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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22237
|
does bread have alcohol in it?
According to wikipedia, the byproducts of yeast fermenting (like done in baking it says) are carbon dioxide and alcohol (not necessarily ethanol -- the kind you can get drunk on).
If that's the case, then technically speaking does every form of raised bread have alcohol in it?
All food containing starches or sugars that is moist and exposed to yeasts (deliberately or from the wild) will have trace amounts of alcohol. This includes fresh fruit, vegetables, etc. Teetotallers beware :-)
Minor note, not all forms of raised bread use yeast... :)
@Flimzy Yeast is omnipresent, so any wet flour will have some yeast growing in it if exposed to normal household air
The majority of the alcohol evaporates during baking.
McGee's On Food and Cooking says (pg 532):
In making beer and wine, the carbon dioxide escapes from the fermenting liquid, and alcohol accumulates. In making bread both carbon dioxide and alcohol are trapped by the dough, and both are expelled from the dough by the heat of baking.
I also found this report, which states that some alcohol (0.04 to 1.9%) may remain.
However, the report is from 1926, so
1. it may not be really representing modern day situation
2. the data, methodology etc. is not reported: it looks more like an informal news than a real research article, so I cannot critique on whether the results are realistic.
All yeast fermented products contain ethyl alcohol (ethanol). Yeast produces carbon dioxide and ethanol as it metabolizes sugar. Generally, the longer the fermentation the greater amount of alcohol. Sourdough starters for instance are allowed to ferment for a long time and can form a clear liquid on top called "hooch." Hooch can reach upwards of 15%-18% alcohol by volume.
As far as the alcohol burning off, this report given by the Dept. of Agriculture shows alcohol content vs. heat and time in baking/cooking. The remaining alcohol in bread is usually negligible, but if you cut open a hot loaf you can usually smell the trace remaining.
So I was making it proper I was wondering what that liquid was.
The basis of yeast cookery is that yeasts react with sugar to produce carbon dioxide, which aerates the dough but also produces - as a by-product - alcohol (ethanol). During heating of the dough loss of alcohol will occur - down to vanishly small amounts but not complete absence. If you are concerned about total absence of alcohol, you need to look at bread-making by different methods, for example using baking powder or just direct heat.
Following recent comments, you’re right that it is a physical process, not a chemical one, but it is one that is progressive. The dough will contain a mixture of water and alcohol. As baking proceeds, the components of this mixture will evaporate at a rate influenced by the volatility of each, and their proportions in the mixture. I would expect the proportion of alcohol in the vapour to be greater than in the liquid mixture, due to its volatility. However, this will reduce the concentration of alcohol in the remaining mixture, and this will lead to a progressive reduction in the rate of alcohol loss, giving the half-life effect. The following link has a report from the USDA about alcohol burn-off in cooking in general http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol12.htm
I am curious why there would be a half-life of alcohol here. Physical processes like evaporation are often governed by simpler formulas.
I believe @rumtscho is correct, the elimination of alcohol is not due to a chemical reaction, it's a physical process (evaporation). The alcohol, as far as I know, does not continue to react with anything else.
Why can't I add a comment?
@Stuart: You seem to have... and with respect to your edit, it's okay to rewrite the original part of your answer, to revise the misleading comparison to "biochemical reactions". (Also, not all reactions are first-order.)
I'd be extra-wary of any content on about.com. I can't seem to find this burn-off chart on the actual USDA, and the values don't make much sense at all - but, if they do show anything then it appears to be closer to a linear decline than an exponential one.
Yeast has many phases. In an oxygenated environment the yeast will produce carbon dioxide and water and it will reproduce, there is no alcohol. While doing this it consumes the oxygen. Once oxygen is depleted it becomes anaerobic and a completely different process takes over. It will then produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. This is called fermentation and it it only occurs in an anaerobic environment (or if there is some fatty acids present). It takes a long time for the fermentation phase to begin. It simply won't have a chance to occur in bread.
The whole process of using microorganisms to alter a food product is fermentation. Specific yeasts will only produce alcohol in anaerobic conditions, but most yeasts commonly used in food will produce alcohol even in the presence of oxygen. source
Yes. That's why the smell of baking bread is so intoxicating/addictive; the airborne trace alcohol goes straight through the mucus membranes in your nose into your bloodstream to your brain - think sniffing aerosolized vodka....
In some countries commercial bakeries have been required to filter the output of their air handlers to prevent "contamination" of the air inside and outside the bakery. So, no more baking bread aroma near the bakery. :-(
Theres a reason why people add alcohol to bake bread or cake, so that it could have a long lasting half life for it to stay long enough to avoid spoilage of the baked desired product. So either heat or not, there is always little quantity of alcohol left in it after baking has taking it proccess...
Mamio, the question is about alcohol as byproduct of yeast digestion, not about additional alcohol added to a recipe. Nevertheless, welcome to the site!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.523292
| 2012-03-13T22:06:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22237",
"authors": [
"A Gold Man",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Elaine Jarvis",
"Flimzy",
"George",
"Neil Meyer",
"Rebecca Lucht",
"Simon",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Stuart",
"Susan Myerscough",
"TFD",
"Tammy Rhodes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95379",
"kristian malina",
"rakesh factocert",
"rumtscho",
"user3527975"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8932
|
Juice recipe recommendation engine to give me recipes based on the ingredients I already have?
Does anyone know of a website where I could enter a bunch of ingredients that I have and it would return a list of possible juice recipes for my juicer? Like a WolframAlpha for recipes?
I've seen a bunch of juice recipe sites and many times I'm missing just one ingredient, or all the ingredients. I think it would be cool if I could, at any given time, enter what I have on hand then get a list of possibilities.
Take a look at http://www.supercook.com/
Search engines like that, as you know, are more complicated to build than the standard recipe searches you see in most places, and many websites that have food recipes and are heavily utilized don't have them.
If you want to ultimately be able to make juice based on the ingredients on hand, what I'd recommend is becoming more proficient at matching flavor profiles and knowing what the essentials of juice are. You can learn more about possible good flavor pairings at this website (more info about the website's technique for pairing flavors). You can also learn a ton at khymos.org or from The Flavor Bible by Page and Dornenburg. For learning ratios, start with simple recipes such as these or even try and break down your ideal juice by sugar and water components and then look at how much sweetness and water are in each possible ingredient.
If you get stuck on a particular recipe, you can always ask how to improve it here.
Thanks for all this info justkt, this is very helpful. I guess just like anything, skill comes with experience, experience comes with time... I'm still hoping that someone knows of something that can take a mashup of ingredients and make something tasty while I'm working on becoming that something.
http://juicerecipes.com/ Is a great website. They have search by ingredient.
Thank you for the answer and welcome to the site, Sarah.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.523777
| 2010-11-08T01:31:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8932",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chris",
"ETK",
"Joe",
"Matt",
"Toeb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"pms",
"taco maco"
],
"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
}
|
35899
|
Steaks taste horrid in the center?
I followed in this answer to How do you properly cook a steak?,
but I ended up with one problem. After cooking in the oven for 10 minutes, my steaks were soggy and flavorless in the center, yet okay on the outside. I cooked a few minutes longer in the oven and the steaks started turning white and firm, obviously overcooked.
Should I flatten the steaks first; is thickness the problem? I had 1-1.5 inch thick ribeyes from Whole Foods.
One thing: after searing the steak in the pan, my oven wasn't fully heated yet. So I stuck the steak in at around 267° F and it sat there for about 5-7 minutes before reaching 425° F, after which I cooked it for 10 minutes. Could this have messed it up?
At least I think it was Whole Foods. It was $12 for 2 ribeye cuts, about a foot-long total. But the packaging was in a cheap looking white cellophane box.
Do you have pictures? It is really hard to understand exactly what happened from the description. That recipe is also okay as far as it goes, but is overly prescriptive, and insufficiently flexible, not telling you how to know when they are done. You can find better methods.
Yeah, one second.
http://i.snag.gy/tBoqi.jpg http://i.snag.gy/Dc0Pi.jpg
Another thing: I used a KitchenAid nonstick pan. Problem here?
Finally: I had the oven on bake setting instead of roast.
If your steaks were soggy and flavorless then the steak wasn't good to begin with. It's possible it was old as well, or had been frozen and thawed. It doesn't sound like your method was wrong (except not having your oven to temperature but that shouldn't make them soggy and flavorless), but meat itself wasn't good. You paid $6 per steak, I'd expect to pay triple that for decent meat to be honest.
I wouldn't expect to pay $18 for just a "decent" steak, like a striploin or something. But yeah, $6 seems way below the price point of even an ordinary select ribeye from the supermarket; certainly I'd expect an 8-12 oz choice or prime ribeye to be upwards of $15.
(based on Richard's later comment) :
Non-stick pans aren't typically oven-safe, or even suitable for high-heat cooking. If it's a teflon pan, you might've actually cooked off the coating -- look to see if the surface is is smooth, or looks like it had lots of tiny holes like popped bubbles in it.
If it's got holes, I'd recommend throwing the pan away. It's never going to perform well again, and coating will break down and end up in your food.
It's possible that some of the new ceramic non-stick are rated for higher temperatures and/or oven cooking ... I've never used them, myself.
...
All that being said ... I still don't know that it'd account for a horrible taste only in the middle of the steak. It's possible that the flavor of the charred outside of the steak covered up the off flavors of the non-stick surface, but this still might be a problem with the meat itself.
...
(Disclaimer : back in college, I got a hand-me-down set of pots & pans from my great-uncle ... I put one in the oven. It wasn't non-stick, but the handle wasn't oven-safe ... of course, when I opened the oven, I knew something was wrong instantly by the smell. I've also over-heated a teflon pan, and so I know the look of it, but I can't remember if it smelled the same or not (it might be the difference between the closed oven vs. open stovetop w/ more air)
I've confirmed it was a Wal-mart steak. Is it impossible to cook these things with the steak-cooking methods, and end up with a delicious steak? Or was my method wrong.
@Richard : way too late to be useful, but ... it's possible ... you want a pan that can take high heat (stainless steel, cast iron, etc.), and to pre-heat your oven. Of course, I prefer to use a broiler pan & top heat in the oven. (keep the door cracked, so the element doesn't shut off)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.523987
| 2013-08-10T02:06:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35899",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Joshua Kravitz",
"KLH",
"Kerry",
"Pat P",
"RWIL",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephen D. Summers",
"Syafikah Kunhamoo",
"Tinamarie Early",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84265",
"user3180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41453
|
What is a non-alcoholic substitute for rum in a glaze?
I want to make an orange cake and its recipe calls for rum in the glaze. Rum, anything alcoholic, rum extract, etc. are not an option for me. Is there a way to substitute with vanilla extract? If so, in what proportion?
According to the recipe, for glaze we need:
½ cup strained fresh orange juice
1 Tbsp. unsalted butter, melted
2 Tbsp. dark rum
1 cup confectioners' sugar, divided
I have looked at the answers to What is substitute for rum in baking?, but they focus mostly on dough/batter and aren't very specific about method of proportion.
Please provide the full method; 1/2 c. of orange juice would give you more of a syrup than a glaze with only 1 c. sugar, even without the rum.
According to the recipe, initially I add only 1/2 cup sugar to the mixture and let the cake soak only 1/2 part of the solution. Remaining 1/2 sugar is added to rest of the solution and used to top the cake before serving. I assume the first one is syrup to be soaked and the other one glaze.
The rum is just for flavor so you can skip it entirely if you like, just make up the liquid with more orange juice. If you want to use vanilla, just try 1/8 - 1/4 tsp. If you'd like the flavor of rum without the alcohol, non-alcoholic "rum" does exist (spiced rum here, which would be nice with orange). Non-alcoholic "Liquors" Just in case you'd like to know, these products are Halal certified. Halal Certificate
I have tried many recipes that contained rum and I substituted it with a concentrated mixture of orange and lemon juice and the result was quite good. The mixture is made by boiling the juices and allowing it to reduce (shed off some moisture via evaporation).
Welcome to Seasoned Advice Nibal Nibal! I have suggested an edit to help clarify your answer a little. A reduced mixture of orange and lemon juice sounds tasty to me. It seems you could use that for all sorts of different applications.
There are aroma substances developed to replace rum and other common baking flavors (including vanilla extract, which in its normal form contains alcohol).
An example are Dr Oetker's aromas. I don't know about their availability in different parts of the world, but they are fairly common in many European countries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.524320
| 2014-01-26T02:13:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41453",
"authors": [
"FiftyTifty",
"Iris Stonecreek",
"London Emergency Plumbing",
"Marc Taylor-Wade",
"Obee",
"PotatoCrisp",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shookie Begay",
"Swati Priyadarsini",
"Vijay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96646",
"hyuhkei",
"jifster",
"ninja star"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44741
|
Why did my cookies come out like this?
Here is the recipe. http://www.handletheheat.com/2013/10/ultimate-chocolate-chip-cookies.html
It looks completely different from the web-site.What could be the cause of this mistake? too much eggs? Baking powder? or maybe not enough flour?
However, I live in south east asia. Do you think the temperature here could be one of the factors or maybe conversion from cup to grams are different?
Thank you
Were you looking for soft cookies? Firm cookies? Crunchy? Cakey?
soft and chewy cookies.
It can be challenging to get recipes exactly right in different parts of the world, but not to worry - you can usually fix it with some modifications. This may require some trial and error.
There are a few things which could be going wrong:
too much liquid: this is a US recipe, and US large eggs are generally smaller than the rest of the world's large eggs, so you could be adding too much egg. You could also be adding too much butter - a stick is 1/2 US cup of butter by volume or 113 grams. Try weighing the butter to get the right amount. The recipe also calls for bread flour, which has a high gluten content, and gluten soaks up liquid. If you aren't using bread flour then there could be too much liquid. In any case the answer is use less butter and/or egg, or increase your flour content a bit
The dough is too warm: warm dough will spread out much faster, try sticking it in the refrigerator for an hour or so, and return the dough to the fridge while your cookies bake
The dough hasn't rested: most cookie doughs need some time to meld after mixing, to allow the ingredients to completely combine. Try letting it rest. Steps 2 and 3 are both accomplished by wrapping the dough and putting it in the fridge
Too cool an oven: Cookies stop spreading and rise when the mixture crystallizes and gains some rigidity. If the oven is too cool then the dough has more chance to spread before it crystallizes. If you can find one buy an oven thermometer, that will tell you whether your oven is the right heat. You could also try moving your cookies higher in the oven
What is isn't likely to be is too much baking powder or baking soda. Your spread comes from other factors.
Thank you very much for your advice. I just finished making another batch this time I put more AP flour in (around 100g). I will leave it in my fridge around 8-10 hrs before baking. I'll report back to you guys tomorrow.
Good luck @SukanokDonot, I hope they come out well.
Hi, Today it came out a little bit thicker than yesterday however,for the texture, i expected to see some crackles on top but got the ugly wrinkle instead. I'm thinking may be reducing amount of eggs next time.
If I had to guess, it looks like they were too warm before cooking. Then when you added heat, they spread out a lot more than intended. Usually I will portion out my cookies and then put them in the freezer for about 10 minutes to discourage spreading, but I exclusively make chewy cookies because I enjoy the texture.
I actually did leave the dough in my fridge for 2 hrs before baking.
The recipe says clearly "Wrap dough in plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least 24 hours but no more than 72 hours" If you only refrigerated it for two hours that is very likely why your batch turned out differently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.524542
| 2014-06-09T10:49:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44741",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Matthew",
"Sheila Rae",
"Spammer",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Tra65251",
"dessertcooker",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"phil cormier",
"sonqu sonqu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54983
|
What went wrong with my cookie dough?
This is my latest attempt at making chewy cookies.
