at home. The biggest problem I'm having is with the paneer cheese, which is used in curries I like the most.
When I eat out at an Indian restaurant, their paneer is firm, squishy and kind of 'squeaky' on the teeth. The one I make is always crumbly and falls apart in the curry. I've tried all kinds of recipes from the net; at one point I even asked a friendly Indian chef about it and he told me that they buy the milk directly from a farmer, and that the low-fat, UHT shop variety just won't do.
I tried reinforcing 2% milk with cream before as per the advice of one recipe or other, but not "country-milk" so I got some milk from a friend who keeps cows and the result wasn't much better. The cheese still won't stick together and keeps falling apart, you just can't feel the chewy, curry-flavored bits of paneer at all, so it's pretty useless to even bother with it. Help please?
It's the same problem with poutine here in Canada; most people (including restaurants) just can't get the cheese curds right, they're supposed to squeak on the teeth. I don't really have any experience with paneer, but generally the squeak is an issue of freshness more than anything else.
What is funny is that virtually every Indian cookbook I own has just a short passage on the topic. One said and I quote: 'This cheese is very easy to prepare'. Arrrgh!
When my mother makes paneer at home, or any of my Aunts in India, the texture is a bit more solid in consistency than cottage cheese. This leads me to believe that the factory made paneer and homemade paneer go through different processes. My mother everyone I know in India uses cow's milk to make paneer, I don't know if the usage of cow's milk is traditional or a modern thing though. I can't offer an answer, but my parents buy whole milk specifically for paneer (we use 2% for everything else in our lives). It turns out better if the milk is spoiled (it may sound bad, but it's going to be cook
@Nil: Surely you must mean "soured", not "spoiled"? ;)
@neuviemeporte sure, We never make a distinction in our house. If it's near the expiration date and has a notable change in taste and/or smell, then it's used for paneer. Milk doesn't really sit in out fridge too long to really go spoiled.
I know this is an old post but just wanted to throw my 2c in. Paneer should never be "squeaky" the way cheese curds are. It is supposed to be a very soft fresh cheese. That being said it should hold its form well enough to be fried or mixed into a curry without completely crumbling(you will always get a little bit of crumbling). If your paneer is too crumbly it's likely because it's holding too much liquid. It should be pressed in cheesecloth for a few hours with a heavy weight to ensure you get all the excess whey out of the cheese. The shorter the pressing period the softer the cheese.
If by squeaky you rubbery then it shouldn't not be like that, paneer should be soft but also not brittle. The main cause brittleness is low weight on top of it while making. Just for example when I do it , I keep atleast 10 -15 kg weights on top of it. And leave it for some time before storing it in water and refrigerating it. Storing for long duration in water also make it brittle.
If you are using UHT milk, that is your answer right there. It won't make proper ricotta or mozzarella, so I'm not surprised it won't make good paneer either. Something about the heat treatment makes it so that it will only produce grainy, tiny curds. I made this mistake myself once, in my excitement to try my new cheesemaking kit. Here is some reference info, including pictures, from cheesemaking.com.
As I didn't fail to mention, I tried natural milk as well but no difference there. Interestingly, the results I get look exactly like the "fail" section at the website you provided. I must ask my friend if the milk was heat-treated in any way before he gave it to me. Also, I kept it in a fridge a couple of days before curdling, I'm wondering if it could have an influence. Also, now I'm wondering: what is the difference between paneer and mozarella?
@SripathiKrishnan UHT milk will never result in "not-so-good" paneer because it is impossible to make paneer from UHT milk. Cows milk makes excellent paneer, this claim that you panner is only made from buffalo milk in India, or that you need to use buffalo milk to make good paneer is honestly absurd.
@HalCarleton - thank you for the correction, I have deleted my comment.
@HalCarleton how very odd, considering I've made paneer from UHT milk a zillion times.
Like all cheeses, to make it firm you need pressure. With Paneer you typically press it in your cloth and colander (make sure it's strong enough)
Paneer cheese needs 10:1 ratio of full cream milk to lemon juice (depends on lemon variety) to fully curdle
For 1 litre or milk full cream milk, try a 2Kg weight for the first 15 to 30 minutes, Then load up to 5Kg for a few hours
I'm giving you slightly contrarian advice axed on typical indian household recipe.
A) if I understand right your main problem is that the paneer crumbles in your curry.
B) unlike Indian restaurants in western countries, paneer which is tough and squeaks between teeth is not considered right! Paneer should be soft but firm and hold together. Follow my sister's recipe below. I use it and has never failed.
C) apart from ingredients, having right tools is important. In this case you'll need a muslin cloth to hang your paneer.
Ingredients: use full fat / whole milk, slightly old yogurt beaten smooth (not Greek yogurt- plain danone yogurt) and very little citric acid.
Method: bring milk to a boil and set burner on simmer. Add a pinch of salt to the milk. Start stirring the milk. While stirring, pour your beaten yogurt into the milk. The ratio of milk to yogurt is 4:1 I.e. 250ml yogurt to a litre of milk. Add two tea spoons of citric acid. Your milk will start separating. Now in a pot, put the muslin cloth in the base such that the sides hang out. Pour the separated mixture in the pot. Pick up the cloth from the sides and bring the edges together and hang it like a knapsack for 10-15mins to drain all excess water. DO NOT PRESS THE PANEER WITH WEIGHT OR PRESSURE. As contrarian as it sounds, little moisture is required to retain softness and taste. Once drained, untie muslin cloth and cut your paneer into cubes.
Another thing- paneer should be added almost towards the end of the curry cooking and turned over just once. In our zest to coat all cubes evenly we often turn it too many times. Just let it rest, the gravy will take care of even coating. Another trick to ensure even coating is to cover the curry pan after putting in the paneer and simmer for 5 mins. The spicy steam which builds inside coats the paneer cubes.
Remember, paneer is not a melting cheese. It is more akin to tofu than it is to fresh mozzarella or cheddar. Don't treat it like a European "Cheese".
Best of luck and let me know the results !
Crumbly paneer that does not hold together well can be caused by premature addition of the coagulent (lime juice or vinegar or any other acidic substance). Adding the acid before milk starts boiling can cause paneer to be crumbly. Make sure milk is boiling well, after which add the acid. Also, as others have pointed out, use whole milk and as much pressure as possible to squeeze out the water.
Very important! :) I tried boiling before adding the vinegar, and I actually get cheese instead of liquid stuff.
Just run the drained paneer in microwave for 2-3 minutes (time depends on the quantity and water content in the crumbled cheese) before putting it in the fridge to set. Do press and assemble it in the desired shape before you put it in microwave. I use a rectangular glass container which helps.
Again - Test it once before you put it in your curry- Press between your fingers . If it is still crumbly, run it again in microwave for 2 mins. It will not fall apart in the curry. Will be chewy but still fresh and soft.
Looking at the question, Why is my Paneer crumbly, the key is not to boil the milk, the milk should be floculated once the milk reaches 98 C, Acetic acid is best, a quick guide would be to heat the milk to 98 C add acetic acid 1/10, mix the floculated solids in the hot whey, drain in a colander and place in a cheese cloth, if possible apply 20 - 60 psi of pressure (if not tie the cloth up tightly to squeeze the excess liquid out. Keep the pressure on until cool, remove chop and add to curry. It should be rubbery and absorb the flavor of the curry.
Try goat milk, and most assuredly raw milk. I use about 2/3 cup of vinegar per gallon, and a friend saves the cream-heavy stuff for me. Heat to 180, add acid, curdle 10 minutes, then strain, ball, press, etc. I think boiling is a mistake - as soon as you hit 180F, add the acid and stop the heat. Also, once the block is pressed, soak in ice water for 3 hours before unwrapping - this GREATLY improves the texture. Using this method, I get paneer I can slice and add to palak no problem.
i have been into trying cheese making myself lately, and i've run into all the problems you listed. it all boils down to pasturization, or more specifically, OVER-pasturization. the two things i've read that are worth trying, in my opinion, are
1) if you live in california (where it's legal to do so), Whole Foods sells raw milk.
2) buy from a local dairy. if they have to deliver close by, the chance is that they will not over-pasturize their product.
Regarding the failure I had with raw milk, I was wondering if perhaps since the temperature is the problem, that actually bringing the milk to a boil before pouring in the acid can cause this as well in otherwise unaffected milk. Next time I'll try pouring it long before it boils.
You can purchase a Japanese pickle press (one of the world's great inventions)
and use it to press the paneer. They cost between $12-$20 online depending upon the size and are extremely versatile and dishwasher safe.
That looks very handy. I added the picture since I had never of a Japanese pickle press. Thanks for pointing it out!
To make the paneer firm press the curdled milk between two flat plates, and keep some heave object over them. Let this stay for 1-2 hours. This make the paneer firm and solid.
In the restaurants usually they fry the paneer cubes in some amount of oil, which makes it chewy.
I usually prepare a large block of paneer and store it in the refrigerator.
And whenever i have to use it, i soak it in hot water for some time and it comes out as freshly prepared.
Plates are a great idea. They fit nicely in the fridge and you can use other fridge items to add weight easily.
I was born and raised in India and have loved Paneer all my life. I actually agree with vagabond 100%. Paneer in grocery stores and Indian restaurants in the US would not pass as acceptable in India. Good paneer should indeed by quite moist and soft and yet should never fall apart.
I have struggled myself quite a bit with getting the right texture - my homemade paneer tends to be harder and crumblier than i would like. Based on all the research that i have been able to find on the internet, it appears to be temperature related. Found a technical article on the following website. Please feel free to read, experiment, and share back the outcome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551056/
Regards,
AG
Just to give a little context, I stumbled over this post a while back as I was looking for the same answer. I live in US and have been making paneer since a year but my paneer never came out good. But i did find the answer after stumbling over a video on how to make Ras Malai Receipe. And it gave me something to try.
The reason panner can crumble is because of high fat content. So if
you are trying to make paneer from milk like the whole milk, your
panner will never come out good. I recently tried paneer with 2%
reduced milk and it came out really good. firm and squishy.
If you still want to make paneer with whole milk, you have to boil
and let it sit for few hours. It will develop a thick layer of fat.
Remove that layer of fat. Repeat the process 2-3 time. And then
curdle the milk. It will come out good. Do not throw away the removed
layer of fat. You can do lot of things with that.
Observation:
Deciding factor for the paneer's good binding is the fat content.
If the paneer is hard & brittle, that means the milk you are using has a higher fat than required for good binding.
Mav55, welcome! We expect all users to remain civil and polite, see the Code of Conduct. If you are quoting other sources, proper attribution is mandatory. Please take the [tour] and browse through the [help] to learn more about how the site works.
In order to get firmer paneer, you need to first squeeze out the moisture, and then knead the dough together with a small amount of all purpose flour.
Reference:
http://showmethecurry.com/odds-ends/homemade-paneer-indian-cheese.html
Fry(shallow or deep) the paneer before use. This will prevent the paneer from melting into the curry.
Well.. a response now from India.. Cottage Cheese or Paneer is really easy to prepare at home.
Here are the things you will need:
2 liters Full Cream Milk
Ice Cubes
2 tsp vinegar
In a pan, head the full cream milk until boiling and bubbling. Reduce the flame and let boil for 5 minutes. Add the vinegar and stir slowly until the milk starts separating and cuddling. When the milk stops cuddling which should be around in 2 minutes. Add the ice cubes and turn of the heat. Adding ice cubes instantly stops the cuddled milk to get more chewy and harder. Let rest for 5-10 minutes.
In a linen cloth sieve the whole stuff of the pan. Save the water which was in the pan while you save. Now, squeeze out excess water from the cheese in the cloth and keep it on a flat surface of a sieve. Place a plate over the cottage cheese prepared in the cloth and then above it the water you saved in a pan over the plate. This will squeeze out excess water from the cheese in next 1.5 hours.
Diagram for after sieving in a cloth:
| | <-- Pan
|_______|
----------- <-- Plate
------
| | <-- Prepared Cheese
------
------------- <-- Sieve
You will then be ready with the paneer or cottage cheese after 1.5 hours ready to be cooked. To use it for later purpose, you can keep it in your refrigerator for 2-3 days max.
You can find a number of recipes of paneer on my blog too @ http://recipesglobally.com
Once you add your cut paneer to the dish, you should not over cook it! That's the answer to your question. 1-2 minutes of cooking after addition of paneer. That's it. Over cooking it will make it crumble into the dish. I am an Indian talking from years of experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.516723
| 2010-12-20T22:27:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10363",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Doug",
"Frances H.",
"Gregorio Litenstein",
"JJJollyjim",
"Jo Lacaillade",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kiddies Daycare spam",
"LynxLynx",
"Nil",
"Spammer",
"Sripathi Krishnan",
"Stephie",
"Suryansh Singh",
"Todd Kapuscinski",
"Tony",
"Tred",
"WorkSocial",
"aportr",
"hal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98636",
"koda",
"neuviemeporte",
"sisira",
"user108220"
],
"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
}
|
21554
|
Is it possible to make low-alcohol Limoncello?
Lemons are currently in season and dirt cheap. I'd like to make a homemade Limoncello.
The recipe I'm using calls for odorless, high-ABV (150+ proof) spirit, like Everclear. Unfortunately, my state doesn't allow the sale of high ABV spirits.
Can I use a lower ABV, like vodka, as a stand in? Will this change steeping time?
I cheated, drove to Connecticut and bought a handle of Graves 95% Grain Alcohol. I'll let everyone know the results shortly.
There are plenty of recipes for limoncello/lemoncello out there that use vodka. I would reference one specifically calling for vodka rather than adapting one that relies on either 150 or 190 proof Everclear.
The higher alcohol content means a stronger extract from the lemons (does not necessarily apply to leeching of sugars, just oils), and a corresponding need to be sugared down more. As vodka is easier to just sip and lower in alcohol, it would likely require less simple syrup, and either more lemons, agitation, longer steeping or a combination thereof.
Yes, you can use a lower-proof alcohol to make limoncello. In fact, I've seen vodka used more commonly (1 2) than everclear.
I'm not sure what baseline your everclear recipe gives for steeping time, but with vodka you need to steep for around a week. As for sugar, this is largely going to be a matter of preference, so feel free to change the amount to your taste.
You should be able to use vodka just fine. I don't know for sure, but I doubt it would severely impact any of the variables in the recipe. I think a little trial and error is your best bet.
This is strictly anecdotal, but my father made a limoncello using vodka, and it turned out pretty great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.518026
| 2012-02-21T15:49:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21554",
"authors": [
"Alex Granovsky",
"Carlos Gavidia-Calderon",
"Jake McGraw",
"RKSMT",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48066",
"jlaswell",
"pjcat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10588
|
Camping stove to supplement an electric hob
I've got basic electric hobs in my kitchen which do a fine job - but a lot of cookbooks suggest that certain things would be best done on an open flame/gas hob (i.e. anything involving a wok).
My flat isn't piped up for gas and I can't afford the expense of replacing my hob with a better one than it currently has anyway - so I was wondering - would a decent gas camping stove/hob be a suitable and sensible supplement to my electric hobs?
If so, what sort of thing should I look out for on buying one?