I used:
220 g butter, melted
200 g brown sugar
100 g white sugar
320 g all-purpose flour 320g
1 whole egg + 1 yolk
I don't understand why it turned to a dark color. Is it because of the brown sugar? Chewy cookies need a high brown to white ratio, don't they?
One more thing I noticed while mixing was that the sugar (both white and brown) didn't mix easily with the melted butter.
Also, are chewy cookie and softbaked cookie the same thing?
Here's the result after baking for 12 minutes
form the look of its bottom i think there might be something wrong during beating sugar in melted butter,isn't it?
What's wrong? It looks like cookie dough to me. What happens when you bake it?
How did you mix your cookie dough? Even though most modern recipes use melted butter instead of softened butter, the way the ingredients are combined can make a difference in how the dough comes together. Typically the sugar and butter are mixed with the egg added in stages - this should be done before the dry ingredients are added because it give the lecithin in the egg yolks time to emulsify the fat into the liquid from the butter and egg white - if your cookie dough came out greasy, it was probably because the fat hadn't sufficiently emulsified in your mixture.
now it's in the fridge. I'll bake it tomorrow but i predict that it'll come out very greasy.
I think the ratios are wrong. Where did you get the recipe? Also no shortening? I learned to add the eggs AFTER mixing the sugars and butter/shortening.
Might be the ratios thing exactly. I couldn't figure it out what is the proper ratios between dry and wet ingredients.
So you didn't use a recipe? You just improvised?
I used this recipe but with room temp. butter, everything come out quite alright except its cakey texture so i tried with melted butter hoping that it might help improve the texture.
Is there no leavening in your recipe? Your recipe doesn't list baking powder or baking soda.
No. I didn't put in any of those because i don't want it too cakey.
You can't just leave them out! You still want it to rise a little bit... otherwise you just end up with a rock... which you did (per your own comments).
Your egg and butter mix has curdled/split you need to put it in a fresh floured bowl and keep mixing till smooth.
The brown is, as you mentioned, the brown sugar. Nothing to worry about.
Personally I wouldn't use melted butter at all. Rather I would use soft butter. Creaming sugar and butter with melted butter is impossible, especially if the butter is melted to the extent where the fat and milk have separated.
Soft bake is soft, like cake. Chewy bake is ... Chewy, like brownies.
Note - sugar cannot be "creamed" with melted butter - creaming refers to a process of using crystalline sugar to beat air into softened butter.
So when i use melted butter do i have to wait until it cool down completely before dumping the sugar in?
There are plenty of recipes that use melted butter. You just have to use a recipe that expects it.
@SukanokDonot Yes, the butter should be heated just enough to barely melt and then allowed to cool down again.
I melted it until it turn liquid state. However, I remember watching from some website they use completely melted butter but the result is far better than mine. My cookies looks just like rocks from Mar.
The Cooks Country recipe for Chewy Chocolate Chip Cookies is very similar to the one you're using. For the purpose of method comparison and ratios I'm putting it here. I've adjusted what measurements I can to metric.
It's behind a paywall, unfortunately but I'll put it here for now... If I should remove it, please let me know.
As you may notice everything is pretty much the same except the butter is 50% greater than in yours 340 grams instead of 220 grams.
Hopefully, seeing the method here along with adding some extra butter should help you be more successful the next time.
300 g all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
340 g unsalted butter, melted and cooled
200 g light brown sugar
100 g granulated sugar
1 large egg plus 1 large yolk
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
250 g semisweet chocolate chips
Instructions
Adjust oven rack to lower-middle position and heat oven to 160 degrees C. Line 2 baking sheets with parchment paper. Combine flour, baking soda, and salt in bowl.
Using stand mixer fitted with paddle, beat melted butter, brown sugar, and granulated sugar on medium speed until smooth, about 2 minutes. Add egg and yolk and vanilla and beat until combined. Reduce speed to low and add flour mixture in 3 additions until just combined, scraping down bowl as needed. Stir in chocolate chips by hand.
Working with 2 tablespoons dough at a time, roll into balls and space them 2 inches apart on prepared sheets. Bake cookies, 1 sheet at a time, until edges are set and beginning to brown but centers are still soft and puffy, 15 to 20 minutes, rotating sheet halfway through baking. Let cookies cool on sheets for 10 minutes before serving.
Thank you very much.
The hard part for me is "just combined" part. I don't know exactly when to stop. With melted butter, Do you mean completely melted to liquid,right?
@SukanokDonot I usually put my butter in the microwave and zap it for 20 seconds, stir, and then continue to slowly melt it in 10 second increments until, by stirring, the whole thing is melted. This should only take about 40 - 50 seconds, depending on your microwave. Don't overheat it, you want it cool anyway, so just barely bring it to the melting point.
@SukanokDonot Just combined means you mix it slowly until right when you can't see any of the flour. You have a little wriggle room but stirring is what activates the gluten and you don't want that, so you're only going to stir until it looks homogenous and no longer!
Thank you for your comments ..
You mean it suppose to look creamy not turn all liquid, right?
and mixing wet and dry ingredients, which do you think better between dumping wet in dry ingredient or vice versa?
@SukanokDonot I just saw your question. The butter just has to have no solid bits left... I still consider that totally liquid... you just don't want it to separate. It's generally easier to mix dry into wet, as you don't have to worry about leaving unmixed dry ingredients in the bottom of the bowl. It's the standard process.
Thank you. Yes i melted butter until fat separate from butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.525201
| 2015-02-21T09:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54983",
"authors": [
"Adam Archibald",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Delaney Gholson",
"Elyas Soliz",
"GdD",
"Geraldine Douglas",
"Heather S.",
"Jordis Kessler",
"Marie Adeline Sombilla",
"Melanie Polinger",
"Stephen Eure",
"Sukanok Donot",
"Todd Jeffery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"jesus herrera",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37674
|
Why do the bottoms of my cookies look like cakes?
What could possibly have gone wrong? I used only 1 egg yolk with no baking soda and Melted butter:
And this is what I got after beating sugar+melted butter+yolk:
After adding dry ingredients:
And here's what it looks like in the oven:
In which step do you think I could have done something wrong? I have no idea really.
Those look fine to me. Is there some other kind of cookie you were trying to make? (Were you following a recipe? I am surprised you didn't use any baking soda and seem to have done all right.)
I'd eat those. Toss 'em my way if you don't want them, in the spirit of not wasting food and stuff...
i want it to be thin and chewy.However, it may look alright but it's too soft and easy to break in half if lifted.
Your blending mixture is inadequate, so that it allows the oil and butter to migrate downwards.
Chewy cookies also break when hot. You want to let them cool down before removing them from the sheet. And yes, they look normal to me too, not cakelike. Can you find an example of the cookie you are trying to achieve and point us there, so we know if "chewy cookie" is really what you want, or if your expectations are wrong?
@rumtscho something like this http://cannella-vita.blogspot.com/2012/07/watersheds-chocolate-chip-cookies.html
I would imagine that the bottoms of the cookies you linked to probably look a lot like yours.
These cookies look all right, there is no need to change anything in your technique to correct the looks.
If there is a problem with the texture, then this is a different question (which, as far as I can remember, we already helped you with in another thread). But the only viable answer to this question as stated is: no need to change anything here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.525720
| 2013-10-17T05:15:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37674",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Eastern Powder",
"Kareen",
"SourDoh",
"Sukanok Donot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91957",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76506
|
How to fix grass finished beef that tastes like fish?
I bought a 1/4 grass finished cow (I had a good experience with a 1/2 pig from the same seller, so didnt feel the need to start small).
We cooked some ground beef, and it was fine. But the second cut we tried were the NY strips and the fat on them tasted strongly of fish. I prepared the steak as i would any other store bought steak. I salted then fried in a cast iron pan on high with a little oil, removing the steaks from the pan at 125F. This normally produces steaks I enjoy a lot.
Based on a little research, it is common for grass finished beef to have some odd flavors if you are used to grain finished beef (almost all beef is raised on grass, the difference is what they are fed in the end to fatten up).
So, if all my steaks did taste fishy, is there a preparation method to mitigate the fishiness?
I'm familiar with gamey flavors of meat, having eaten quite a lot of moose, caribou, rabbit and the parts of a cow most people don't seem interested in. This fishy flavor was not like those. The fat tasted like I had bitten into one of those fish oil pills, and it was only the fat that tasted this way, I separated it from the flesh to check.
Are you sure that the oil you used hasn't gone rancid?
Yes, I am unfortunately familiar with the flavor of rancid oil. Also, this oil is the same olive oil I use for everything else, so it would have ruined my grilled cheese the day before.
Grass-fed (and finished) beef fat tastes fishy because it effectively is similar to fish oils. In particular, grass-fed beef fat is dramatically higher in omega-3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acids) as opposed to omega-6 (linoleic) fatty acids; this NIH funded study for example found:
... overall average of 1.53 and 7.65 [omega-6 to omega-3 ratio] for grass-fed and grain-fed, respectively, for all studies reported in this review.
Meaning that grass-fed beef might have a 3:2 ratio of o6:o3 fatty acids, while grain-fed beef has a 13:2 ratio - a ratio over 4 times higher.
Fish tends to have even more omega 3 fatty acids, tending to a ratio of less than 1 (so, more omega 3 than omega 6); so I wouldn't imagine your beef tastes entirely like fish. But you're definitely going to taste some 'fishiness' in there in grass-fed and grass-finished beef as compared to grain-finished or grain-fed.
As far as how to prepare it, the challenge with beef is the strong beef flavor that you don't want to entirely cover up (or you wouldn't be buying a nice grass-fed side of beef, you'd be buying something from the local megamart).
My suggestion is to take your cue from fish itself: specifically, from strong tasting fish, and fish that is commonly eaten in steak-like preparations.
Steak Tartare or Beef Carpaccio is one suggestion. By not melting the fat, you're not going to release as much of the 'fishy' flavor, and in fact this is a common preparation for fishier fish as well (Tuna and Salmon in particular).
Add an acidic sauce, such as hollandaise. Acidic flavors cut the fishy flavor well, just as spritzing some lemon juice onto your salmon does.
Braised preparations such as how short ribs are commonly prepared work well because not only can you introduce an acidic flavor but you also allow some of the oil to be extracted from the fat and blended into the meat where it's not quite as concentrated as simply eating the steak. While braised beef can be very heavy on the sauce, a simple braise in red wine might be effective at counteracting the oil flavor while still keeping the beefiness.
Removing the fat before cooking (trimming) will work well for cuts that have solid fat. Even something like a ribeye (which has a lot of both marbling and solid fat), simply doing this might be sufficient if the taste doesn't bother you too much.
Frying in butter, or in a fat that is not high in omega-3 fatty acids, may help as well. Olive oil should be fine (very little omega-3); avoid flaxseed oil or blended oils that list omega 3 fatty acids as a health benefit. This probably won't help with the solid fat, though, only with the marbling.
Finally, you will get used to this taste just as you did with gaminess. So, simply eating it and not trying to alter it may be the right path if you are going to continue buying grass-fed and grass-finished beef in this manner. Many tastes are possible to get used to after five or six meals of them.
The Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio is really interesting! Nice source
Thanks for explaining why the meat tastes fishy, and for the preparation suggestions. We ate a ribeye using the fat removal suggestion and it was pretty effective.
There is actually quite a lot of information if you Google this topic, which surprised me. I suspect you are tasting "gamey" beef for the first time. There are a lot of variables impacting what the final product will taste like to you, including: type of finishing grass, region, or other "grass fed" beef you've had could have been grain finished to keep the game flavor away.
Here's the answer to a relevant question asked on Reddit:
"I'm a butcher and I get asked this question a lot. Where in the country was it raised? Grass fed beef definitely has more of a "gamey" flavor, but it's usually a lot less harsh if the steer was finished on grain as opposed to 100℅ grass. Another factor in the taste is where it grazed. You're essentially tasting the grass that the cow ate. Again, finishing the steer on grain will mitigate this somewhat."
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/meat/comments/3mmi4g/i_have_20_pounds_of_grass_fed_beef_it_tastes_like/
If you'd like to "cover up" the gamey flavor you should consider preparations that cover the meat in sauce. Stroganoff could be a great place to start.
This doesn't really answer the question I asked. How do I fix the fishy flavor in steaks I already own? also, i added a little more detail in my question.
I added something to my answer to cover that last point, although I don't think you'll be able to cover it up completely.
You might try to trim the fat. Then bake them with a light coating of orange or pineapple glaze. Is it possible sea weed was added to the feed for filler or minerals were you live? That will give a fish flavor to fat on animals. Orange glaze is good on salmon as well baked.
Soaking the meat in milk or buttermilk has worked for me. Maybe this has something to do with the lactic acid?
you can marinate the steaks in balsamic vinegar and honey overnight, this completely lost the fishies of our beef and tenderized the steaks as a bonus.
Hope this helps.
We raised a steer on grass and free bread from our local food pantry. Some of the fat tasted fishy. Not all of it though. Half the steer was turned into hamburger. And none of the hamburger tasted fishy. So if you have some grass fed beef that has a fishy taste to it, turn it into hamburger. It's the fat that has the fishy flavor. And when you cook it as hamburgers on the grill, the fat melts out of it. So you won't taste any fishy flavor. We also used it to make meatballs, and made hobo stew with it. I like it ground as hamburger now more than steaks. So that's what I'm going to do with our next steer, all hamburger!
I had Hawaii Island grass fed beef- one of the purest and finest, but the gamy/fish taste was off-putting. I ate it in hamburger form and it was worse. The restaurant cooked it plain so it was strong. I usually prep the local grass fed beef with wine/spirits/alcohol- some olive oil, and a few spices and it is way better.
If you want to get rid of the fish taste and still enjoy tender beef that tastes world class- add some alcohol. blk pepper, some onions/dehydrated onions, garlic salt can also make the flavor even better. If you dont like alcohol, add some ketchup and worstershire sauce - just a tad bit to bump up taste.
We raised a steer a few years back, he only ate grass and hay with no grain finish, the taste of him was so strong "fishy" I will never finish a steer on hay/grass ever again. Had to give most of the steaks to the dog it almost seemed as you got closer to the bone the taste "fishy" became stronger, we will continue to finish all future steers on a grain diet.
I found no way to change the taste FYI just chalked it up to a loss
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.525913
| 2016-12-15T14:35:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76506",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"John Feltz",
"OrangePeel52",
"Ray Cardoza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57982"
],
"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
}
|
104071
|
Utensils for stir frying ground beef
I stir fry a pound of ground beef on a stove-top pan (made of ceramic titanium) on a daily basis. That is my "cereal" meal.
I use a spatula and a second one that looks like a large spoon (all nylon) to do this.
But is there an ideal utensil?
Pictures for reference
What I currently use:
Stir-fried meal:
I've been using an off-hand remark one of the judges on Chopped mentioned and it works great, a garden variety whisk. Everybody has one and it does a great job of breaking up the ground meat.
funnily enough i found out that using chopsticks is the best tool for stir fry.
I haven't cooked beef for a while, but a wooden spatula works very well, as it can break up clumps and is safe for non stick. I prefer the straight shape of the one I've got to any of my nylon spatulas, that are more designed for lifting.
The second implement matters less, but I may use a slotted nylon spoon so it's ready to lift the meat out of the fat, or if I'm not going to do that, a wooden spoon.
Just one spatula? Not two (for better stirring)?
Also: is there a reason to go for wooden spatulas as opposed to nylon ones? My pan is made out of ceramic titanium.
Two implements, but the second can be anything. I'll add a bit
Apart from the shape aspect in my answer, I have a bit of a preference for wooden stuff. For me it outlasts anything else that works with non stick despite being put through a dishwasher (I know one of my wooden spoons is 20 years old because it's a funny shape and I know where I lived when I modified it).
I always pour the fat back on the bowl. I'm a carnivore.