Camping stoves are generally not safe for indoor use. They can produce fumes or carbon monoxide that would be fine outdoors, but dangerous indoors. Check the warning labels before buying anything to use inside.
As for the actual cooking, I don't think that you'll get the results that you expect.
My experience includes an MSR Whisperlite International backpacking stove (white gas), and Coleman two-burner stoves in both white gas and propane variants. Anecdotally, the backpacking stove has limited control, while the two-burner stoves don't quite have the oomph of a real gas stove.
The Coleman links that I provided indicate that the white gas stove has burners that put out 7,500 and 6,500 BTU, while the propane stove puts out 10,000 btu on both burners. Using the REI-provided time for boiling water, I calculated that the backpacking stove puts out about 4,500 BTU (and other backpacking stoves indicate similar times, regardless of fuel).
By comparison, my consumer-grade natural gas-powered kitchen stove has two burners that put out 15,500 BTU, one that puts out 9,500, and one (the simmer burner) that puts out 5,000. Viking offers normal burners up to 18,000 BTU, and a wok burner of 27,000.
However, white gas stoves aren't okay indoors. They're fine while they're burning, but lighting them is a bit dramatic, and once you shut them off they'll put out half-burned fumes for several minutes.
Similarly, propane camping stoves usually put off too much carbon monoxide to be safe indoors.
Thanks - this gives me a great starting point to research further (though it does sound like overall it might not be worth the effort!)
+1: Absolutely correct. Camping stoves are exceptionally wimpy.
@satanicpuppy : camping stoves that are intended for backpacking are wimpy. But I know the local head of the boyscouts, and he drags along a Black Stone Griddle
@joe: Ell Oh Ell. Whatever happened to cooking with, you know, wood
I have a propane turkey fryer that I do NOT use for frying turkey, but I do use when I need major heat output. I've made beer, done clam bakes and Alton Brown used his for a high heat wok fry. They aren't particularly expensive, but will take up room in your flat when not in use. But you get a large pot "for free".
@Doug : the same person brings one of those along for boiling pasta / potatoes / whatever for 50+ people at a time. (and then there's the rolling pantry w/ fold-down table & window for the coffee maker, etc.)
Although I've seen stoves where you'd hook up what looked to be a propane cylinder, I don't know what hydrocarbon they were using. And as it was a built-in, it would've had the appropriate venting as required by code.
If you're using a camping stove, you're going to run the risk of carbon monoxide build-up, particularly if you're using it when it's cold out, and you've got the windows closed.
There are butane burners that are supposed to be suitable for indoor use, but I'm personally not sure I'd trust them; they all risk carbon monoxide if there's not enough oxygen for combustion.
So, to answer the question -- yes, it'll work, yes, there are even ones intended for this purpose ... but what I'd look for? A carbon monoxide detector to install before you use it. And as mentioned -- BTUs ... and remember, even though they're small, propane stores more energy than natural gas, so you can get some rather large burners. (eg, the ones sold to fry turkeys)
Yes, actually portable butane stove do a very good job and can be bought for under 30$ at most sports/camping stores.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.518209
| 2010-12-29T22:39:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10588",
"authors": [
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Joe",
"Lee",
"Raul Rene",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Val Schuman",
"hrishikeshp19",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"superuser"
],
"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
}
|
17889
|
Frying pan width - from base or rim?
I have a recipe that calls for a frying pan about 20cm across - should I measure from the base, or the top rim?
Manufacrurers measure the rim, so I guess the recipe calls for a pan which is 20 cm across the rim.
It may seem counterintuitive that the recipe specifies such a small pan (that's less than 8 inch for you Americans). But it can have good reasons.
Most recipes aren't dependent on pan size (much). But if you make a small quantity of some sauces, you want it to be thick enough in the pan to heat evenly, instead of a thin smearing of stuff on the bottom of the pan which will overheat quickly. So if you suspect that this is the case, it makes sense to actually use a small pan.
For many other recipes, overcrowding the pan is not too good. If you say what you are trying to make, we could give you an indication whether the size is important in your case.
Thanks - for info, the recipe was for Pear Tart Tatin. I don't think it was too crucial. I've just always wondered about this and decided to nip out and ask half way through cooking it.
OK, I assumed frying. Size is more important for baking, because 1) you want some preliminary info on the size, 2) A thick cake doesn't bake as well as a thin one, and 3) in a tarte tatin, the amount of pears is calculated for a certain pan size.
Btw, it makes great sense why the measure for the rim - makes it easier to have common lid sizes regardless of the form of the bottom of the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.518801
| 2011-09-20T19:23:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17889",
"authors": [
"Kevin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15438
|
How can I cook trout without generating horror stories?
I bought some frozen trout filets, pre-seasoned. As instructed on the box, I left one in the fridge yesterday to thaw overnight. Today -- also as instructed on the box -- I put the stove on medium-high (7) and heated up the frying pan, and then put the fish in.
This was a horrible mistake.
I was smart enough to use canola oil instead of olive oil (which the box suggested), since olive oil will burn easily at that temperature. I probably should have realized the temperature was too high regardless. The oil exploded when the fish went in the pan, giving me a nasty burn on the finger. The fish also began burning immediately, which I didn't notice as I tended to my finger.
The skin turned to charcoal, but fortunately I salvaged the rest of it and it was, fortunately, delicious. (It tasted like bacon. Is that normal?) But I would like to avoid all the burning and smoke-filled kitchen and all that. How should I properly fry my trout? I could turn the heat stupid low, but then I'd be worried about not cooking it well enough.
Teach a man to (cook a) fish!
Step away from the stove slowly. Now get a phone book and make a reservation for your nearest seafood restaurant. It's the safest thing for all involved.
Fried trout/salmon skin is the bacon of the sea.
Also, if you're not dredging/battering the trout, then you really don't need very much oil, especially if you are using a non-stick pan. I usually pour in enough to barely coat the bottom of the pan, heat it up, and then wipe out any excess using a paper towel (held with my tongs). In a non-stick pan this produces a film of tiny oil bubbles across the bottom of the pan which is more than enough for an oily fish like trout. Finally, I'd recommend initially placing it in the pan skin side down; that will produce a very nice, crispy skin.
First, about the temperature. Your safest option is to use a gun ;) The correct temp for shallow frying is between 150 and 190 degrees celsius. So if you have an infrared "gun" (a thermometer which neasures the temp of the surface at which it is pointed), use it to determine the stove setting at which the temperature of the dry (not ptfe coated) pan stabilizes in this interval after longer heating. If you don't have it, use the typical tricks for determining the pan temp, they are described in other questions here on SA.
Important: different stoves heat to different temperatures. Don't let the numbers at the knob to fool it into thinking that a given temp is "medium high" because it has the number 7. My own stove stabilizes at ~180 degrees C at setting 2 (out of 10), with setting 3 pushing 230. On the other hand, the minimum temperature for cooking fish is 50 deg. As stoves rarely go below 80 degrees, there is practically no chance to set your stove to a temperature so low that the fish stays undercooked (but it might need unreasonably long times on very low settings).
As for the spraying: the fat at frying temperature will always spray. You can still reduce your problems. First, the bubble explosions at the lower temperature will be less violent. Second, surface moisture promotes spraying (which is produced by water being instantly turned into steam in the oil). So pat the fish dry with paper before frying it. If this isn't enough, you can also drag it through flour. This will make the crust crisper. As the spraying won't be eliminated completely, don't throw in the pieces. Take a flat spatula with a long handle, place the piece on the working end, step back from the stove and slowly lay the fish into the oil, gradually pulling the spatula from beneath it. The turning should produce less spraying, so using a fork or spoon to press the fish against the spatula isn't a problem (or kitchen pincers, if you have those).
All of the above applies to everything you are shallow frying, not only fish. Only the flour is unsuitable for some vegetables.
Probably:
You heated the oil up too much.
There was water on the fish (water and hot oil do nasty things).
Next time:
Wash the fish with cold water and pad it dry with a paper towel. Heat up the oil. To test whether the oil is hot enough drop a small drop of water into it. If it "sizzles" (is there a better word?), the oil is ready and you can put the fish in. You may have to turn the heat down during cooking to avoid the pan getting too hot. The fish should keep sizzling, but you don't need much more heat. Turn the fish over after half the cooking time; expect some extended sizzling when the uncooked side first comes into contact with the pan.
Good luck next time. And use a non-stick pan; it makes it so much easier to cook fish ....
+1. The fish was very wet, that was obviously a major problem. Thanks. My pans are fanstastic, fortunately; I can cook almost everything without oil, even pancakes etc.
I wouldn't wash a pre-seasoned fish, you'd lose half the flavor.
I wouldn't buy a pre-seasoned fish ;-). Loss / gain with washing depends a lot on the quality of the seasoning ;-).
pat the fish dry, yes. Wash it, no! That is how to spread bacteria all over your kitchen. Never wash raw meat prior to cooking it.
Put oil on the fish you are cooking, not in the pan itself. You don't want that thing swimming in a pool of oil. Just rub the fish with some oil until it's slightly coated. Sticking will come from using too high temperatures, not from using too little oil.
Is this true in a stainless steal or cast iron pan? I imagine that unless your pan is nonstick you need more oil than this.
oil temperature measuring trick: put a little bit of lemon peel in the pan with the cold oil. When the peel starts bubbling and travelling around the pan, you are above 100 degrees. Fish does not need very hot oil, not for shallow frying at least.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.518967
| 2011-06-13T23:14:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15438",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Chrismas007",
"Dorothy",
"ESultanik",
"Geobits",
"Matthew Read",
"NPE",
"WetlabStudent",
"cognifloyd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11220
|
How good a substitute is callaloo for spinach?
I have seen some good recipes using spinach and have heard over and over that callaloo (amaranth) can be used in place of it.
There is confusion about callaloo the plant and callaloo the dish I am refering to the plant amaranth.
I have never tasted spinach and I can not get it to buy where I am from, callaloo is easy to come by, I am hoping that someone here who have tasted both can tell me if this is true that callaloo can be used as a substitute for spinach. If i can get an answer here it would be a bit better than experimenting.
I have seen some substitutes for spinach on the Internet but unfortunately all fall in the hard to get category for me.
According to a well-known German witticism, the best substitute for spinach is a juicy steak …
Our hero, a well-known sailor, begs to differ :))
I've only had red amaranth, so apologies if that is distinct from the type you have access to. As I recall, spinach is a bit sweeter and the leaves are a bit softer so they break down more readily. Also I believe the stem on spinach is less fibrous.
That said, they are both leafy greens and I've yet to find a recipe so touchy that one leafy green can't be substituted for another.
Spinach has an acidic bite to it, even when canned. That can be tempered some by cooking it about 1/2 way. Leaves are also quite thin/soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.519480
| 2011-01-19T05:19:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11220",
"authors": [
"Edwin",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Wicked Goodies",
"beej",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4351",
"kitchenzero",
"truffles8761",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32055
|
Why microwaves do not kill harmful bacteria as well as boiling?
Medical Biochemistry point of view
My biochemistry teacher said today that the problem with micros is that they do not kill all harmful bacteria. He proposed boiling food instead.
I think there are two reasons.
Water can emit heat to bacteria from many more different directions than microwaves can. The heat frequency is changing all the time to the bacteria, since water is moving.
Radio waves can be applied only from discrete directions. To make microwaves better, I think reflection and different materials on the walls should be considered
I am not sure which one is the stronger reason why micros cannot make good food:
sequentially different waves - probably not
or heating bacteria from different angles by mirror/reflection - I think this is the main reason why boiling and oven is better
There at least two types of micros - wide ones and more vertical ones. I have had an intuition that the vertical ones can be more effective. They can send signals more broadly from the bottom, while the wide micros can send them only from one direction - left or right. Also, the reflection technique is easier to apply to those vertical micros, since the roof can be circular, while in the other boxes it is not possible.
Medical Microbiology point of view
Murray's book, Medical Biochemistry, says for different diseases, like Listeria's epidemiology that "Disease can occur if the food is uncooked or inadequately cooked (e.g. microwaved beef and turkey franks) before consumption.
This suggests me that there is some point of view why microwaved food is called "soft-food".
I will add pieces of evidence here when I explore more.
Interesting question, Masi! Do you have any documented research that microwave ovens don't kill all harmful bacteria when used to cook food? Can you please include it in your question? Thanks!
This was what my professor said. I will ask my professor more about his reference next time when I meet him.
It would be good to hear more - particularly if there are bacteria that don't get killed. I'd be curious to know which ones and in which foods.
I'm confused. If you actually cook food in your microwave (not just reheat it), well, you are cooking it. It's the heat that kills things, so if you heat it as much as you would any other way, why would it not kill things? None of the reasons you speculate about sound like they have anything to do with microwave food safety, really.
Maybe the professor meant spores? Or maybe poisons which have already been released into the food by the bacteria?
@No'amNewman that would apply to all cooking methods though - if you've got heat-stable toxins in your food, you can't get rid of them with any cooking method. The only thing I can think of with microwaves specifically is the potential for uneven heating.
I also think this depends on the type of food. Are we talking about a solid protein piece where the center of it is probably fairly sterile or is it ground beef, soup, mixtures of meat and veg, etc.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or just a language barrier, but this question seems to be engaging in some very obvious circular reasoning, by first explicitly labeling microwaving as "not cooking" and then going on to speculate about how it is somehow different from "cooking". But microwaving is cooking, so the whole discussion is moot. In fact, microwaves cook by heating the water in food, so anything that steaming can do, so can a microwave. It's less even cooking, as one of the answers says, and you need to be careful of that, but it's still cooking.
The theories seem to be about heat being transferred to bacteria less effectively - so always make sure to check the core temperature of your microwaved bacteria with a meat thermometer ;)
Definitely going to start boiling my leftover pizza now.
There's an interesting article on The Straight Dope that tests the question of how well a microwave kills bacteria on pizza. Here's a few quotes:
If I take a piece of pizza that's been sitting on the table awhile and microwave it, would that kill the bacteria, or am I just eating nice hot bacteria?
Will a microwave kill microbes? Sure. Microwave ovens use electromagnetic radiation to heat water molecules in food. It's the heat, not the microwaves, that's lethal here; the hotter you make your food, the more likely you are to kill the bacteria in it. (Some contend microwave energy itself is fatal to bacteria, but that's unproven.) The key is making the food hot enough uniformly enough for long enough. If it heats unevenly, a common problem in microwaves, some bacteria may survive.
After running some real-world tests and examining their petri dishes, they concluded:
Heating the pizza for 30 seconds was relatively ineffectual.
Heating it for a full minute killed most of the bacteria but not all.
We didn't go in for another round of testing, but suspect that at least two minutes of microwaving would be needed to ensure 100 percent bacteria eradication, at the possible cost of rendering the pizza inedible.
Checkout the full (quite entertaining) article here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2947/do-microwave-ovens-kill-bacteria
This answer has the correct idea here. There is no evidence that the microwave energy itself is fatal to bacteria. It is the water that is necessary. Assume you have had your pizza long time on table. This would cause a uneven loss of water. Some parts of pizza will be dry i.e. no water and/or water gas perfusing the pizza when heating so not energy heat provided to some parts of the pizza. The little water multifocally means much higher temperatures in multifocal parts i.e. much faster carbonation of the pizza.