@Srid sure, but you might want to reserve the meat while cooking something else in the fat
No, use whatever tool you have on hand that works.
If you use a teflon (or other non-stick) pan, maybe try to use something that will not scratch the surface.
Anecdotal, I've used everything, wood, silicon, metal, "plastic" , wood thingies (like the epicurean kitchen tools)
While "ideal" is somewhat subjective, there is a tool designed for this purpose, a "meat masher" or "meat chopper" (names vary). This is a tool resembling a nylon spatula, but with a cross or star of blades aligned with the handle rather than a single blade angled off the end.
The tool is used by pressing and twisting it vertically into the ground meat (or other products) to break it into smaller pieces while cooking, as well as stirring it to cook it evenly; as it is designed to be pressed and twisted in this way, it flexes and bends less than a nylon spatula may when used in the same manner.
Representative image from Amazon (no affiliation):
..otherwise known as a drawer-filler & -jammer. I've never seen such tosh. What can that do that a 50 cent wooden spatula can't? That's a utensil for people who don't cook much. (Your answer is good, sorry, it's just the pointless utensil I'm railing against here. I gave you a +1 for even finding such a one-trick pony ;)
I've seen this in store. A downside is that you can't "flip" pieces of ground beef with a single-handled tool action like this; and with two spatulas I "flip" in this manner to stir it really well (esp. mixing with the fat being rendered out).
It's a solution without a problem, honestly.
@Tetsujin hence why I didn't call it "ideal." :) It does exist, and I do actually have one (weighed as "I cook a lot of ground beef"), and honestly I don't find it much better or worse than just a spatula. It would probably be the first to go if I trimmed my utensil crock.
If you want to get decent browning on the meat and want to separate it into smaller pieces rather than lumps, a potato masher is useful for pressing it well into the pan. You can get plastic ones that will not damage your pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.526510
| 2019-12-12T18:09:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104071",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Chris H",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"Steve Chambers",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103603
|
Best way to preserve excess tallow long-term
I received a shipment of eight 14oz bottles of grass-fed beef tallow. I will use one bottle right away. What is the best way to preserve the rest of the seven?
One idea is to put the 7 bottles in a freezer, and take one by one out as needed. Will this work?
FWIW, from the FatWorks FAQ I located this; not sure how reliable that information is.
Tallow is naturally shelf stable for years.
You can freeze your fat for an even longer shelf life, years in fact.
You can freeze tallow. Dehydration and the freeze-thaw cycle of home freezers are the enemies of long term storage. You can't stop the freeze-thaw cycle, but if you minimize exposure to dehydration (freezer burn) by storing full containers, or even vacuum packing, you can keep them that way for quite a while.
You added a picture, which is helpful. I might not freeze glass jars. You could risk expansion and breakage.
I will never freeze bottles already opened. I'm not sure how I'd vacuum pack a bottle that is already closed firmly with the lid that manufacture put on it (however I'm sure it is not vacuum inside, as even though the container is full it is not full to the brim/lid).
@ReinstateMonica Vacuum packing would be useful to prevent contact of the food with the air in the freezer which leads to freezer burn. If you freeze food in sealed jars, this is already the case, thus no vacuum packing necessary. You could put the jars in Ziploc bags if you are worrierd about the jars breaking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.526839
| 2019-11-20T22:02:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103603",
"authors": [
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99707
|
Beef suet in fridge
How long is beef suet good in fridge?
Does it make any difference if I store it as a whole or chopped into pieces?
EDIT: This is suet, not tallow, which can even be left outside the fridge for 1 year. This not a duplicate question.
EDIT: Suet is raw fat not raw protein.
I saw your edit now, I had mixed up the English terms for suet and tallow. I now added a second duplicate target, just look up "raw protein" there, it applies to all raw meat products, including the fat.
Raw protein is not raw fat. Could you remove the duplicate tag on this please? Evidently none of your alternative URLs actually answer my question.
It doesn't matter that raw protein is not raw fat. The guidelines are the same for every part of a slaughtered animal without cooking. It is just called "raw protein" in the other question for convenience.
Sorry, this is most unhelpful response. The other question does not deal with unrendered fat (like suet) at all, and in some places they have stored suet for longer than what the guideline recommend for animal protein: https://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18437
So my question is still valid. I understand you are doing the 'janitor' job of Stackoverflow, but you should also know when to make exceptions to general rules instead of rigidly sticking to them.
I usually store suet in the freezer, where it keeps for many months. In the fridge, I wrap it carefully to reduce oxygen exposure (and hence, rancidity).
How long do you think it lasts in the fridge ?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.526986
| 2019-06-23T23:38:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99707",
"authors": [
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4752
|
Am I missing something with Beer Can chicken?
I've tried beer can chicken a few times, BBQ and in the oven, but it doesn't seem overly special to me. I am not sure if I should also be covering the chicken with some kind of sauce, but the chicken never seems to absorb much flavour, so I am wondering if I am using the wrong kind of beer, or if I am doing something wrong. While people seem to rave about the juiciness, it doesn't seem any more juicy than rotisserie or just baking in the over with some kind of marinade.
I suspect you were talking to a Jamaican, and he meant "Bacon Chicken". Observe: http://www.baconorbeercan.com/
Beer Can Chicken has a few tricks to have it turn out amazing as opposed to just average. I always take my thawed chicken and rub it all over inside and out with vegetable oil and pureed garlic (about one large clove). Then I coat the skin with seasonings like salt, pepper, seasoned salt or chicken/poultry seasoning like sage or an \Italian mix; you can use anything the you want. Cajun spice and lemon are also pretty good. The beer has to have some flavour to it, don't use a light beer. Apple ciders (strong bow, perry's pear cider, black thorne) or a white wine/cooking cherry will also do the trick. I use a half a pop/beer can and then stuff the chicken and the bottom tray with onions, red peppers, garlic and celery. The key to crispy skin and moist chicken is low heat on the BBQ, turn one side onto medium heat and put the chicken on the off side with the lid closed for 20 minutes per pound of chicken. Practice makes perfect....chicken.
I like the apple cider idea, I'm sure that you'd get that apple hint in there. I'll try to lather on more seasoning next time as well.
In my experience beer can chicken usually allows you to cook the chicken until the skin is much crispier than you would normally be able to without drying out the entire chicken. The beer is in the cavity keeping the chicken moist. I can see how a rotisserie would mimic many of these qualities, and even a well-done roasting technique can do great things for chicken skin. Unless, however, you are basting your chicken's meat in beer, adding wood chips to your heat source, and putting on a delectable spice rub, you won't quite get the same flavors.
Steven Raichlen has written an entire book dedicated largely to beer can chicken, and you can find a Google Books preview. Here's an excerpt from the introduction.
So what is it that makes beer can chicken so irresistable?...The rising vapors impart a delicate beer flavor, simultaneously keeping the bird juicy and tender. And because the steaming takes place inside the chicken, the meat stays moist but doesn't become soggy. Then, there's the benefit of cooking the chicken upright. The vertical position allows fat to drain off and the skin to cook evenly, even on the back. The result is a bird that's crackling crisp on the outside, moist and tender on the inside. (page 2)
The idea is that the steam from the beer will keep the chicken moist while the can holds it up. There isn't much flavor transfer from the beer, since it isn't in direct contact with the meat.
If you want to flavor the chicken, a dry rub is probably your best bet. You can also use injectable marinades, often used when deep-frying whole birds or roasting larger birds to help keep them moist. Basically you get a giant syringe and hypodermic needle and inject some flavorings into the meat directly.
A couple of people have done side by side comparisons of various approaches to beer can chicken and came to the conclusion that you're better off just spatchcocking the chicken and roasting/grilling/smoking it that way and applying the seasonings directly.
http://www.nakedwhiz.com/beercanchicken.htm
I'm a big fan of spatchcocking.
That was a great read, thank you for sharing. I love experiments like that. I actually just bought a roaster last night and was going to try beer can this week; I'm not even going to waste my time now. Spatchcocking, here I come!
Are you just using beer, or are you using other flavors and spices?
I open a can of beer and pour it into a sauce pan, and mix in a couple tablespoons of butter and my spices. Then I use a funnel to pour about half back into the can, and save the other half for basting.
After I stick the chicken on the can, I use a toothpick to loosely seal the neck cavity and trap the steam a little better.
Several times during the cooking, I use the saved liquid to baste the chicken.
After it's done, I take the drippings and remainder in the can and thicken it in a sauce pan. Then I either pour it over the chicken after it is cut up, or serve it as gravy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.527136
| 2010-08-10T11:57:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4752",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Greg.Ley",
"James Moore",
"Littm",
"MGOwen",
"Ronni Plindstrup",
"Wil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9692",
"oldmanjerry",
"stephennmcdonald",
"xyhhx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9555
|
Why did my Turkey Stock turn into gelatin?
We took our left-over turkey carcass and parts and simmered them for a few hours with water in a pot with some herbs and veggies. After removing the solids, and separating the fat, we placed it in the fridge to be frozen the next day. When we pulled it out, the entire bowl - not just the top - was completely gelatinous. It is truly like Jello.
Is this OK? Why did this happen?
We plan to vacuum seal and freeze it if safe.
Congratulations on making a rich, authentic stock!
If your stock turns to jelly in the fridge, it means you did it right!
Simmering the bones breaks down the collagen and turns it into gelatin; that's the very essence of stock-making. The gelatin is exactly what you want from the stock; at low temperatures it has a very jelly-like consistency, but at higher temperatures it melts and provides a very rich texture.
The more you reduce the stock, the more gelatinous it will become, so if it turned out stiffer than you expected, it's probably because you let a lot of water evaporate. Typically, when making stock, you use a very low simmer; just a few bubbles per minute. Any more than that and your stock will reduce.
But reducing is perfectly OK, and many cooks will reduce an entire pot of stock down to a few tablespoons; it's like bullion, only without all the salt and preservatives. Heavily-reduced stock is called glace de viande and is often used to give a sauce or dish a little bit of extra kick, imparting a powerful meat flavour. But you probably didn't reduce it that much.
If you're finding it to be too concentrated or gelatinous, even at higher temperatures, you can feel free to dilute it. For soups or sauces you can probably dilute it 1 for 1, but taste as you go along just to make sure you're not watering it down too much.
When only the top layer of a stock solidifies in the refrigerator, it is probably fat, which you should skim off and discard (or reserve). The rest is your actual stock, and in your case it sounds delicious.
Also, since you mention vacuum-sealing - I prefer to use covered ice cube trays for freezing stock. That lets you portion it out much more easily than a big solid blob.
+1 for freezing in ice cube trays - great way to quickly add flavour to a sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.527638
| 2010-11-29T01:19:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9555",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ryan Anderson",
"VitalStatistix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66468",
"rdlee"
],
"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
}
|
8306
|
Can I use a stoneware 9x13 pan instead of a metal 9x13 pan for Caramel Rolls?
I decided to make some caramel rolls for treats for work and realized I only have one metal 9x13 pan. I have a couple 9x13 stoneware pans, but I've never used them for something like caramel rolls before.
Can I use the stoneware pans in the same way I'd use a metal pan or do I need to do something different to get the rolls to turn out well.
Thanks!
If your caramel rolls are the kind with a sticky, gooey mass in the bottom of the pan that is flipped upside down out of the pan, then I would say that the rolls won't really get good and caramely in a stoneware pan. You'd be better off baking one pan of rolls at a time in the metal pan. While one pan is rising and baking, just chill the other part of the dough... either plain in a bowl, or prepared into a log that only needs to be cut.
If the caramel rolls are more like a cinnamon bun, then the stoneware dishes should do fine in a pinch. This is assuming they are glazed stoneware and not terra cotta. Cooking time will increase a bit as the stoneware will take longer to heat up (it will also retain the heat longer when removed from the oven).
You could always just go out and buy some foil pans. I do that when I make rolls (caramel, cinnamon, and sticky) for the local fire company's carnival. They go through 17=20 dozen rolls each year.
I know baking rolls can be a lot of work, so what I have found to be very helpful, is to make the dough the night before baking. Cover with cling film, and let it have a slow rise in the fridge all night. (you will get improved flavor too.) The next day, divide the cold dough up and prepare as usual. They will take a little longer for the rise in the pan after shaping, but it sure is a lot easier on you.
Grease the pans well and/or line with parchment, and start checking them sooner than you would the metal pans. They may actually take longer than metal, but you can always just choose to leave them in longer, while it's kinda hard to hit 'Undo' on an oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.527864
| 2010-10-19T18:37:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8306",
"authors": [
"Derfder",
"Samiksha Singhal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45631",
"slinkhi"
],
"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
}
|
14122
|
How can I tell when my fat is sufficiently creamed?
When creaming butter or shortening with sugar, how can I tell when it's creamed enough?
With the mixer as low as 3 or 4, even a few minutes of mixing seems excessive.
Also, what are symptoms could I see in cookies which have had the butter under-creamed?
Update:
I think that I'm familiar with the standard guides of light and fluffy, but I seem to have a hard time evaluating that when I'm watching the mixer. My cookies always seem to come out too flat, and since I'm measuring flour by weight, creaming is my next suspect.
What should I look for? Are there any tests that I can do; perhaps similar to the window pane test for bread development?
Well, if you're consistently getting flat cookies, simply try creaming for longer. You can't 'overwork' it, that's only a problem once you add flour.
The mixture should lighten in both color and texture, and it should be 'fluffy'. It should also increase in volume.
The point of creaming is to incorporate the sugar with the fat, while at the same time adding air to the mixture. The air bubbles introduced during creaming expand during cooking, making the cookies rise and giving a lighter texture.
Cookies baked with under-creamed butter would therefore remain fairly flat and dense.
Thanks for the tip about not being able to over-cream the fat and sugar. Last time I let the stand mixer go for 4 whole minutes, and I didn't see much difference compared to past creaming experiments. I must have been doing it right!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.528056
| 2011-04-18T18:27:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14122",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"JuanDorado",
"KatieK",
"dacongy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99180
|
Can I cook sous vide on a desk?
So would it be possible with some insulation perhaps from home depot to use a sous vide cooker like cheffstep's Joule on a surface like a wooden office desk with a medium to small sized pot or even a round crock pot provided there's enough space during work? Or would this become an issue over time? Thanks.
I used a half size steam tray pan. About 10X12X8" and cheap. Built a little plywood box around it. Rubber feet, and about an inch clearance between tray bottom and bottom plywood supplies good insulation.Souse vide cooker stick fits in perfectly. The box stays cool to the touch. Much better than the plastic tanks they sell.
Put the whole thing in a syrofoam cooler (or any cooler, really), and you won't have to pump in as much energy to maintain it. (you can also just use a cooler so long as it's water-tight). Crock pots are fine on the desk as-is (they usually have rubber feet), although I like to put mine on a sheet pan to deal with any potential dripping.
This is not a problem at all. Use a trivet, cutting board, or even a folded towel under your container. If you are at Home Depot, you could also get one of those cork mats that go under a planter. Really, anything will work. You just want to protect the surface from any potential heat and/or water (occasional spillage) damage.
Ah yeah, that's a good idea, a cutting board or small chopping/butcher block should definitely work or something like that, thank you! I plan to do OMAD dieting, and as a web developer with a schedule and not much time, I want to get creative!
Kudos for your self-restraint. If I tried OMAD and had the sous vide setup on my desk, I would be dangerous to be around.
@cellsheet - do you plan to sous vide daily? if so what do you cook?
I do, around 1-2lb of meat, fish, and vegetables perhaps mainly. Enough to get a daily nutrition anyways. Everything else would be cooked otherwise (i.e. egg and fruits, unless pasture raised eggs can be cooked this way as well, which might be possible, at least with some type of egg I read somewhere. Could be wrong however. Didn't thoroughly research).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.528213
| 2019-05-25T21:47:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99180",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"cellsheet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75748"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17387
|
Getting biscuit mix to rise...again
Was looking through my pantry and I found some instant biscuit mix that is still good by date. When I tried making a batch of the mix, the dough did not rise at all. I made something that resemble a brick.