@Masi but cytoplasm is 80% water according to wikipedia? Will it heat up, i.e will a bacteria boild from inside like we do?
What about water molecules inside bacteria?
I'll go ahead and take a stab at answering this, even though the question is a bit vague. I assume by "cook" you mean "cook with a non-microwave method", like boiling, steaming, baking, frying, sauteeing, or anything else.
First of all, no, I can't think of any reason why microwaves would be worse than any other cooking method. If you fully cook something in a microwave, it is as safe as fully cooking it any other way. If the food reaches the same temperatures, and is held there for the same amount of time, the bacteria will be just as dead no matter what the heat source is. The heat supplied by a microwave is fairly similar to that supplied by steaming, and no one claims that steaming is an unsafe cooking method. The only thing I can think that would be unsafe is if you don't actually fully cook the food, but just heat it to the temperature that you want to eat it at. But that'd be a problem for any cooking method; dangerous undercooked meat is dangerous because of the temperature, not the cooking method. (And of course, not all food needs to be cooked to be safe.)
The arguments you suggest don't really make much sense to me, either. For the first, I don't have any idea what you mean by heat frequency or sequentially different waves; heat is not a wave, so I'm not sure how to respond. No matter how you're cooking something, heat is being transferred into the food. Heat caused by absorption of microwaves is no different from heat supplied by contact with boiling water, steam, pan, or the hot air in an oven. It's still heat transfer, and it makes the temperature go up. Different methods may heat more or less evenly, or at different speeds, but heat is heat.
As for your second suggestion, reflection of microwaves, well, that happens already. You may have noticed that the food in a microwave ends up hot on all sides; this is especially noticeable if it's a big solid piece of food like a casserole. It'll be hot on the top, the bottom, and the sides. The microwaves are reflected around; there's really no other way for it to be. If they weren't reflected they'd have to either be absorbed (meaning your microwave would heat itself up) or pass through the walls (meaning standing next to a microwave would be dangerous). And it'd be horribly inefficient, on top of that.
Of course, all the stuff about reflection and heating from all sides is still a moot point in terms of food safety. When you cook something in a pan on the stove, as long as you fully cook it, it's fine, even though it's only being heated from the bottom. All that matters is the temperature the food reaches.
I think a standard microwave is something like a 12cm wavelength and this is why very small pieced of food (i.e. single kernels of popcorn) can be put in the nuker for several minutes without heating significantly. But heat is heat, microwaves just happen to be very effective on water and oil but if it gets to a sufficient temp I see no reason why bacteria won't be killed but the texture is probably going to be crap.
@Brendan Popcorn heats slowly because it doesn't have much moisture, I think. The wavelength does cause hot and cold spots in some microwaves, but they're not the full wavelength - all the reflections smooth things out - and turntables essentially make them a non-issue. With respect to texture, it completely depends on what you're making. You can even get crispy bacon.
I just finished reading the microwave section of the Modernist Cuisine at Home book and they were talking about popcorn specifically. They used it as an example because of all the trouble we all have with the last few kernels that never pop at the bottom of the bag. I can't link it since it's in a book by it's page 40 in the book, very interesting stuff actually.
@Jefromi, size matters, try cutting e.g. cheese in 0.5cm, 1cm, 2cm and 4cm pieces and heat in micro, they will heat differently.
@Stefan Okay, maybe size does matter here (possibly just because of heat transfer within the food), but if we want to talk about that, someone should just post another question, since it doesn't have anything to do with my answer.
Microwave ovens do not cook food very evenly. This is improved by the turntable, but unless the food is stir-able and you stir it, the food will have hot and cold spots. Most people seem to overcook food and then let it rest for the heat to even out
Most other cooking methods are slower than microwave cooking, so this give time for heat to conduct through the food and give a generally even heat that given time will render most surface bacteria safe (not that you should rely on this). With microwave ovens, the high speed of cooking, the uneven heating, and also insufficient time for heat to conduct through the food without seriously over cooking your food, means you cannot rely on this
You should not cook food that requires heat to kill bacteria, it is always a non-perfect process, regardless of the equipment you use so it is risky, microwave oven or not
Actually, if you don't stir while cooking traditionally, you end up just the same. The only argument here is that stirring in traditional cooking is more common.
@SF There are some traditional dishes, such as rice, were it is recommended not to stirr.
By this reasoning, the only form of cooking I am aware of that cooks food somewhat close to "evenly" is fully convective liquid cooking, like a stock pot boiling away.... Otherwise, food is always hottest where the heat is being applied, in any of the modes by which that happens in various forms of cooking.
@J.A.I.L., but when cooking rice, it is cooked with steam which is uniformly distributed throughout the rice at a high temperature so stirring would not be necessary.
@TFD, that is why most microwave (and regular cooking) recipes usually include stirring at specific intervals in the instructions. Even my microwave lunches specify either mid-cycle stirring or a post-nuking rest in the microwave oven of 1-2 minutes to ensure even and thorough heating. I do agree with your comment about any cooking method being potentially risky (if not done properly).
@SAJ14SAJ Most forms of cooking take much longer than microwave ovens, so with them there is sufficient time for the heat to migrate through the food. Exception are like grilling a steak which shows slow heat migration, and usually a short cook time. The difference is the exterior surface of the steak is fully cooked, while in the microwave only parts of the surface will have been fully cooked (yummy, microwave steak!)
@tfd Now I am picturing herds of migratory heat, stampeding across the microwave plains....
@SAJ14SAJ yeah, conduct is probably a better word, but you get the idea :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.519664
| 2013-02-19T18:29:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32055",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex P",
"Aliza Berger",
"Audrey Siani",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Commercial",
"J.A.I.L.",
"John B",
"Justin Wong",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Larry Byrd",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"Maria",
"Matthew Walton",
"Mike",
"No'am Newman",
"Oskar",
"Pblito",
"Rana Momand",
"Rocko",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Stefan",
"Stoligirl",
"TFD",
"Thomas Vangelooven",
"Valdo",
"boileau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81323",
"juanmf",
"kttysden",
"noncom",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20013
|
What was wrong with using White Truffle Oil?
On the show "Chopped", a contestant was running out of time to finish his entrée (using the mystery ingredients: gingersnaps, sweet potatoes, farina and turbot), and his dish did not have a sauce, so without any time to make one, the chef got a bottle of white truffle oil and dribbled a little amount on the plate.
The judges were horrified and screamed out "Noooo!" when he did this.
He got chopped.
What was so wrong with what he did with the white truffle oil?
What was the dish?
@Yamikuronue Don't remember the specific dish, but I added the mystery ingredients to the post.
Short answer: it's a not-so-great fashion trend going out of style, see http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/04/rant-enough-with-the-truffle-oil-already.html.
@rumtscho Funny then, if it's so frowned upon, that the kitchen show would have the bottle available in their pantry.
@Rum So the real answer is, the contestant was a fashion victim arrested by the fashion police?
@mfg Yes. A perfectly normal occurrence on Reality TV. And, LarsTech, I don't see a contradiction here. My father has more than one pair of bellbottoms in his wardrobe, I've just never seen him wearing them.
It most likely contained artificial truffle flavoring (a synthetic agent such as 2,4-dithiapentane), and the judges were purists. Little to no real truffle flavor is used in truffle oils.
A similar thing happened during the audition phase of season 2 of Master Chef. The contestant gave a little drop of the White Truffle oil on her dish and the judges flipped. Their explanation was that it contains no real truffle (as cptloop states) and further that the flavor is so over-powering, it masks all other flavors in the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.520727
| 2011-12-28T15:12:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20013",
"authors": [
"Don Straub",
"Kim",
"LarsTech",
"Nan",
"Sheraz Khan",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7000",
"joanapolis",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18510
|
Benefits of Grill Pans
When looking at tips/advice for frying steak I often see that Grill Pans are recommended over standard, flat, frying pans. Often this is recommended for other meats as well, such as chicken and pork.
Other than getting the appearance of Grill lines on the meat what are the benefits of using a Grill Pan over a normal one? I can't tell what difference it would make....
There's two (positive) reasons I'm aware of:
Aesthetics - those grill marks evoke fond memories for a lot of people, so the food looks better. Studies have shown that when food looks better, people think it tastes better. This is why plating is so important in fine dinning. However - if grill marks don't evoke fond memories or you grew up with a griddled burger - then frankly these just don't matter.
They rise the meat up out of the oil that its releasing. This gives a burger, for example, more of a grilled texture and flavor as its not sitting in its own fat. On a flat pan, the burger will release fat and then start to fry in the fat. Its just a different taste. No better or worse to me, just different.
There's (at least) three negatives that I'm aware of too:
There's less browning from a Maillard reaction because there's less surface area exposed to the direct blazing hot metal. And frankly, the crust from the Maillard reaction tastes goooooood.
They are a serious PITA to clean. If you've got one with fairly high, narrow ridges like the cast iron Lodge grill pan - if something gets stuck between the ridges it is really, really, REALLY hard to clean.
They smoke like crazy and you're indoors. If I don't set off the smoke alarm with my grill pan, I know I'm probably not using it right. Generally, you're trying to replicate the high heat of a real grill and you're often cooking something with enough fat to drip down and create wicked amounts of smoke.
For steak, I've really come to appreciate the taste of more crust from the Maillard reaction of a flat pan actually. Not to mention then you can do great stuff like basting it in butter!
Since getting better with my flat pans and griddles - I rarely use my grill pan.
I happen to really like my grill pan and use it frequently, but the above is all accurate.
I have to agree I love my grill pan too, but want emphasize the importance of the grill pan being cast iron, as opposed the lightweight aluminum ones which don't hold their heat as well and warp over time .
@mrTomahawk - sure, but the question really wasn't asking how to buy a grill pan or such. There's much more information in general on grill pans than I gave here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.520927
| 2011-10-22T12:24:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18510",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jenothy",
"Many Ions",
"Zhro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7281",
"mrTomahawk",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46715
|
Do professional cooks use measuring cups and spoons?
I watched some TV shows showing cooks working in their restaurants. I use measuring cups and spoons when cooking almost everything, but do not see any of the TV cooks measure anything. They mostly just grab things and throw them in.
Do skilled cooks have no need for these tools?
After seeing the comments and answers below, are you referring to just cups and spoons, or more general measurements of ingredients ? In my mind, the question is about measurements in general (cups, scales, spoons...)
If a dish needs accurate amounts, they have these amounts prepared. Noone wants to see Gordon Ramsay weigh "250 grammes of fucking* flour" while preparing his marbled cake, they want to see him curse at the other chefs. having to weigh ingredients during the show cuts into that valuable time they have to throw insults at each other.. *expletive included for comedy value and character personality.
Justin Wilson never needed spoons to measure ... but he'd have 'em just to prove that he could tell by how much he poured into his hand. Alton Brown, and the folks on America's Test Kitchen, however, to measure. (even Rachel Ray breaks out measuring implements if she's baking)
Als, please note that certain TV chefs do weigh these ingredients on camera. These are chefs like the British Jamie Oliver and the Belgian Jeroen Meus. The main reason is that these chefs are aimed at the audience that cooks along with the show. They prepare dishes that an amateur chef at home could prepare himself easily, with not much fluff, excessive ingredients or preparation. measuring on-camera is a way of indicating that you can cook those dishes at any skill level on your own. Another type of show where they measure on-camera is timed cooking shows, like Chopped or Iron Chef.
In many cases, they just have all the ingredients for a dish pre-measured in small bowls and such.
Much more often, expert chefs will use an accurate digital scale, particularly for baking. Cups are OK for liquids, and most people use spoons for small measurments like salt or yeast, but scales are accurate for everything from flour, to honey, to water, to softened butter.
Plus, since you can generally tare scales, you don't have to wash anything out but the big bowl you're mixing everything in! Trust me on this one, a good digital scale is an awesome way to spend $16 - $25.
If you're not baking, chances are you don't need precision. You rarely need to measure ingredients, except for baking, once you're pretty competent.
EDIT: Just a note, I bake all my own bread and I always do it by weight. I use spoons for the yeast and salt, the scale for everything else. I have a habit of using a Pyrex measuring cup to nuke cold water, I stick a thermometer in it as it cools, and start mixing when it reaches 110F. So at that point, it gets poured from the cup to the mixing bowl. That has given me many opportunities to note the accuracy of the cups (my scale is very, very accurate, I test it all the time). Even standard Pyrex measuring cups, used properly (eye level, on a level surface) will give erroneous results. For 1 cup (237ml), you can do everything right with a measuring cup and still be off by as much as 20ml either way. That's over 8%. So I recommend weighing everything but tiny spoon quantities. Sometimes, I'll even break out my gram scale to weigh salt, but I have to find the recipe pretty intimidating to go that far.
To pretty much anyone in the UK the idea of measuring flour, sugar etc. in cups for baking is outright bizarre, though that doesn't make us experts.
Not at all, but measuring by weight can help you look like one! Especially to some of the neanderthals over here who don't understand the concept.
To be fair though, when you have to weigh in pounds and ounces, you must want to start looking for alternatives.
Tru 'nuff that too! I'm a big fan of the gram.
Also, many of our containers are graduated (like for proofing bread), so we can measure relative proportions.
Good to know. I've been confused by the use of all those different volumen measures used in the US. Over here (Germany), we (amateurs) use (metric) volume for liquids and weight for solids. Okay, tea and table spoon are used for both, but that's it.
For what it's worth, I think it's worth putting emphasis on using measuring spoons for small measurements. There's this "scales are amazing" attitude, and while it's quite deserved for bigger things, it really is easier and more accurate to use a half teaspoon than to try to measure 2.3 grams of baking soda.
@Jefromi, the kicker is salt. Depending on the coarseness of the grain, volumetric measurements may differ. The gram scale won't lead you astray. (but generally, I agree) (BTW for those that might not know, gram scales generally measure hundredths of a gram, up to 100 grams. They are specifically for very accurate weight of very small quantities. They are NOT typical kitchen equipment.)
Did you mean standard Pyrex cups?
@AirThomas Yep. I spelled it right the first time, but not the second. Thanks, I'll fix it.
Yes they do; mostly for baking and pastries where precision is more important.
For other types of cooking, precision is not that important.
Experience play a role when knowing the quantity needed for a recipe.
Also, most of the time, we see chefs (on TV or in real cuisine) handling small containers of prepared ingredients, and those are measured when they are doing "mise en place" before service begins.
Where precision is important, any self respecting professional will use weight measures.
@ElendilTheTall, yes, you are right about that.
@ElendilTheTall : Weights are a pain when dealing with really small measures ... I still prefer spoons for measuring out spices, salt, etc. Maybe if I was getting up to commercial sized batches I'd use weights. Or illicit drugs.
Teaspoons/tablespoons are more or less universal, yes. But cups? Fuhgeddabahtit.
@ElendilTheTall A tablespoon in Australia is 20ml, in the UK and US they're around about 15ml (I think a bit under in UK, a bit more in US? Something like that.) Always something to remember when pulling recipes from the internet: with what was it measured? 33% increase is a lot.
@setek Oh wow. That probably explains a lot of iffy results. Maybe I should give baking another try.
In 3 years of working at a restaurant, I think I only saw measuring devices used by the pastry chef, and maybe the head chef when he was attempting a new creation.