I was curious if I could add some double action baking powder to the mix would bring the mix back to life?
If so how much would I add? 1/4 TSP?, 1/2 TSP?
All I have on hand is double action baking powder.
I attempted to answer your question below, but additional information would be helpful. What ingredients did you add to the mix? What temperature was it? How much did you knead the dough? Did you leave the dough sitting out before you baked the biscuits? ...The more details you provide, the better the answers you receive will be.
If the mix hasn't expired and since I don't know more specifically what ingredients you used, I suspect your biscuits didn't rise because the dough was overworked. Biscuit dough should not be handled much. (Mark Bittman's recipe says to knead the dough 10 times, no more.)
The link in mrwienerdog's answer provides some explanation for why you shouldn't handle the dough too much - basically, you need the ingredients to be just barely combined so that you get the air pockets necessary for it to rise, and overworking the dough gets rid of those.
Another factor could be ingredients other than the baking powder. I'm not sure whether you added butter, but the butter should be chilled - if it's too soft/warm, it won't create the air pockets described above and you'll end up with much flatter biscuits.
I'm in the middle of class (school), and I don't have a ton of time to type anything out, so I'll point you in this direction:
http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/food-science/leaveners-fats-the-science-of-great-biscuits-109416
Should help, covers the science. The answer will be found, plus more!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.528403
| 2011-09-01T16:31:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17387",
"authors": [
"Ho1",
"Kai Qing",
"Laura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"ilinca",
"sandwich_messiah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117200
|
Advantages and disadvantages of braising a pot roast covered in the oven vs on the stovetop
Obviously there are major differences if the pot roast is cooked uncovered in the oven. That aside, are there differences if it is covered?
What do you mean by "a wet roast"?
You can't roast on a stovetop.
A roast is usually cooked by radiant heat, without liquid and in an oven. A braise is usually a protein that is often browned, then slowly cooked in liquid. A braise can happen in the oven or on the stove top, while a roast is cooked in an oven. Can you clarify your terms?
are you talking about braising ?
Yes, apologies. I mean a pot roast or braised meat. (Using the term "pot roast" here the way Mark Bittman does in his books.)
I've updated the question accordingly
Braising can happen in the oven or on the stove top, and covered or uncovered. Covering limits evaporation. Braising in the oven provides the convenience of keeping the stove top burners free, and provide a consistent radiant heat. This might be important if uncovered, as evaporating liquid could create an issue with burning on the stove top. Evaporation concentrates flavor. This can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on your desired outcome. Braises are typically low temp/long time cooks. While covering vs. not, might impact cook time, usually with a braise, I don't find the difference to be that significant.
The difference in taste should be minimal, if everything is done right. But for completeness, here a list of the advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages of the oven:
if the piece of meat is large, you run less risk of under- or overcooked areas
if you don't have enough collagen, the results will be less terrible than on stovetop
you are not limited to narrow vessels
one less hob occupied
Disadvantages of the oven:
needs longer time
uses more energy
risk of burning yourself if you grip the handles
your oven is occupied
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.528585
| 2021-09-15T15:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117200",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Max",
"Natan Yellin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7870",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29393
|
re-fry fried food
Heating cold (refrigerated or frozen) food is a problem . Heating fried food always fails (ex. crisp parts turn loose). At some restaurants, I saw that they re-heat fries by re-frying them again (few seconds).
Is this a good way to re-heat fried food?
EDIT:
Reheating problems which I face:
- Heating not uniform, some parts heated others still cold.
- Reheated food loses color and look.
- It loses crisp part (for fried).
For Some foods, Microwaving works really well... they regain their crispiness.. But make sure u serve it immediately
The simple answer is: it depends, but the short answer is probably not in many cases--often baking is better way to reheat fried foods.
What kind of food, what kind of frying?
Frying depends on there being sufficient moisture in the item being fried that the water in the item evaporates on contact with the frying medium (usually oil) so that the the food is essentially surrounded by a barrier of vapor escaping from the item. This is what prevents the fat from entering the food and making it greasy.
If the food is dried out, frying is going to make it greasy.
Even if the food is not already dried, additional frying will continue to dry and crisp the item. Also, frying is generally a very fast and intense cooking method, so may lead to increased risk of overcooking or burning the food item.
In the case of French fried potatoes (which I am inferring you are meaning by "fries"), the classic cooking method often employed is a two stage process:
Par-frying at a (relatively) low temperature to cook the potato through
Finish frying at a higher temperature to make it crispy and hot for service
In this method, the finish fry is not just reheating the potato--it is a part of the cooking process which is planned for in the recipe.
So the technique may or may not apply to other fried foods. Often, the best way to reheat a fried food item--although it won't be as good as the fresh, hot from the fryer item--is to bake it in a medium to hot oven, which is slower, more controlled, and doesn't introduce additional oil to the food item.
Of course, all of that being said, there are some people who like to refry Popeyes fried chicken to make it even more crispy, so again: it depends.
One last thought: A restaurant that is truly reheating French fries with an additional fry--rather than the it being the finish fry in the classic two-stage cooking method--is not a quality place I want to go to, or one whose methods you might want to adopt.
thanks :).. may be the restaurant was using semi-fried potatoes. I never asked them.
I'd say the simple answer is not "it depends", but rather "it depends, but often baking works great."
@Jefromi Okay, sure, ja, you betcha; I made a slight edit to the lead line to make that more apparent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.528764
| 2012-12-23T11:16:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29393",
"authors": [
"Amelia",
"Cascabel",
"IceGlasses",
"JimR",
"Julie Aldrich",
"Mark Myers",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shaima",
"Yousf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7921",
"user6214"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66844
|
Stainless nonstick, not vs, but both? What's the point?
I bought a stainless steel 12" skillet and when it arrived it has a Non stick coating on the inside. I didn't realize that. I already have a non stick set, anodized aluminum I think, so I wanted to explore stainless. I'm seeing a lot of similar pans, from all the brands. What's the point of putting non stick in stainless? Is it just for style/looks or is there actually a benefit? Should I keep it and try it out? Or will I see the same results as my other non stick set?
It might be helpful to tell us the brand or to provide an Amazon link.
William Sonoma. Didn't think brand would matter. I'm just talking about the style of pan, nonstick stainless steel, regardless of brand. Why bother?
It gives us a place to start looking for their explanation for it. Thanks.
Because people with induction stoves want a non-stick pan :)
@setek: No they don't, not me in any case.
@WillemvanRumpt do you care to explain?
@setek: Why would I specifically want a non-stick pan with an induction stove?
@WillemvanRumpt erm, no, "some people with induction stoves want a non-stick pan." Happy?
@setek: Better, even better would be: "some people want a non-stick pan". I don't see how induction has anything to do with it :)
@WillemvanRumpt it addresses why somebody would want a stainless steel pan with non-stick?
@setek: People with an electric or gas stove don't use non-stick pans? In other words: Where exactly and specifically does an induction stove fit in with the desire for a non-stick pan?
@WillemvanRumpt you're focussing on entirely the wrong part. I'm not saying people with other stoves don't want non-stick, I'm saying people with induction stoves, who are wanting a non-stick pan, cannot use aluminium non-stick pans, so would search for something that's stainless steel and non-stick.
@setek: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. It's still early here (although there are other non-stick options besides stainless steel available for induction stoves) :)
Many stainless steels are ferric, so will work with induction cooktops. Aluminum cannot interact with magnetism, so cannot work on induction, so many companies offer stainless steel non-stick pans for the induction market.
You won't see much difference in performance, and since it's not what you want in the first place I'd send it back unused.
Ah that makes sense then. Returning I will do! Thanks!
I thought I did. I was using the phone app.... that's weird.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.529035
| 2016-02-26T00:21:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66844",
"authors": [
"DANA BONNETTE",
"David Lozzi",
"Faith Elliott Rossing",
"Good Zone Service and Repairs",
"Janet Ridley",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ming",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8306",
"trevor jones"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22850
|
Should I pre-boil then rinse chicken bones before making stock?
I'm told this releases the impurities, i.e scum, so you don't have to skim while simmering.
interesting discussion here http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/714443
This sounds counterproductive. Making stock means that you let the boiling water leach nutrients, flavors, and other stuff from the bones. Then you remove the solid parts (bones, scum) and are left with the gelatine and flavors dissolved in the water.
Now, if you preboil the bones and throw away the water, you throw away all the flavor which has been leached in this boil. Sure, some flavor will remain in the bones for prolonged boiling, but it will be less, and it won't be the same flavor (some tastes will cook out sooner than others). In short, the process which creates scum is the same which creates stock; you can't have one without the other.
In your home kitchen, you can mostly live with cloudy stock if you don't feel like skimming. Clear stock is more desirable, but you can keep that for special occasions. And exactly these occasions are the one when you want the most flavor, so don't compromise by preboiling.
Side-note: apparently, years ago doctors would prescribe meat for certain poor patients. Their family would spend their money on the meat. Boil it for hours. Throw away the 'water' and give the nutrition poor meat to the patient. Hospitals all over the world do the same thing, it seems.
This is completely normal to do with beef or other red meat due to all of the "blood". But yeah, never heard of it being done with chicken, you just simmer slowly and skim any fat.
You shouldn't boil stock. It should be gently simmered. It allows impurities from the bones to rise to the surface to be skimmed leaving a clear stock.
@questie760 you are right, I used "boiling" where I should have said "cooking" without giving it much thought.
If you wish to remove surface impurities and coagulate the surface proteins* for a clearer stock, then you might choose to do that. Keep in mind you might be sacrificing taste over aesthetics. It will most likely not totally prevent scum from emerging anyway.
You could try to make a stock without skimming and see what you think (related question - Why skim “scum” from the surface of a simmering stock?). I bet it will still taste great.
*If you are making a brown stock by roasting the bones, you have already coagulated the surface proteins.
That actually doesn't make sense. To remove the impurities and end with a clear stock you should start with cold water and slowly simmer the stock. Then skim the top where he impurities will go. It is also important to take care in straining the stock carefully.
Pre-boiling can create a lighter-colored stock, especially with beef or pig bones. See: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/02/how-to-make-tonkotsu-ramen-broth-at-home-recipe.html. This didn't create a clear stock (both versions were opaque), but boiling the bones changed the color of the stock from brown to milky.
I doubt that you'd get as much benefit from doing this with chicken bones, and I'm quite happy using brownish chicken stock for cooking at home. If you're trying to make something as clear as consommé, you'll need to do more than just rinse the bones off.
I make stock from all animal bones (chicken, beef, pork, haven't tried fish but I just may). Every time icook anything with bones, i make sure I get enough bones to boil for stock. Therfore each stock has all the flavor from how I prepared the mask that time. I never pre boil, you want all those flavors to not be cooked off. If you want a clearer stock, after you've drained the broth from the bones (I boil for about 5 hours on a very low boil, but that's just so I know I get the marrow too) then put some egg shells in the water for another hour or so, and the egg shells will attract the grime and leave the stock looking clearer. Once done boiling, then strain the stock from the egg shells, cool, and I put the broth in ice cube trays and freeze it, then put the cubes in a zip lock in the freezer so I can choose how much I want each time. I also use some stock to make BBQ sauces -primarily pork and beef. It's yummy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.529262
| 2012-04-07T03:05:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22850",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew",
"Another Idiot",
"BaffledCook",
"Guy",
"James R Madden",
"McKeefery",
"MichalO",
"Pat",
"SaFu",
"hgiesel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87301",
"questie760",
"rumtscho",
"ted.strauss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16354
|
How to add fresh fruit chunks to ice cream?
What are the key techniques when adding chunks of fresh fruit to homemade ice cream? How do I prepare the fruit, and when is the best time to add it to the ice cream? I don't want the fruit to be a hard icy chunk in the middle of the ice cream when it's served.
I've used strawberries in this example, but would like something that applies to other fruit like peaches, raspberries.
Last summer, we added fresh sliced strawberries to home made vanilla ice cream just after the ice cream came together in the ice cream maker. But the strawberries were so wet that we lost the texture of the ice cream and ended up with flavored ice.
I didn't understand what you want to achieve. Do you want to end up with smooth vanila ice cream with pieces of frozen strawberry dispersed in it, or puree the strawberries and mix everything to get strawberry flavored ice cream?
I would like to add chunks of fruit (strawberries, for example, but other stuff like peaches for example) to the ice cream. I don't want the fruit to be a hark icy chunk when the ice cream is served.
While this is quite a stretch, it's technically relevant, and I've heard you specifically would be interested in knowing this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1911/how-can-i-remove-the-peel-and-pit-of-an-avocado-without-the-whole-thing-turning/45023#45023
To expand michaels answer (assuming that you want strawberry icecream and not pieces of strawberry mixed in).
If you are making a custard ice cream, leave the amount of egg yolks the same, because you want the lecithin from them. Reduce the sugar somewhat, because fruit is sweet. Then decide how much fruit puree you want (maybe 1/3 the volume of the dairy part). Adjust the volume of the dairy so that the liquid is correct. Adjust the fat of the dairy so that the fat content is correct.
Example, you start with the recipe for vanilla ice cream French (=custard) style by Lebovitz.
1 cup (250ml) whole milk;
A pinch of salt;
3/4 cup (150g) sugar;
1 vanilla bean, split lengthwise;
2 cups (500ml) heavy cream;
5 large egg yolks;
1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
This recipe has 185g fat (I calculated with 30% fat in the cream), 460g dry matter (this is both fat and non-fat) and yields 990g ice cream (rounded a bit). Let's say that you decide to use 200g strawberry puree. 200g strawberry puree has 10g sugars, 18g dry matter and no fat. A mixture of 5 yolks, 140g sugar (if you want, you can look at the fructose sweetness coefficient and change the sugar accordingly, but I think this isn't so much of a problem if we just substitute the 10g from strawberries), 200g strawberry puree and some salt and vanilla has 25g fat, 225g dry matter and weighs 430g (rounded). You could create two equation systems, the first for the total volume of the dairy mixture needed, and the second one for the ratio of cream to milk, and solve these to get to a mixture with the original ratio.
fatamount/total = fatpercentage
liquidamount/total = liquidpercentage
fatpercentage + liquidpercentage + nonfatdrypercentage = 1
where you know fatamount, liquidamount and nonfatdrypercentage is around 0.1 (actually 0.08 for milk only and 0.12 for cream only, but we don't need so much precision). Solve for total, then calculate fatpercentage.
0.3*cream + 0.04*milk = fatpercentage*(milk + cream)
milk + cream = total
I will take a shortcut here. I specified almost as much strawberries as milk. They have no fat (unlike milk), but a similar (actually higher) amount of dry mass. So let's see what happens when we keep the 500g cream and turn the 50g difference between strawberries and milk into cream too (because we suspect we want some more fat). Then we have 190 g fat, 290g dry matter and 980g ice cream base. At 19.38% fat, we are above the ratio given in the article, but close to the original ratio (and I suspect that the article might be about Philadelphia style ice cream, which has less fat). The 29.59% dry matter are again outside of the article recommendation, but close to the original recipe. In fact, I assume that well emulsified fat can prevent ice crystal creation, so the higher liquid content doesn't create problems here (also note that McGee gives a 10-20% range for fat in ice cream, not 7-12%).
Long story short: don't add fruit puree, it is mostly water. Substitute puree for milk, calculate the new percentage of fat and dry matter (use the 7-12% fat and 37-42% liquid for a recipe without emulsifiers, you can be freer if you have emulsifiers; egg yolk counts as emulsifier). If you are still not there, try the calculation with less puree, or increase the fat and/or dry matter until you are in the recommended range. Or just start with the equations.