After you have seen ingredients measured out hundreds of times, its get pretty easy to eyeball a teaspoon of salt or a cup of water. Measurements are very important for baking, but in most other cooking they are more of a guideline. So unless you need to be precise, an experienced cook is usually safe skipping the measuring device.
This matches my experience in professional settings too. A big part of chef training and job experience is getting an accurate, intuitive feel for amount and proportion of common ingredients like salt and oil. It's like developing knife skills - just takes practice. The only major exception is in baking and possibly things like prepping spice blends, where proportion is really critical.
Even for baking, if you've done a recipe a lot of times then you can get by with your eyeballs if you really have to.
In my younger days, I worked in a kitchen for about three years. Early into my marriage, my wife saw me eyeball a cup of water, and said, "You can't do that!" "Why not?" I asked. "It needs to be accurate," she said. "It is," I insisted. Finally, to appease her, I grabbed a measuring cup, and poured the water into the measuring cup. It was exactly on the 1 c. line. She never worried about it after that. P.S. I agree with what you and others have said; for baking, I would use measuring devices, but for marinades and sauces, eyeballing is often sufficient, particularly with experience.
After all, in a marinade, if it's too thick, you can add a liquid, and you can add salt if it's not salty enough. That's not quite the case with most of bakery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.521194
| 2014-08-28T12:47:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46715",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Andrew Hale",
"Ashley",
"Bob",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Christine",
"Dianne Mason",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Francine Rochelle Bacon",
"Gabe",
"J.R.",
"JZ Chen",
"Joe",
"Johanna",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keith Garmley",
"Max",
"Ming",
"Natasha Bolden",
"Nzall",
"Paul McDowell",
"Peter Taylor",
"Raphael",
"Sally Liebrecht",
"Spammer",
"Tom Slockett",
"Wave of the future",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ian machon",
"logophobe",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19293
|
Barley vs. oats?
What is the difference between barley and oats? In the US grocery stores (EDIT: in one grocery store) they seem to be considered to be the same thing, are they?
@at least 2 down-voters. Confused by the downvotes. I'm new to Cooking, but active on a couple other stack exchanges. Why do people think this is a bad question?
The question is being downvoted because googling the answer would yield more productive answers.
@mfg thanks, that makes some sense, but this question is more a question of how people use the terms not the technical/scientific side of the question.
@mfg I think this meta question is relevant. Generally, google-ability doesn't make a bad question. I was surprised in answering this question that I couldn't find the exact question in a Google search, and I still haven't seen a site (or answer, including my own) that really compares the two in a culinary context rather than just describing them individually.
@shu as is this one, and I can't recall a final verdict, but I down voted for general reference (the best answer is copypasta) but more importantly the question seems poorly thought out.
@mfg I haven't downvoted it yet (guess I should), but I'd argue that the best answer isn't very good. As you say, it's copy pasta. It just describes the two of them, and doesn't compare or explain the differences. I think the lack of a good answer indicates that it's not general reference. What barley is and what oats are is easy to find, but the differences in how to cook with them and why you might choose one over the other aren't.
Oats
Oats are among the many cereal grains consumed. Oats are very popular in the health food movement because of their high nutritional value, and they have been used in breakfast porridge for centuries for much the same reason. Oats have a nutty flavour that is an excellent supplement to bread and other foods. Oats are high in protein, calcium, fiber, and vitamin E, among many other nutritional needs, and are an excellent dietary supplement for this reason. Today, oats are eaten in the form of oatmeal and granola bars.
Barley
Part of the grass family, barley grows in over 100 countries and is
one of the most popular cereal crops, surpassed only by wheat, corn
and rice. Because barley is a whole-grain food, consumption provides
several health benefits. It is high is soluble fiber and can reduce
blood cholesterol and blood glucose levels. Barley is also low in fat.
Pearled barley is widely available in supermarkets near the rice, dry
beans and pulses. Barley flour is available in health food markets. It
is used as a thickener for soups and stews, and also in baked goods.
In some recipes, you can combine barley flour with wheat flour. Barley
flakes are used in baked goods. Barley is also used in the malted
form. To form barley malt, the barley kernels are soaked and dried.
The kernels sprout in a controlled environment. Along with beer, uses
for barley malt include extracts, syrups and flavourings. Cooked
pearled barley added to a salad provides extra fiber. Main dishes,
soups and stews, baked goods and breakfast foods also include barley
as an ingredient.
source:http://doctor.ndtv.com/faq/ndtv/fid/0014146/Is_having_tender_coconut_water_good_for_health.html
Nice descriptions of each, but what are the differences? What would make you choose one or the other when making a bread or soup or something? How do their tastes and cooking methods compare?
The differences are already listed. As far as what to make with each that depends on your own distinct tastes. Obviously you wouldn't use oatmeal in soup...The point is to discover how you like it... You can also experiment, a friend just gave me a recipe for oatmeal pancakes. You put the oatmeal in a food processer and add eggs and other ingredients to add flavor. Cooking methods also vary with each different recipe..
I would just like to point out that in the first picture the oats are rolled (which is a very common way to find them). Without that processing step (or if the barley had been rolled as well), oats and barley would look almost exactly alike.
@Avien You can make soup with oatmeal. It make a delicious soup, trust me :>
Dehulled oat groats: https://www.healthysupplies.co.uk/pics/whole-oat-groats-close-inf.jpg Peeled barley groats: https://depositphotos.com/2230666/stock-photo-peeled-barley-groats.html Barley is usually stubbier looking.
I guarantee that no US grocery store refers to barley as oats or vise versa. They are unrelated, except that they are both grains.
Thanks, I should tell you that in our local grocery I asked for oats and they gave me barley (it might have been a misunderstanding because my English is not perfect and their English was not good either).
Downvoted because this answer does not describe the difference between barley and oats which is what the question asked for.
How do you describe the differences between an apple and a goat? They are unrelated; they have nothing to do with each other, other than both being grains.
One difference between the two is that oats are gluten free while barley contains gluten.
Thanks @Shafina Baig , Would you please link to a reference?
It's slightly more complicated than that - whilst they are naturally gluten-free, they aren't often sold that way because of cross-contamination. If you specifically need them gluten-free, the packaging must say so. See https://wyldsson.com/oats-gluten-free/
They are very similar, but not the same. This site gives a nice overview highlighting some differences. The biggest differences may be how they are traditionally used. In the US, barley is used mostly for beer/liquor-making and animal feed, less commonly as food. However oats are common in bread, oatmeal, etc. In Europe, I believe barley is more commonly used than oats as food for humans, but I don't have a source on that. Its uses are similar to oats: bread, soups, stews. Flavor-wise oats are a little nuttier.
I know in middle east you can get barley soups, barley bread, barley flour for cooking, barley flacks, ...
In Canada, I feel both are sold separately. In Bulk Barn store I buy steel-cut oats for my porridge whereas rolled oats are different denomination. Difference between the two doesn't seem to specific or very clear to absorb.
By "the two" are you referring to rolled and steel cut oats or oats and barley?
Both Oat and Barley are finished product and their origin is same grain. only their process of preparation is different. 1st one is prepared in steam process and 2nd one is prepared from raw grain. Thanks
Welcome to the Cooking Exchange, Raja! Oat (Avena Sativa) and barley (Hordeum Vulgare) are not the same grain or genus, though they're in the same family. See some of the other answers for more information :)
For that matter, not all oats are steamed during preparation. You're thinking of rolled oats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.521913
| 2011-12-01T17:37:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19293",
"authors": [
"Aaron Traas",
"Ali",
"Avien",
"Camelot Properties",
"DaveyJones",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Melinda",
"Sneftel",
"SourDoh",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yemto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"kaptan",
"kouroshk",
"mech",
"mfg",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
19327
|
What's the best replacement for "solid vegetable oil" in pastry recipes?