NB #1 I didn't check my calculations, could have a mistake there. But the principle should be correct.
NB#2 I calculated with cream density of 1. This was somewhat surprising, but the nutrition data for cream I found insists that a cup of cream (240 ml) weighs 238 g, so the difference is small enough to not go to the trouble to convert. A recipe given by volume probably (hopefully) has some leeway, so this shouldn't skew the results into a bad recipe.
OK, turns out I answered the wrong question ;) I'll still leave the answer here because it was so much work to write, maybe somebody can use it.
How about I clarify this question to focus on "chunks of fruit" and write a new one about "fruit as flavor"?
If you want to write the question, I'll move the answer there. But don't feel presurred or anything :)
@rumtscho I like this answer because it was the answer I was looking for, as I tend to "add purree" rather than "substitute milk for purree" and the result has been crystallized.
If you will you this technique to first freeze the strawberries. Then add the solid frozen berries to the mixture the berries will stay firm through process and then "warm up" (oddly enough) in the ice cream.
Now an answer to your actual question: chunks of strawberry.
The problem is that strawberries are made of 91% water, and they freeze when put in ice cream. So I am afraid you can't have real fresh strawberry pieces. But with some tricks, you can have tasty strawberry chunks.
An easy way out is to cut them in very small pieces, maybe 3-4 mm each side. They won't interfere with chewing then, but won't taste of much either. I wouldn't do it, just mention it here for completeness.
The easiest way is to cook a strawberry marmelade with whole fruit. Then remove the syrup and use the strawberry pieces only. If you use enough sugar, they won't freeze. Smooth strawberry marmalade or a thick strawberry syrup can also be layered or marbled with the ice cream, resulting in streaks of strawberry taste in the vanilla ice cream.
If you don't want to cook the strawberries, you can try some other approaches. You could dry them in a dehydrator first (but warning, they could get rubbery/lose taste that way). Then you could puree them and make sure the puree doesn't freeze. The first option would be to make sorbet out of it, then put chunks of strawberry sorbet in the ice cream. Then you could just add stuff which prevents freezing / crystal building. Try salt, sugar, alcohol, xanthan gum, and propylene glycol. Drops of this should form nice chunks, not as hard as ice. You can also use gelatin to make strawberry marshmallows (I don't know the highest possible proportion of strawberries is before they start hardening in the freezer, you'll have to play around).
If you want to have the texture and taste of fresh strawberries, your only option is to serve the normal ice cream with fresh strawberries on top. In fact, this is my preferred solution - but if you still want chunks, try the ideas above.
What is it about making a marmalade that makes the strawberries better for incorporating into ice cream? Could I just slice the strawberries and let them sit with sugar to pull the juice out?
@KatieK: You're not trying to pull juice out, you're trying put sugar in. It's the sugar that lowers the freezing point and stabilizes the mixture, and you need the cooking down process as well as the acidity of the citrus juice in order to get all of the sugar dissolved/incorporated.
@KatieK - You might look into glaceing (candying) your fruit, the technique steeps fruit in sugar or syrup for an extended period of time (weeks) to get fruit that is stiff with sugar and well-preserved. Sugar lowers the freezing point and substitutes some of the water, so you don't get icy chunks of fruit... on the other hand, glaceed fruit is very sweet (candied fruit marketed for fruitcake is an admittedly low quality version. Better versions exist.) You may be able to use fruit that's only partway through the process, the sweet spot of the sugar/water content may be variable.
Here is an explanation of how to get the fat/water/dry contents ratios correct by pastry chef, Michael Laiskonis. It may be a bit too complex for the average cook (such as myself), but it is still illuminating.
Make your ice-cream between 7 and 12% fat. Dry matter should be 37-42%. The rest is liquid.
If you do the work to calculate how much liquid and dry matter is in the fruit, you can get the good texture the questioner was looking for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.529746
| 2011-07-24T00:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16354",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew Mishura",
"Conspicuous Compiler",
"KatieK",
"Megha",
"Michael Nielsen",
"MickLH",
"Nini Michaels",
"Ray",
"Rick ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rumtscho",
"tim human"
],
"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
}
|
8982
|
Uses for Old bread dough
I found some old bread dough that I had left, sealed in tupperware, in my fridge. It has a powerful fermented smell, but doesn't appear to be moldy or otherwise bad. Is there any use for this fermented dough? The dough was water, salt, oil, sugar, and yeast and has been hanging in my fridge for about 2 months.
edited question to reflect comments
Mix it into new batches of artisan bread. It will give you some awesome flavor.
I doubt that sealed in the fridge it was able to pick up any interesting bacteria that would make it a sourdough starter but it would still be a more adventerous flavor than a young dough.
You could try making bread with just this dough but I would be afraid of it being too acidic and strongly flavored. I personally would just use it as a starter for other batches of bread.
On top of the bread made with all of this dough being too strong, the over proofing that has probably taken place might not give it the best texture - too bubbly (and not in a big and open crumb way) and not firm enough.
I will give this a try and see what happens!
justkt: I think the way to handle it would be to use a small amount of it sort of as a starter like a biga or poolish. You'd basically use a little of this dough in place of some of your flour, and you wouldn't add any other yeast. Then work as normal for the bread you make.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.530399
| 2010-11-09T16:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8982",
"authors": [
"Alex Ford",
"PricklyPete",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"justkt",
"philosodad",
"user18372",
"user18379"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87227
|
After baking, bread coated with shiny residue
Started making sourdough bread at home. Baked last night in non-stick pans (Cuisinart, Xylan coating, I think) and left to cool off overnight.
This morning, I took a look at the bread, and it's coated in metallic-like shiny gray residue.
What's going on here?
Are the pans defective and shouldn't have done that, so we should return them for new ones?
Am I an idiot for putting somewhat acidic (sourdough, after all) food into a non-stick (steel-base) baking pan?
Something else?
I’ve known sourdough baked in pans to have a very shiny and crust where it was in contact with the pan, but never metallic or the colour of anything but bread crust. I assume the flour was just plain wheat flour etc?
I'll grab a picture from my wife's phone asap. Bear with me.
Yeah, no fancy weird flour. Just plain or whole wheat. Some sunflower seeds in there as well.
It looks indeed like the Sourdough and the anti-stick disagree with each other... though the extent of it is something I have neither seen nor heard about yet! May be the non-stick version you do have. If the dough was left in the pan to rise for a while, that may have been part of it.
But I have to say, except for the issue with your pan, the bread looks amazing!!!
Agreed. I have loaf pans that are explicitly labeled as „sourdough proof“.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.530554
| 2018-01-22T19:42:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87227",
"authors": [
"Lagerbaer",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"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
}
|
34100
|
How to soften diced meat that was has had too much of its juices leave from being cooked too long?
I have a bad habit of wanting to over cook meat on the frying pan. It's from a phobia that any juices or red/pink coloring inside the meat may contain bacteria/germs etc. So when I cook diced meat on the frying pan I leave them on till there is not red/pinkness left in them, but they are then dry and hard. It is unpleasant to chew.
I would like to know if it is possible to soften the meat again and maybe add some juice from a sauce maybe into the meat to make it more tender and tasty. I tried boiling or sautee but this did nothing.
EDIT: this applies to beef and lamb
what kind of meat?
@waxeagle, lamb and beef
In the general case, it is not possible.
As you cook meat past about 165 F, all of the proteins will have denatured and contracted, squeezing out moisture. This is what makes well done meat tough and stringy or rubbery. This process cannot really be reversed, although you can try to mask it with a sauce.
In the specific case of certain cuts--the ones famous for braises or barbecue, the "low and slow" cooking techniques--there is some hope, but it is a thin one depending on what you have been doing.
These cuts, the most active working parts of the animal such as the shoulders (chuck for beef or butt for pork) have a great deal of intramuscular fat, as well as connective tissue made of a protein called collagen.
Over time, when cooked slowly at temperatures of about 180 F, the collagen in the meat will turn into gelatin, which has a silky, smooth mouth feel, and the fat will lubricate the meat. They still have their proteins irreversibly dentures and tightened, but the gelatin and fat provide a new kind of moisture and unctuousness that is highly prized.
The cooking techniques for this (braising, barbecuing, slow roasting) are rarely employed for chops or steaks that you would do in the frying pan. They also simply don't have the collagen or the fat to make it possible. That is why they are better off with the higher temperature, faster cooking methods, but should not be overcooked, as you have discovered to your dismay.
Your best option is not to try to recover from this situation, which is very difficult to do, but rather to learn to prevent it:
Get a good instant read thermometer to check the internal temperature of your steaks or chops
Learn what the safe temperature is for that type of meat. For example, poultry and pork should both be cooked to at least 155 F (and for poultry, many people have learned to like even more done meat)
The FDA recommends 165 F for ground meat (which is quite well done)
Measure the temperature of your meat and learn to recognize when it is done
Assess what level of risk you are willing to accept
Over time, you will learn to recognize when cuts are done to your liking by how they feel when you poke them with your finger (which is a pretty good indication of how done they are, based on how resilient they are), but the thermometer will be your guide until you build that experience.
Still, this will require that you adjust your expectations of what completely cooked meat looks like. Pork may still be a touch rosy, for example.
I would add that a person who finds themselves only able to eat meat cooked to no trace of pink would be well served to start buying cheaper cuts and give up on those that are best served rare (lamb chop for example)
@SAJ12SAJ / Kate Gregory, if I were to boil the meat for an hour, would it make a difference?
You would get tough flavorless meat as the flavor will go into the water making a broth, but leaving the meat itself fairly unpalatable and very tough or rubbery.
First. You're working with meat that either should be served medium rare or slow cooked for a long time. Just barely cooking it through will lead to dry tough meat.
Some things you can do to mitigate this are to use either red wine marinade or a meat tenderizer before you cook it. This will allow your meat to start breaking down before it cooks so that it will be softer when cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.530699
| 2013-05-13T16:38:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34100",
"authors": [
"Buğra Gedik",
"Drizzt Do'Urden",
"Janet Cummings",
"Kate Gregory",
"N_Moksnes",
"Nobby Why EtonPasta",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"karen",
"wax eagle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20920
|
Tough roast.. what's going wrong?
My housemate often manages to pick up reduced meat from the local supermarket (Sainsbury's in the UK) at the time he comes home.
It's usually silverside, topside or brisket of beef. Occasionally it's pork shoulder.
Without fail however my meat ends up "tough". Here's the exact procedure I follow for my standard "roast":
Take frozen joint of meat out of the freezer around 8-10AM.
Prepare 2 onions, celery, carrots and half bulb garlic. Throw them in my roasting pan.
Season joint with salt and pepper, pour extra virgin olive oil over it, sear it in a frying pan.
Cook at 20degC less than the suggested temperatures for the suggested times according to my MasterChef book, specifically for that cut of meat. For instance tonight's brisket was 900g - I cooked it at 160degC for 1h30m.
Rest for 10-15m while I make the gravy and finish off the potatoes in another pan.
I cook it at 20deg less because it's a fan oven.
Can anyone explain the factors that affect how tough the meat becomes? Am I not searing properly? Is the meat prone to being tough because it's not fresh (reduced stuff)? Is it not defrosting for long enough?
Thanks in advance,
Just to clarify, when you say reduced meat, you mean meat "on sale" right? I say this because the word "reduced" has its own meaning in terms of cooking.
Yeah, sorry - on sale :)
See also Cooking Cheap Cuts of Beef and How to cook eye of round roast? this is a pretty commonly-asked question here.
Meat is tough for two reasons:
1- An abundance of connective tissue.
2- When over cooked.
In your case I'd say you probably have both problems. Cheap meat is tough meat. It is from older animals or well worked muscle groups. This means that it has been fortified with a lot of extra connective tissue. It also means it has a lot of flavor.
The solution to #1 is slow, wet cooking that will melt that connective tissue into delicious gelatin. Braising is the normal way to do this. When meat is heated too far, even if the connective tissue has been carefully melted out, the meat proteins bunch up and stiffen- resulting in #2, a dry, unpleasant meal.
You are buying tough meat and cooking it relatively quickly with no thermometer. You don't have enough time or moisture to melt the collagen and you can't be sure you haven't over cooked the meat because you don't know the temperature. Using time doesn't work because chunks of meat are irregularly shaped so you can't know how long it will take for the heat to penetrate.
Buy yourself a probe thermometer to prevent #2. For #1 look for pot roast recipes. Some are easily done in slow cookers- others use a tent of sealed foil over the meat to seal in moisture. Plan on it taking much longer than your 1.5 hours. 3-6 hours are typical to produce a really succulent pot roast.
The searing is just for flavor and will not play a role in either melting collagen or cooking the interior of the meat.
Great answer, I'd +1 you if I could...! I'm not sure it's overcooking; my brisket this evening was pink on the middle - and still chewy! The tent idea however is a good idea. What would you suggest for timings if I'm using foil? Happy to use a thermometer - I do actually have one somewhere.
Browsing a couple recipes online it seems a good starting point would be 300F (150C) for 4 hours.
I can finally +1, so I have :) Thanks very much.
A brisket will not be tough if it's overcooked, just dry. In fact, it will barely hold together (and be dry).
One way to combat the chewiness would be to slice very thinly against the grain. The long strands in the protein will be very chewy if you don't cut across the grain and still be chewy unless it's really thin. Thin lunch meat, that would really be chewy if it wasn't shaved so thin.
Just as a heads-up to anyone else reading this;
I cooked a 1.3Kg joint of brisket at 140 degrees Celsius (fan oven) for 3 hours.
It was absolutely beautiful. Tender; melt-in-your-mouth kind of stuff.
So, for anyone looking to cook brisket or silverside, give this a go. Lorraine Pascale has an excellent recipe for it in this book.
I may be completely missing something here but whenever I use brisket I use it as part of a slow roast or casserole. It's not a particularly tender cut but when cooked properly the results can be astounding, cheaper cuts can't be used like more expensive ones but when cooked properly they have a rich deep flavor that makes my mouth water.
I would cook it like you've done but just for a long time say 4 hours and then I'd turn the oven up to 200 C for half an hour to crisp it up. Here's a recipe by good old Hugh: http://www.channel4.com/4food/recipes/chefs/hugh-fearnley-whittingstall/slow-roast-beef-brisket-recipe.
If you don't have time for slow roasting buy a more expensive cut just less often or you could try some offal which is cheap as chips but delicious!
Hope this helps!
That looks like exactly the answer for the brisket. Any ideas for the other cuts?
Have a look at this website: http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/content/recipes/favourites/cheap-cut/.
@dunc: Any cheap cut of meat with a lot of tough connective tissue is going to need to be cooked long and slow to make it tender. Slow roasting (with adequate moisture) is a common choice, as is braising (in a slow cooker, or just on very low heat on the stove). That's just the process; the recipe is up to you.
In addition to the other excellent answers, making sure it's completely defrosted on the inside is also quite important. I once made that mistake of not thawing the meat completely assuming it would be fine since it would be sitting for 6 hours in a slow cooker, but it came out tough and it ended up tasting like it was overcooked even though I know I've cooked that recipe for 8 hours before (more time didn't really help either, stayed about the same)
I think that's what happened last night Davy - it certainly wasn't fully defrosted when I put it in the oven, but my housemate was rather impatient to eat so I put it in at 60degC for 20mins before the rest of the cooking process. Doubt that did the trick though. Cheers.
Brisket has a lot of connective tissue. A LOT. If a cut like brisket (or chuck, or pork shoulder) is tough, that's because it's undercooked. Time/temperature in a recipe is more a guideline. You're going to have to use tactile cues to determine whether or not your meat is done. You should be able to slide a fork through your brisket with little resistance. If you can't, then keep cooking it.
What does the trick for me has been to let the meat cool in the refrigerator then heat it back up a second time. The initial cooking phase converts the connective tissue into collagen, but it needs to dissolve into gelatin in order to prevent the roast from being tough. Letting the collagen cool first makes this second step easier and quicker
Slow cooking at low temperatures is a method to make meat that is gently-pull-apart-with-your-fork tender. Get a medium to large size crock pot/slow cooker. I find that the smaller size crock pots run at too high a temperature, but the larger ones have a good solid low temp. I throw a seven-bone roast into my crock pot and expect to wait 6 hours until it's tender. Good crock pot roast recipes abound, as well! Have fun!
If you have tough meat and don't have all day to cook it, use a pressure cooker. After an hour or so, almost anything will submit!
Try cooking your meat, on gas mark 4, for 4- 5 hours you might find its lovely and tender. slow cooking meat is better
as the accepted answer says, slow cooking meat is only good for meat with lots of connective tissue. If you have a nice tender piece of meat, cooking it for 4-5 hours will make it inedible.
Topside 1kg
Bring meat to room temp
Cover in goose fat
Season well
Cook for 1 hour 5 mins
First 20mins at 220c
45 mins at 180c
Perfect roast every time
The trick to cooking a tough cook of meat is to make sure the cut is dry (pat dry thoroughly with a paper towel) to not cook the cut for very long. I usually throw the meat on the grill to rare/medium-rare, when it is most tender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.531111
| 2012-01-30T20:50:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20920",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alberta E Qamar",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Dee",
"Drezy",
"Elaine Garcia",
"Jay",
"Jerry Stratton",
"John Crisp",
"Post169",
"Sean Hart",
"Sebiddychef",
"Sobachatina",
"a non uh muss",
"floojack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8938",
"rumtscho",
"turbonerd",
"user46049"
],
"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
}
|
102695
|
Reheatable pizza dough
Let's say I'm using a 100% white bread flour 70% hydration dough (with or without oil) for pizza to be baked in a home oven; how should I change the formula, or how can I tweak the recipe for a reheatable pie instead of one to be eaten fresh out of the oven? The aim is to avoid dried out crust, fat separation from the cheese, and burnt bits.
By "reheatable", do you mean you want to half-bake the pizza and complete the baking later, or that you want to cook it normally and have the leftovers be microwaveable, or..?
I was thinking along the lines of fully cooked with toppings then reheated in an oven.
Can you clarify what properties it is you think make a dough more successfully reheatable?
I often reheat all types of pizza in a low oven for 5-10 minutes, provided it's within the next couple of days. Have you tried just using your current recipe? I'd be tempted to take it out on the earlier side of done, just so you don't end up burning any part of it and also thick bases reheat better in my experience
@Bee that’s funny, I think thinner crust reheats better because you don’t dry out the toppings waiting for the thermal inertia of thick dough to be overcome!
I reckon Spagirl and Bee might like different toppings or different arrangements of their toppings - so Ayman will have to experiment to see which is better
@Spagirl I don't want my crust to dry out and I don't want oily cheese (fat separation). For the former I'm guessing dough hydration would be key, for the latter I'm not really sure how it can be avoided.
I should add that this is not pan / granny / deep dish pizza, but rather a NY style one (just smaller due to oven size).
Can you please add your criteria for what makes "good reheated" pizza to the question? That would make it answerable.
I don't think the dough formula is the issue. Instead, you might experiment with par-cooking your pizza. The first comment from @Sneftel has it right. Maybe start with a half-cooked pizza. Adjust from there. Any fully cooked, then reheated pizza will likely over cook, or incur the problems you are trying to avoid.
I guess that makes sense. One should either make a pizza to be eaten immedietly, or eaten later, but to be good for both is an overstretch (NPI). Maybe if I want a pie ready for oven but for later I can just parcook the crust, then add raw toppings and freeze for later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.532218
| 2019-10-03T07:19:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102695",
"authors": [
"Ayman Elmasry",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gamora",
"Sneftel",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8955"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6964
|
What is the proper way to make a cup of mate?
I've seen different videos on how to make a perfect cup of mate. After putting loose tea in the gourd, some people cover the gourd and shake it upside down, some people shake it on its side, some people don't shake it at all. This is all in an effort to move the smaller bits (after you've right the gourd back up) to the top, so that when you insert the bombilla (metal straw with tiny holes at the bottom), the smaller bits won't be sucked up.
What is the proper way?
The proper way:
1) Put the bombilla into the gourd.
2) Put the mate in the gourd.
3) Invert, shake vigorously, revert. If possibe, make a small "mountain top" on the oposite side where the bombilla enters the mate tea.
4) Add a small amount of cold water (this isn't necessary--as I understand, this step helps to keep from burning the mate, which can also be accomplished by using water under 180℉~82℃), wait for a few minutes, until the mate absorbs the water.
5) Add hot water, drink.
6) Repeat step 5.
Don't move the bombilla while drinking, as this will cause you to stir up little bits. Inverting and shaking isn't necessary if the mate is of high quality (low dust). You can make mate to low dust by putting it in a metal sieve and shaking. Save the dust and small leaves that fall out--they can be used to brew mate in a coffee pot.
It is also worth noting that you can brew mate in a coffee pot or a french press and achieve similar results, although the resulting beverage isn't quite the same as drinking from the bombilla.
Also, the second most common way to prepare it is like plain tea: put some mate tea in a paper bag and steep with hot water for several minutes. This is called mate cocido (cooked mate) and is not uncommon to offer it to children.
And what about chimarrao?
Mate = the ritual
Mate = also means the gourd or wooden cup you use
Yerba = the ground up tea
bombilla = metal straw
termo = thermos with hot water, not boiled
Fill the mate with yerba about 3/4 of the way
Place hand over the mate and shake anyway you would like. The goal is to remove the dust because the straw will not be able to filter this out.
Fill the mate with a small amount of water on one side and pack the yerba into one side creating a 1/4 empty space
Pour water into the empty 1/4 and insert bombilla covering the top to prevent tea or water from entering (just like cover a regular straw and inserting into a cup to prevent liquid from entering)
The "servidor" is the person in charge of serving the mate. This person takes the first cup and tests the water temp, rids the cup and bombilla of any dust or bits of yerba that go through the bombilla the first sips.
*Note- it is an insult if you are to pass the first testing round to a guest.
Each mate full of water is per person. A good servidor will pour water over only part of the dry section of tea in order to allow each person a tasty mate.
Continue serving, wetting more and more of the dry tea section each serving until all is wet and the taste begins to wither.
Video Reference: How to prepare and serve mate correctly
I dont know how you are choosing to define the "proper way" but here is my answer
My understanding is that there are two things you are avoiding when making the matte the first is is the bomba getting gunked up with the herb and the second is excessive bitterness
You avoid the first by making sure that the mate is correctly packed into the gourd. There are many ways to do this and I beleive this is where all the shaking techniques you mentioned come from. I do this by first adding a little cold water to the herb (enough to just get it wet) and pressing it into one side of the gourd with a spoon. If this is done right the herb will stay put when you pour in hot water and all you have to do is make sure the bomba sits on the empty side. This should be enough to ensure that it doesnt get stuck although it is important not undo the packing by mistake.
The second is avoided by basically not drinking the matte untill it has had a bit of its flavour washed out. I generally do this by making the first cup or two and spitting it out. I do this by preparing the matte normally but some members of my family tell me that this can be done with cold water too (Probably much easier).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.532460
| 2010-09-08T03:57:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6964",
"authors": [
"Bagus Trihatmaja",
"David N. Andrews MEd CPSE",
"Nikolay Yasinskiy",
"Sean Eberhard",
"Somebody still uses you MS-DOS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81106",
"Ángel"
],
"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
}
|
2997
|
How can I make a panna cotta based on Jelly bellys?
I want to make popcorn panna cotta. I had a couple of ideas for this, either steeping milk in popped corn or (my preferred option) melting butter popcorn Jelly Belly beans into the milk and then making a panna cotta from that.
These were to be served as petit four with a caramelised popcorn piece on top, and so I was going to make them in ice cube trays so each one was bite size.
However I wasn't able to get the texture right. I tried melting different amounts of jelly belly beans in my milk, but they never seemed to solidify just going a sort of thick creamy consistency with the tops sometimes getting a skin on in the more concentrated versions. Then if I added gelatine as I would for making a panna cotta then they came out firm and rubbery.
So apart from continuing to try different amounts of gelatine in my dissolved Jelly Belly mixture, does anyone have any ideas what I might be able to do to get this to work?
(I'm going to try using the steeped milk/real popcorn version again, but this wasn't that popcorny and tasted slightly of the oil that the corn was popped in. It should at least be easier to get the consistency right on that one)
It might be that the interior part of the Jelly Bellys are messing up the texture of the finished product. Have you tried just infusing them long enough for the sugar coating to dissolve, and then straining out the jelly like interiors? I believe that the sugar part is what contains all the flavor, and the "guts" are just plain. HTH!
Grant Achatz does quite a lot with popcorn at Alinea. One of his recipes is available as part of the preview of his book on Google Books and is just about readable. Looks like he goes with the steeping method (although he's using water). I ate at Alinea recently and there was a popcorn soup on the menu that tasted exactly like popcorn, so it's probably a good place to start (continue?).
A friend once made a "Movie Theatre" Panna Cotta. It was a normal panna cotta, but he served it with a Coca Cola syrup (just heavily reduced Coke) and some home made Cracker Jacks. It was delicious. So good luck with yours.
Edit:
The basics of the recipe:
Cook 100g uncooked popcorn kernels (he does it stove top with 25g canola oil)
Add to 750g water, 7g kosher salt, 90g butter, 75g sugar. Simmer for 5 minutes
Strain through china cap, blend, strain through chinoise.
thanks for that, but I can't see the recipe, or a preview from that link...
Hmmmm, the link works for me, even if I copy / paste it in to a different browser. A google books search for ACHATZ POPCORN should turn it up.
I've added the basics of the recipe. I wasn't sure if this was appropriate for the site though. Should I be putting other people's recipe's here rather than just linking or is it OK because the recipe is available freely on the internet? I can remove if appropriate.
Using popped corn may be a bit too literal. What you really need is the flavor of corn and of butter. Butter flavor should be easy to incorporate using real butter, though you may want to use clarified. For the corn flavor, I would try using some roasted corn. Fresh would be ideal, though you could probably get away with frozen.
This sounds like an intriguing dish. Please post back when you find a successful technique.
Steeping the flavouring in milk as a very typical approach used by Heston Blumenthal to get very similar effects to what you are after so I would definitely give it a try. He did this many times on his Heston's Feasts series.
I'll second mjobrian, you might do better getting the flavors of corn and butter added to your mix separately, especially if you're having trouble with the jelly beans. I would also second the request for an update once you find a recipe that works, this sounds very good.
You might look at hominy, just the stuff that comes in cans - it has a corn taste where the flavor is more like popped corn rather than sweet corn (if it helps, I've gotten this flavor from white hominy). With the addition of salt and butter, it tastes very much like popcorn, and the texture is soft and starchy (it reminds me of potato) - and you might find it easier to extract the flavor from or get into a panna cotta or a petit-four-friendly texture.
Also, there might be ways to get a better flavor from steeping real popcorn - this recipe uses hot cream (with salt and sugar) to steep the popcorn,perhaps the extra fats (compared to milk) or extra heat, or just a different proportion, may give a stronger flavor. This recipe simmers the popcorn with water, butter and salt, this one presses the soft parts of the soaked, simmered popcorn through a strainer and adds these soft solids back - though in your case, you might not want the texture, but you can still blend them in for a thicker and a bit more flavorful liquid. If you're concerned about off flavors from the popping oil, you can use clarified butter to pop the corn in.
Alternately, you could look for the kind of flavoring or extract they use to make this kind of candy - it may be specialized, but it might not be more expensive than buying multiple bagsful of butter-popcorn jelly beans to experiment and cook with. I saw this popcorn extract, it looks plain but I suppose butter and salt could be added separately. this company, Amorelli's, has both an extract and a paste in salted butter popcorn flavor. Anyway, you can look yourself - the point is these products exist
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.532864
| 2010-07-23T13:46:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2997",
"authors": [
"Evan Krall",
"Ghigo",
"Jason Watkins",
"Jeremy",
"McArthey",
"Sam Holder",
"canadiancreed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5438",
"pawelbrodzinski",
"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
}
|
2422
|
Should I roast meat/bones before making stock out of it?
Usually when making a chicken stock I just boil up some chicken wings/legs with some veggies. The other day when cooking with my brother he added roasted lamb bones to the strained chicken stock when making a lamb jus.
This got me thinking why I don't roast the wings/legs when making a chicken stock, and why he didn't just add raw bones to the chicken stock.
So should I roast my chicken bones before boiling them up for stock? And can I add lamb bones to my stock raw?
Roasting the bones first will add a deeper flavor. The roast flavor may or may not be desired, it depends on your preferences.
This is from the article I've posted below: "Roasting caramelizes them, heightening sweetness and deepening flavor. But any blackening will make meat stock bitter. 'You don't want that burned bone thing,' cautions Keller."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/FD0JSAGEJ.DTL
that article seems to imply that for chicken, I shouldn't roast the bones, just cook them, and for meat stocks the bones should be roasted. So what about duck, which is what I'm making?
For chicken stock, you probably want to roast the bones, and add a little tomato paste as well. I say this assuming that you want to use the chicken stock as the general stock in your kitchen, possibly reducing some of it to demi-glace state, etc.
If you know you will want some very light stock, say, for a soup that absolutely requires light clear broth, or ... I'm blanking on other reasons ... then don't roast the chicken bones.
If, on the other hand, you are already making veal stock for your kitchen (which by the way is nice, roasted and unroasted), then I would suggest you go light, as there's no situation that I can think of in which dark veal stock is worse than dark chicken stock.
Tomato paste, soy sauce, walnuts, dried shittake mushrooms all have flavoring compounds that characterize "unami." Combinations seem to add a certain degree of synergy over just more of one or the other. Good suggestion.
While roasting bones does affect the flavor it will also darken the stock as well. Roasting bones is usually done with beef and veal. Usually when chicken bones are roasted it is to make a brown chicken stock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.533312
| 2010-07-20T18:46:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2422",
"authors": [
"Beta",
"Michael Kohne",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sam Holder",
"Spartan",
"Willian Mitsuda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61838"
],
"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
}
|
2290
|
Tips for cooking a whole lamb in a fire pit?
A while ago we tried to cook a whole lamb in a fire pit. Basically we dug a pit about 2-2.5 feet deep, lined it with rocks to try and retain the heat, made a large fire in it, and started to drink. Then when the fire had died down a bit we lined the fire with some damp straw, put in the hessian wrapped lamb, put more damp straw on top then covered the whole thing with earth and left for 24 hours.
When we dug it up, the lamb was done beautifully on the fire side, but raw on the top.
What might we have done wrong, apart from getting drunk whilst the fire was burning? Has anyone done this before and what are the things that we should bear in mind if we do it again?
I think that getting drunk may have been the thing you did right :)
In the past when I've cooked in the ground I put rocks into the fire. Don't really know what sort of rocks, but I've been involved in sessions that use bricks.
Point is that you needs some way to "envelope" the heat around the thing you are cooking so what we did was put the rocks into the fire to heat them up.
Carefully remove the rocks before putting the lamb in and then put the hot rocks on top of the hessian covered meat before putting the dirt back on top.
Let it sit for a while and you should get a much more even result
oops, forgot to say that we lined the pit with rocks before making the fire. The fire was very large, flames up to hip/chest height at its biggest, and so even when it had died down it was still substantial, so getting the rocks out would not have been possible. The idea behind the straw on top was to try and create a layer in which the air could circulate, a bit like an oven. Maybe we just didn't have enough of a layer of straw. We could have placed more rocks in the fire though and put them on the lamb then the straw on top, that would have helped keep air flowing too. nice idea...