I want to make some chickpea delight. I don't know what it's called in English; it is a Persian recipe, and literally translates to "little chickpea confectionary" (شیرینی نخودچی, "shirini-e-nokhodchi").
The recipe has solid vegetable oil; I think it is hydrogenated/solidified vegetable oil.
I used butter instead, but my dough turned out a dry sand-like mess! No matter how long I kneaded it, it still didn't come together. (I finally added some olive oil to it! to get it together.)
What is a good replacement for solid vegetable oil available in US groceries?
EDIT: as also suggested by @derobert , it turned out that the main problem is with the chickpea flour, what I got here is raw (or at least not roasted), the one the recipe calls for is traditionally made by first roasting the chickpeas then grinding them and then putting them through a sieve to get a very fine flour. I would try to roast the raw flour to see if I can modify the recipe.
EDIT: I roasted the flour, it burns very easily, but with care and patience I managed to roast it well, although it's not as fine as I remember the traditional version is, it smells and tastes almost the same (I guess it needs some salt but I didn't add any salt).
I tried it again with butter and a couple of tablespoons of water, it went well (the dough was fine I could shape it) but the end result was not what I expected. It was a good tasting cookie but nothing like the traditional one, it's not even close in consistency, not tastes anything like what it should. I'll get some proper oil and try it sometime soon!
From Wikipedia I gather this might be transliterated to "Shirini-e Nokhodchi" in English. And may just be called "chickpeas cookies".
@derobert That is correct, there are a few variants of it, with slightly different flavors, or coloring but they are all called shirini-e-Nokhodchi.
You might ajust your question a bit. Best in what sense? It seems you have some issue with solid vegetable oil, but you don't exactly state the issue. This makes it difficult to suggest alternatives.
The "solid vegetable oil" you're describing sounds like Crisco (shortening), which you can find in any US grocery. You could also try refined coconut or palm kernel oil, both of which are solid at room temperature.
Another possibility to note is that the butter may be fine, but maybe the chickpea flour you're obtaining in the US is different.
thanks, I think in Iran, they first roast the chickpeas then grind them to make the flour, the chickpea flour I got here looks a bit coarse (or raw), maybe I should have roasted the chickpea flour a bit before making the dough?! I need to try this.
I agree that coconut oil is a good choice, although much pricier than crisco it is solid at room temp which is the key.
I want to keep the flavor and smell of the original recipe as much as possible, so I guess coconut oil won't be a good choice.
@Ali: Refined coconut oil should have minimal if any coconut flavor and smell. You're probably thinking of virgin/pure/unrefined coconut oil. But I'd try Crisco first—it sounds like what you're used to, and its much cheaper.
I suppose clarified butter(Butter Ghee) will solve your problem. It works well using liquid form with corn flour by adding a little water (just to keep dough together).
It is easy to make butter ghee at home; basically one sauce pan and a spoon would be enough.
The below link explains how to make butter ghee
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/ButterGhee.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.522474
| 2011-12-02T13:45:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19327",
"authors": [
"2rs2ts",
"Ali",
"Brian M.",
"Bruno Martins",
"Lbutlr",
"Manako",
"Meredian",
"Patty P",
"Rutger",
"Uol",
"adeady",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7085",
"user179700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18529
|
Botulism risk with refrigerated items
Is there any risk of botulism from refrigerator pickling or brining? (referring to both meat and slices of vegetables/fruit)
I've read about the subject a fair bit, and know the inherent risks with garlic in oil or items vacuum packed in the fridge for a long time.
However, I recently read about the use of nitrite salt in refrigerator brines for cured ham (a week-long process), which the author claimed was used to maintain the colour of the meat (which darkens without the nitrites) and also prevent botulism growth. But if all the ingredients were at 4°C before going into the fridge, what botulism growth could there be, especially in one week?
Is there something I'm not aware of, or this person uninformed?
Botulism thrives in high-moisture, low-acidity, low-salinity, anaerobic environments at between 50 and 130 degrees.
In your refridgerator pickles, you're:
keeping cold
adding acid
adding salt
All of which should at least prevent the botulism from reproducing in great enough numbers to be toxic, if not outright killing it.
That's not to say nothing nasty can grow in refrigerator pickles — you're likely safe from botulism, however.
I assume those temperatures are Fahrenheit?
You won't grow significant cultures of clostridium botulinum in temperatures below 50°F. On the flipside, unfortunately, refrigerator temperatures - while retarding growth - do not destroy the bacterium or inactivate or destroy its toxin.
The good news is, normal boiling inactivates present toxins, so even if you have c. botulinum present in the brine but boil it, the combination of both the inactivation of the toxin and the retardation of growth in low temperatures makes brining a pretty safe activity.
Furthermore, c. botulinum really dislikes high acid environments. Brines are usually rather acidic. It's important to note that it takes 250°F over three minutes to cause significant damage to clostridium botulinum. All other means, such as boiling at sea level pressure or refrigerating/freezing only slows culture growth and prevents the production of botulinum toxin. That means even if you cooked, boiled, and froze your food, leaving it out in the danger zone for too long still poses a risk. Obviously pressure-canning does significantly lower it.
You say It's important to note that it takes 250°F over three minutes to cause significant damage to clostridium botulinum but then say even if you cooked, boiled, and froze your food, leaving it out in the danger zone for too long still poses a risk How so? Cos surely the cooking it will take it over the 250 degrees, and then the freezing will be fine. Or are you saying you are fine at cooking stage, but the risk is the cooling down temps before freezing.
@redfox05 Recall that the boiling point of water is 212F. Bacterial spores can survive both boiling and freezing.
@NicholasPipitone When I said cooking, I was referring to methods like oven cooking which could go higher than boiling (212) and the 250 mentioned depending on oven temp. So in that case, would it all be fine, or still a danger?
@redfox05 Even if the oven is 450F, the food is not. The temperature of the oven is just how fast it cooks. So long as there's still water in the food, the food is limited to 212F. If there's no water left, then you just have a powder that'll be shelf stable anyway, and cjay appears to be talking about generic "cooking", which is talking about cooking things that have water in them (Which is basically everything other than milk powder and spices). Without a pressure canner, you can't get non-dry food to ever be 250F.
@redfox05 If the food was theoretically 213F, and there was still water, then the water would boil until it was back at 212F (Boiling causes it to cool as sweating cools you down from a workout). Overall, cooking at even 450F will still keep the food in the 150s (Think steak temps), and trying to cook it for longer will just suck the food dry until it becomes tough jerky. Once it's dry, it'll then rise up to the temperature of the oven. See https://www.healthycanning.com/oven-canning/ for more explanation
@NicholasPipitone ah! I seeee. I think its cos in my head perhaps I got celcius and farenheit mixed up. I thought, yeah food goes past 100 all the time, but if you think chicken at 185f (or 165f depending on who you follow), is still lower than the 212f :P Now I get it. Thanks.
AFAIK, you are not in significant danger of botulism in any kind of pickling or brining, refrigerated or room-temperature. The acid and/or the salt prevents the growth of botulism bacteria. Garlic oil is a specific danger because it has neither acid nor salt, and canned tomatoes because they don't have enough acid (yes, really).
That's not to say that you couldn't get other unpleasant microorganisms, but not botulism.
I am not a biologist or doctor, though. Hopefully we'll hear from one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.522880
| 2011-10-23T18:00:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18529",
"authors": [
"Claire 777",
"D C",
"Justin Depelteau",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Rich",
"bwilliams18",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"jhclark",
"redfox05",
"runlevel0",
"user40124"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.