The best way to cook a Lamb (leg) in a Pit:
We do this on hunting trips, its the best thing you can have when you are tired, beat and hungry as hell.
Firstly use a lamb leg (or two, but lay them flat in the ground. the whole lamb is very complex. requires at least 12 hours of cooking with a wood stack of 20 to 25kg
Lamb leg Technique:
dig up a pit in ground 1 foot.
marinate the lamb leg (at least 2 to 3 hours)(use any recipe for marination)
Cover it with think layer of dough (like the pizzas dough, if you cannot do this step than skip it)
Cover the dough with aluminium foil (triple if no dough)
Plan the lamb leg in the pit cover about 8 to 10 inches only
Place the wood on top, stack about 5 to 6 kg of wood.
allow 5 hours of cooking time.
(if the meat is not done for any odd reason that re foil it and cook it on the coal from the wood)
And when its done the cooked dough and the meat is magical. specially when its in the middle of no where.
I hope this helps:
I've always done "Fire on both bottom and top" and came out with a lamb that falls apart every time. But make only a gentle fire on top after the initial burial. It also depends on how well you cover your meat with soil and which soil your pit is in.
Welcome to the site. Your post was a bit unclear and marked as low-quality and I tried to edit it. Please check whether I understood you correctly. Perhaps you'd like to explain a bit more how exactly you do your lamb - this would make this answer a lot better. As you claim to know how to do it: Please teach us...
Try forming some sort of wire cage with some reinforcing mesh to place over the rocks (under the meat) as well as over the meat (leaving a bit of a gap between the top mesh and the meat and not touching the meat) that will allow the heat from the rocks underneath to circulate around all of the meat. Line the bottom of the cage with banana palm leaves, cabbage leaves or tinfoil as a last resort. Place the meat in the cage/tray, cover the meat with some damp cheesecloth followed by some wet hessian sacks over the mesh cage. Cover that with soil over the top and around the edges to seal the heat in. That should ensure a nice even cook of the meat. Chuck in (with the meat but not in contact with it) a muslin bag of frozen peas and a separate bag of spuds & that's dinner :-) Should take about three hours but depends on how hot the rocks are.
AFAIK the traditional way of cooking something in a fire pit involves building the fire on top of the buried carcass. But I might be wrong here.
I've never heard that and I would then be concerned about the bottom of the beast not being cooked, after all heat rises...
Could always do both...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.533530
| 2010-07-20T07:45:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2290",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Adi Shavit",
"Becky Metcalf",
"Déjà vu",
"Jenn M",
"Ron Macgroucutt",
"Sam Holder",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"overstood",
"seema lokhande"
],
"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
}
|
21180
|
What can I use to strain gritty bloody mary mix?
I like Zing Zang bloody mary mix, but it's very gritty with seasoning. I like to pour it into a strainer to filter out the grit, but the mix is so thick that it takes forever to strain. Not only that, it doesn't get all the grit. A strainer with smaller holes would help keep out more grit, but the thickness of the mix would make it impossible.
I've thought of adding a cup of water to the mix to thin it out, but then I'd have to boil out the water and I don't know how to measure how much water I've boiled out nor do I know what effect boiling would have on the flavor of the bloody mary.
Any ideas?
Update: It's looking like my only option so far is to get a high-grade blender that I can use to pulverize a entire bottle of premade mix.
Boiling it would cook away the alcohol. It's probably not a good idea to boil it but if you do, make sure you do it BEFORE you add the alcohol.
It's just the mix. Once I get the mix just right, then I add it.
Did you try to press it with a ladle or something similar, while straining it?
That's what I end up doing and I end up having to spend quite a bit of time cleaning the grit out of the screen =\
Tomato juice + spice, why bother with the mix?
Personally, I like to use Demitri's bloody mary mix. I pour it into my Magic Bullet and blend it real good to smooth it out then pour a spoonful in tomato juice. The problem is that I can only get it online and it's expensive with the shipping, so I get premade mixes like Zing Zang. It's easy to blend the grit out of Demitri's because the quantity is to small as opposed to the premade mixes.
Line a salad spinner with cheese cloth or another lightweight cloth. Fill and spin.
I like the idea, but, as I said to another answerer, cheese cloth would most likely not allow the thickness of the mix to pass through. As it is, I have to use a rubber spatula just to push the mix through a mesh strainer.
The idea of using the salad spinner is that the spinning action will force the mix through the cloth.
Pour the mix in something like a coffee grinder and grind it into a fine powder.
I didn't realize that your mix was liquid. For liquid, go for something like a Vitamix or such if you want assured pulverized results.
I've done this with my Magic Bullet, but it's not as effective as I'd like it to be. I think that if I had a better blender/grinder, this idea would be perfect. Any idea on a device that would do this job very well?
Well, as rfusca mentioned, a coffee grinder. Perhaps a mortar and pestle could do the trick too. Or a simple rolling pin could be better than nothing, I think.
Actually, I didn't make it clear that this mix is in liquid form and not powdered form. When I go to blend it, whatever blender I use needs to be able to accept liquid. I am not sure that a coffee grinder is meant for that. However, I bet a high-grade blender would do well in turning the grit into virtual nothingness. I have been wanting to spend a couple hundred on a really good blender, so maybe it's time to switch.
Well, I finally found the PERFECT solution to my dilemma. Here it is:
I fill it as full as I can with the mix (it's liquid and comes in a bottle) and then tap it downward on top of my glass. The combination of gravity and momentum caues the mix to easily make it through the mesh of the strainer as soon as it encounters the shock from making contact with the glass. Doing it this way lets me enjoy a smooth, grit-free bloody mary!
Perhaps using something like fine grade cheesecloth would let the liquid flow through easily enough but still catch a reasonable amount of the solid particles?
A mesh straner is hard enough. I don't think a cheese cloth would even allow the thick mix through without the grit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.533981
| 2012-02-08T20:54:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21180",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Mien",
"Ray",
"Sid England",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9072",
"oscilatingcretin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59431
|
Does temperature of water affect carbonation process
For sake of the question:
I'm using a Sodastream brand
I like max carbonation
Normally, I use cold water from my Brita pitcher out of the refrigerator
Sodastream's FAQ states:
However, we do recommend using COLD water to achieve best results.
I suspect that best results means max carbonation, and I should use cold water. Or a conspiracy theorist could suggest their lawyers promote cold water so fewer machines will blow up. Or maybe it has something to do with flavor..
Anyway, just curious about this. I don't have the physics pedigree to know the answer.
I'm not sure about CO2 -- it's true for oxygen (it's the same thing that causes hot water discharges into rivers to cause fish kills), but CO behaves the other way. See http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/temperature-gas-solubility.shtml
@Joe - Solubility of CO in many organic solvents (benzene, acetone, etc.) changes direction at some point. But CO solubility in water increases with decreasing temperature, like most gases. (Your link explains why in more detail.)
@Athanasius : oops ... that's what I get for skimming. (chem wasn't one of my strongest classes)
Carbon Dioxide (and gases in general) dissolve more easily in cold liquids. This means that it's easier to carbonate (inject with Carbon Dioxide) your soda using cold water than warm. As your liquid heats up the gas falls out of solution creating the bubbles in your soda. Fountain dispensers usually have the water lines run through the ice hopper (or they have a cold plate) to further chill the cold water they feed to the machines for this same reason.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.534297
| 2015-07-28T16:38:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59431",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chee ying Ng",
"Elaine Ryan",
"Joe",
"John Laney",
"Kathie Roberts",
"Lou Anne Harrey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"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
}
|
2750
|
Can I convert jam into chutney?
I made a rhubarb jam a little while ago, basically rhubarb, sugar and grated ginger. Its quite gingery.
I've now made some duck terrine and fancy serving it with some chutney. I have some chutney, but I wouldn't mind trying to convert some of my rhubarb jam into a rhubarb chutney, to use tonight.
Not really sure how I might go about this, but was thinking I might soften some onions and garlic, then mix these and some cider vinegar into some of the jam.
Is this likely to work? Anyone got any better ideas? Would it be different if I had more time?
Perfect idea and great multi-use of your jam! Your plan is perfect...just create a nice sweet tart balance to your liking. If you want a little more texture you could plump up some golden or dark raisins by nuking them in the microwave before adding. Coriander seed is often used and provides a little texture contrast as well. A bit of ground allspice could be good as well.
Just to say, I went with ground allspice and some roughly ground caraway seeds and it worked a treat. Thanks again.
Great! Glad you liked it.
I had the same dilemma. Last year I used the plums from my plum tree to make a lot of plum jam and (as an afterthought) only one jar of plum chutney. Most of the jam went into the freezer. I ate one jar of it but I don't eat jam much so the remaining jam has been sitting in the freezer for nearly a year! However the chutney went VERY quickly as I like it with curry. So, today, I took the remaining plum jam from the freezer, defrosted it and put it into a big pot. In a separate pan I fried 4 chopped/diced onions, a couple chopped/diced carrots, some garlic, some ginger, and threw in various herbs that I found in the cupboards and let it cook for a while, then added about 400ml of white-wine vinegar and 400ml of red-wine vinegar and then combined it with the now bubbling jam, stirred it for a bit and then let it cool. I now have 4 good-sized jars of tasty plum chutney. Yummy!
I like all Darin's suggestions, but my contribution (late, as usual) is to suggest using apple or banana to mix with the jam.
Core out and chop an apple, microwave it for a minute or two, and you have the perfect "tart balance" material to mix with that jam. If you're feeling lazy, you will find you can separate the flesh from the peel with a spoon after microwaving. Stick with the allspice and coriander - my two favorite spices.
Banana will also work in the same way, but you get less texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.534478
| 2010-07-22T11:54:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2750",
"authors": [
"Darin Sehnert",
"DonielF",
"Nicole",
"Sam Holder",
"Spoike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57325"
],
"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
}
|
2026
|
Alternatives to halloumi?
Are there other cheeses which have similar properties to halloumi, like the fact that it doesn't melt easily and can be grilled, fried or barbequed?
my halloumi melts :(
I'm not familiar with halloumi, but if you're looking for a cheese that won't melt, and holds up well (doesn't fall apart like feta), you might try ricotta salata.
There is a Salvadorian cheese called "para fria" (for frying), tasty, salty.
Paneer (Indian cottage cheese) doesn't really melt and is often fried. Other cottage cheeses, and I suspect cheeses made with low-fat dairy, will have high melting points.
Yogurt-based cheeses (feta) don't melt much, but don't have a lot of structural integrity either.
Edit:
The Wikipedia article above linked to farmer cheese, which linked to Queso Blanco, which is a Mexican farmer cheese that is also resistant to melting (although apparently there are different types that do melt). Flavor is sorta similar to halloumi, although I've only had one brand and flavors probably vary.
Juustoleipä, or bread cheese, is made in Wisconsin by at least two cheese makers. It doesn’t have any bread but the color resembles toasted bread. It has characteristics similar to halloumi. I have broiled and fried it.
It was originally made from reindeer milk, but now made from cows' milk.
It hat Finnish roots, right?
The name sounds like it to me. There were many Finnish immigrant to northern Wisconsin and Michigan.
Scamorza, either smoked or unsmoked, can be also grilled or fried.
I have seen it also sold in flat shaped disks, purposely for grilling it, which can be more convenient than having to slice the traditional pear shaped form. They go under the name "scamorzina" in Italian supermarkets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.534816
| 2010-07-19T16:01:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2026",
"authors": [
"Albert",
"David Kuridža",
"David Smith",
"Joe",
"MandoMando",
"MrGomez",
"RYFN",
"Stephie",
"dassouki",
"ericg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87"
],
"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
}
|
90640
|
Bell peppers become either crunchy or soggy
Why can't I ever cook bell peppers to the right consistency?
Particularly in Asian dishes, and I have cut them various ways-- I continue cooking if they seem hard, then they become soggy and/or bitter.
Is there carry-over cooking that happens with bell peppers as there is with eggs?
Do the restaurants have a trick to get them to the proper consistency?
Maybe par boil or blanching prior to stirfry?
Incidentally, what do you consider the right consistency of peppers? I only know them as either crunchy (raw, or in stir fry) or soft (grilled, in stew). Both are delicious, but I’m not aware of a third consistency.
There is a slight carry over with most things you cook. However I think the answer to most "Why is my stir fry not like the restaurant's?" questions, has to do with heat. Their stoves are much, much more powerful. You simply can't get that with a typical home stove.
So, the way to get closest at home is to preheat your wok (or your largest flat, not non stick skillet) till it is screaming hot, add a bit of oil and cook your food in batches; No more than 1 layer and nothing crowding one another. Chef Ming Tsai suggests if you have a stainless steel wok that can go in the oven, to preheat it in there.
It should sizzle and keep sizzling through your cooking. If it isn't, you are steaming it, which will cause your softer texture. The key to stir fry, is to cook it really quickly. With the smaller batches, it'll all cook pretty quickly that in the end it doesn't take that much longer.
Edit: You asked about blanching. You might blanch some harder vegetables, to cut down on stir fry time but I can't see that helping for peppers of any sort.
Cooking in small batches is IMO the single biggest tip to take stir-frys done at home from sub-par to great. Heat's important but a blisteringly hot wok can't prevent steaming if you pile in too much.
Why are people against steaming altogether? This is probably totally inauthentic... but it produces a texture I like in the harder vegetables, ( peppers, broccoli, green beans ..) I have some boiling water standing by. Once,or perhaps twice, in the stir-frying process (moving constantly, as hot as I can) I splash in a tablespoon full, to give a very short period of steaming before the water evaporates. I find the result is a nice crunch, without being raw.
Is it safe to add oil to an already hot pan? I've always added my oil to the pan cold, then heated it until the oil just begins to smoke, then threw in the first batch and turned the burner up as high as it will go (since the pan usually cools quite quickly once the food hits it). I wonder if I can get the pan hotter if there's no oil in it already, but then I wonder what will happen when the cold oil hits the hot pan.
@ToddWilcox depending on how hot the pan is, it'll start to smoke (turn the exhaust to high before adding the oil). As long as you put in a sane amount of oil (and not, say, frying quantities) then smoke is the worst you should get.
@Robin: totally not against steaming, but two things happen when you add water. One you cool the pan down, which will prevent the very high heat rapid cooking that you get from a proper stir fry technique. Second is simply that it's not the same form of heat conduction the food will be different. That said, it isn't necessarily worse, just recognize that it's different. Finishing off hard vegetables with steam after a stir fry isn't uncommon.
@ToddWilcox: conventional Chinese wisdom says "hot wok cold oil". The reasoning is apparently the food sticks less. Also, it might smoke less? more info here: https://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/a-cook-talks-about-woks-and-stir-fries/
@ToddWilcox Yes, you can get the pan much hotter if you wait to add the oil. Adding cold oil will give you the one second or two you need to get the ingredients into the pan before the oil starts smoking (too much) and, with fast mixing, the ingredients will quickly sear, crashing the pan temperature as they do. Heat on maximum is not enough to sustain such a high temperature with wet ingredients in the pan so you have to preload as much heat as possible. That extra boost of heat from the superheated pan can make a big difference to the end result on a normal household range.
@ToddWilcox in addition to all the other comments added here regarding when to add oil, check out: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/2723/25059
Bell Peppers have a very fast change from crisp to soft
This is why you usually encounter them either raw or fully roasted and peeled. They change quickly. In a stir fry, cook them just a couple minutes and accept the slightly crunchy texture, or cook them through. I find this leads to a sometimes 'rubbery' texture, as the skin will not soften in the same way.
Char and peel them
This is the next most common preparation. Accept that cooking them through means soft texture and use them that way.
Cut in thin strips and quickly sautee
This is seen in steak sandwiches and american-mexican restaurant sizzling fajita platters. This way the texture difference between skin and flesh is not noticeable.
Cutting thin is one of the most effective ways to keep things crisp.
If what is desired is a slightly denser texture, oil blanching (a polite term for quickly deep frying the vegetables) might help - the pepper pieces will shrink slightly, reducing water content and potentially intensifying taste. Obviously, they can also be easily overcooked that way, and will be best suited to oily or emulsified sauces since they will be quite oily, especially with the skin on (which does not absorb oil much - but is great at getting plenty of oil stuck to it!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.534998
| 2018-06-28T13:04:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90640",
"authors": [
"J...",
"JustinCB",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Robin Betts",
"Todd Wilcox",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67881",
"logophobe",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71785
|
Blue floaters in canned hot peppers
I've canned hot peppers for years. This year I've developed little blue floaters in the jars. I've never seen this. Does anyone know what this might be???
really? blue? bright blue, turquoisey-blue? purpley-blue? freaky! -- do you have a picture? what shapes are they?
Little light blue flakes
Very new users cannot add pictures yet. Upload the picture somewhere else, for example on imgur.com, and post the link in a comment. We will edit it into the post for you. Sorry for the roundabout thing, it is a protection against spammers and other unsavory types who register only to start posting pictures nobody wants to see.
What is your canning process/recipe, in detail? Many things that "Grandma always did this way" in canning turn out to be somewhat dubious (others turn out to be just fine, such as the vindication of (properly) steaming as equivalent to boiling water immersion, though despite now being research proven for over a year, the word gets out slowly.) But for peppers, unless you are pickling them to make them acidic, a pressure canner is required for safe canning. My first thought with blue is mold of some sort.
This is a few months late, but just in case you haven't resolved this some other way, I'd say that:
First, don't eat them. I think it would be best to contact your local University Extension Service (if you are in the states) which will often have access to USDA proper canning methods. It's likely that they would know what this is or could recommend how to find out. They are exactly where I go when I find a weird spider in the garden and that type of thing. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.535491
| 2016-07-30T15:02:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71785",
"authors": [
"Bigmike",
"Ecnerwal",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48415",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73260
|
Pizza Dough Ingredients too runny even after adding flour
My husband is trying to make pizza dough as I speak. He prepared the yeast properly. After adding all of the ingredients, he claims the mixture is runny on the top and thick and gooey on the bottom. I am at a standstill as to how to save this dough. He added more flour.
Can the dough still be salvaged?
Can you give us the ratios and method, please? And perhaps include a photo or two? That would probably give you better answers, as it stands, trying to amswer is a bit "stabbing in the dark". And while you wait for answers, let me point you to our [tour] and [help], where you'll learn more about the site. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Hello Jo, a large part of your post was unrelated to the dough batch you are trying to save, and your conclusion also contributed nothing to the question except for being unfriendly to your husband. We are glad to have your culinary question, so I reduced the text to describe the relevant part only. Still, as Stephie says, with so little information, I doubt that we can tell you much more. You neither tell us the ingredients, nor the proportions, nor at which stage it was so problematic. Also note that a question shouldn't be a rant in disguise, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
"runny on top and think and gooey on the bottom" sounds like a mixing issue. Are you mixing by hand or using an appliance?
Personal results, I have never been able to satisfactory save a yeast dough once it has gone wrong. I have gotten them back to the point of almost seeming right, but it was an illusion, once cooked they were typically like a raw floured lump of baked brick. Now, if I go wrong, I toss and start over.
Soupy to me sounds like something is likely off on the recipe and liquid is out of proportion would be my first guess. Verify the units were right, no substituting cups for tablespoons (yes I have), and if you did not misread, try a different recipe. Also, if you did not, try proofing your yeast first, which will help activate it and make sure it is still viable. If after 10 minutes in warm water and a pinch of sugar you are not getting bubbles and a nice yeast smell it is likely dead and that is your culprit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.535658
| 2016-08-19T15:21:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73260",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66698
|
How can I add flavor to meatballs which taste stale from being frozen too long?
My pre-cooked meatballs must have been frozen too long, they taste stale. I tried mashing them up and making sloppy joes but they still tasted stale. How can I season them to make them more edible?
Whenever I have freezer burnt or really old frozen meat, my go-to solution is to use my slow cooker. Find a recipe that sounds appetizing to you and has a long cooking time (6-9+ hours on Low), and go for it. For example, here's a Meatball and Vegetable Soup recipe (which I'm not endorsing, it's purely as a "this is the style you're looking for").
Thanks to you and the others here for your tips and suggestions. I will try them all. I know I have more meatballs, patties and whole meats buried deeper in my freezer. That's why I asked, if it was just one item I would have thrown it away! I once cooked a pork roast in the slow cooker. It was older than my daughter (12) but they couldn't tell.
I've never had much success using old frozen meatballs (or other frozen ground meat products) in their original shape. I agree with mech though that a slow cooker recipe infuses flavor and restores tenderness. If you don't have one, or aren't in the mood to use it, there's another way to achieve the same result. Choose the recipe you want, put all the ingredients together with your meatballs into a tall pot. Cover it, put it on the stove and simmer at a low level heat for a few hours.
As for me, I generally mash old meatballs up, just like you did with the sloppy joes. Then I treat them as I would fresh meat, and add whatever seasonings I'm in the mood for. I don't have a very adventurous palate, so my go-to choices are usually mild, like onion powder, garlic powder, oregano, parsley and basil. Some of my friends use cumin, ginger, curry or other types of spices.
Another thing I do with mashed meat is add a few fresh ingredients. (You may have done this with your sloppy joes, as I haven't seen your recipe.) For instance, sautè some chopped onions, peppers, mushrooms, garlic, and whatever else you like, then mix in the meat. The new ingredients do a decent job of making an older product taste fresh. I also like cheese in everything, so depending on the preparation, I'll add grated cheese to the pan or baking dish, or sprinkle some on the finished dish. I like aged parmigiano-reggiano or asiago, but there are spicier cheeses that also help mask the flavor of stale meat.
Thanks to you and the others here for your tips and suggestions. I will try them all. I know I have more meatballs, patties and whole meats buried deeper in my freezer.
Definitely my pleasure! Please come back and let us know worked best for you. I've still got plenty of sad meet lurking around my freezer too!
The stale taste is because when food is frozen for too long, it can dry out. You want to add egg to the meat to moisten it. Make sure to blend the whole egg into the meat so that it can be thoroughly absorbed.
Thanks to you and the others here for your tips and suggestions. I will try them all. I know I have more meatballs, patties and whole meats buried deeper in my freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.535856
| 2016-02-21T19:27:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66698",
"authors": [
"Aidan Aktouf",
"Clare Randles",
"Darragh O'Mahony",
"David Ziegler",
"Elaine Stone",
"Gary Hewitt",
"Jeanette Lopez",
"Judith anne",
"Mike Amescua Marina Castaneda",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Tonya Weston-Glaude",
"Veronica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43585"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68384
|
Any food safety risk eating cold refrigerated pizza?
I love eating cold pizza leftovers straight from the fridge. Someone recently told me that you should always reheat leftover pizza to kill off any bad bugs that could be growing in there. Is there any scientific basic to this? I've never got sick so far.
Why should the cold pizza be bad? How high and for how long would you have to reheat it to make someone feel it's ok to eat?
All the same wonderful health risks of hot pizza with the exception of burning the bejesus out of the roof of your mouth.
Not really. Assuming that the pizza has been cooled down and stored properly (for which see here and here) then it most likely won't have developed a potentially harmful microbial load. Additionally, while reheating might kill off most of the microbes in the food (assuming that you reached and maintained a temperature sufficient for pasteurization, which isn't a given) that still wouldn't render the food completely safe, because even dead microbes can leave behind toxic substances that can make you sick.
Be warned that just because you haven't gotten sick in past, that doesn't mean your method is completely safe. Food safety is a science of relative risk, not absolute certainty, and getting lucky 99 times in a row doesn't mean that the 100th time won't be a miserable one.
But, bottom line: put your pizza into the fridge when you're done eating it, and don't keep it for more than a couple days or if it shows obvious signs of spoilage, and most likely you'll be okay. Reheating is not essential.
In a radio interview I heard a couple years ago, Alton Brown said something along the lines of, "This isn't official food safety advice, so don't take it that way, but - it's almost impossible to get sick from cooked food that's been stored in the refrigerator. It'll taste bad before it'll make you sick. If you don't have to force yourself to eat it, then it's ok." With many of the same caveats, that it had been refrigerated promptly, etc.
Your profile picture and this question remind me of the episode where Zim became a germophobe. How appropriate!
@Quinto : that's a good point. Space Meat won't get you sick. At least not from germs. If you can't digest napkins, it might be a problem.
The test of a truly great pizza is how it tastes the next day — cold, right out of the refrigerator.
Provided the freshly cooked pizza was not left out at room temperature for an extended period of time; and it's been refrigerated for only a day or so; it ought to be safe to eat.
It's a different experience eating cold pizza, but if it was made with the right ingredients — sauce, cheese, anchovies, etc. — the flavors can come through in a way that can make it quite a delicacy in its own right.
A lousy pizza will not taste as good cold, so reheating may be necessary to crisp the crust and remelt the cheese, to possibly make it more edible.
Here in Italy it is normal to buy in the stores cold pizza for eating as snack. Pizza is similar to bread so it should be safe if conserved properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.536142
| 2016-04-19T03:15:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68384",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Chris Bergin",
"Joe",
"Quinto",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46484
|
Cooking over an open flame at home
Is it doable to cook over the flame of a cooking gas stove at home. Is it dangerous? Couldn't it be even better as an open fire over coal or wood, since gas is cleaner?
Are you talking about doing this inside?
@KatieK yes. but now I am more worried about the cleaning.
By "healthy" I assume you mean "will the smoke kill me". Other than that there is nothing healthy about open flame cooking of any method
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10588/67
Hello Quora Feans, "healthy" is off topic on our site. I've heard of long term concerns of exposure to open fire due to all the exotic carbon compounds produced in combustion, but if this is what you mean, you'll have to ask your questions elsewhere, we cannot answer it. We do handle the immediate safety of cooking though (e.g. will the gas explode or leak and suffocate you), so I edited the "healthy" part out and left the rest.
@TFD billions of people do nothing else all their lives... I'd rather cook all my life over an open fire than be dependent on a microwave for all my cooking...
@jwenting Who said anything about the microwave? Billions of people rely on open flame cooking through little choice, and millions of children die young from the fumes
I use it to char a pepper but I that is not what really cooking
It is similar to cooking over a propane grill. Gas grills often have stone or ceramic bricks in them to help retain heat, but it is the burning gas that provides it. Cooking over a gas stove should be similar.
That said, I wouldn't grill meat or fish directly over the flame; it may work, but the cleanup may not be worth it. If you want to char a pepper or some bread and get the 'grill' feel, that should work fine. I see chefs do it all the time on TV, and it looks easy enough and doesn't make a mess.
Any fire in a confined area with limited ventilation, that produces smoke (an unburnt solid) is a health hazard, particularly those the with lung disease or asthma.
I'm really into preparing "meze" dishes, a class of dishes in the Turkish kitchen. A lot of them are prepared charred vegetables such as aubergines and peppers. These are traditionally cooked over a charcoal grill, but in many a Turkish home, they are cooked over the open gas flame of a modern stove top. The aubergine, after being charred, is put into a vessel of cold water, the charred skin being removed to reveal the cooked flesh with a wonderful smokey taste.
On the health side, I can only give anecdotes. My grandmother has prepared these dishes over the open flame for as long as I can remember, and no doubt, a few multiples of that length of time more. Personally, I've been preparing these dishes since I was 16, with no ill effects to speak of. A small amount of smoke does arise from the burning of the skin, but the vegetables themselves don't burn. If your kitchen is properly ventilated, can it really be much worse than going out into the typically densely populated modern city?
I cook hot dogs and fire roast peppers, directly over my natural gas stove indoors. Its the best way in my opinion. No mess, no fuss, just good eatin'
Why do you think gas is "cleaner". It contains CO2, CO, and other petrochem processing leftovers
Good quality charcoal should produce the least other stuff, while producing similar CO2 and CO levels
Indoor cooking with charcoal is popular in many cultures, but any method is going to produce CO2 and CO, which need to be adequately ventilated
Under perfectly ideal conditions, neither gas (methane, CH4) nor charcoal (pure carbon) should result in any dangerous byproducts (apart from CO2). However, this is impossible to achieve in practice. I would imagine that ideal combustion of charcoal would be more difficult to do than gas - if nothing else, it would be harder to mix the fuel with oxygen in a maximally efficient manner, and you would likely end up with lots of dangerous CO (this is a product of incomplete combustion, not present in the gas itself) and probably various carcinogenic hydrocarbons and particulates as well.
If you have a concrete slab or sand box to cook on. In home or out. A pot stove is very good to cook on. You cut a hole in the pot at the bottom. Just at the top bottom of a cast pot. Cut a square 3 by3 inches or larger in md size to large pot. This is to feed your small wood or charcoal threw. Light. Get burning. Place rack on top of pot. Next a pot or skillet to cook in. You control heat by adding more sticks or charcoal or pulling some out. This forces most heat strait up. So saves wood or charcoal in cooking. This is the main way of cooking in my part of S.E.Asia. Bottle gas stoves are safe. Just remember to turn of the gas at the bottle. Here those who can afford such. Normally buy a 2 burner & stove cart Glass top to set it on. Storage on shelf below. 5lb bottle but a 20 is also used. Space is important here. A cart has wheels so is easy to be moved out of way. For living space after use. A singles pad would have a 1 burner stove. You may see some at imgur under jamesphilippnes. You need a vent hole to cook on wood or charcoal inside. Why most have a dirty kitchen outside or a T home here.
An unvented indoor charcoal fire is a great source of carbon monoxide, which You Don't Want. Wood isn't a whole lot better. Be safe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.536420
| 2014-08-18T13:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46484",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Danny Wilson",
"Glenna Chastain",
"Jessica Ng Xin Hui",
"Jo Nesler",
"Joe",
"KB1",
"KatieK",
"Myra",
"Quora Feans",
"TFD",
"gary davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jwenting",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho",
"sara montgomery",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46677
|
What is the difference in blanching and parboiling?
From the time I was very young and just beginning to cook, I always heard about blanching but never heard of parboiling. I learned how to blanch vegetables to prepare for freezing, removing skins from tomatoes and nuts, etc., all pretty standard.
However, in later years I hear the term parboiling quite frequently. Wondering if it was the same thing, I started searching for information. Believe me when I say that there is no shortage of it!
My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistent answers. I found answers saying they were the same, that one used the ice bath and the other didn't (but one site will say to use the ice bath when blanching and another will say when parboiling), and even lengthy descriptions of either. What I can't seem to find is anything consistent.
Is it just a case of semantics with the terms being interchangeable? If they are different methods, can anyone give me the true answer of what each is from a credible culinary source?
Both involve boiling water, but there are a number of differences:
blanching has two meanings -- it's mainly used when talking about setting (or enhancing) the color of vegetables, with minimal cooking (only the outermost layer is cooked). As such, it's typically only a few seconds to a minute dip in already boiling water, followed by a shock (dip in ice water) to halt any further cooking. It's often used for vegetables that are going to be eaten raw.
parboiling means that you cook something in boiling water to give it a head start. (Parcooking in boiling water) Typically, the purpose is to cook an item to speed up the cooking time for some following cooking method. (eg, partially cook some items in a casserole so that all items will be done at the same time after baking).
And then we have the overlap case -- when you cook something in water to change the characteristics (other than color) of an item before some other cooking step. For example, we might be trying to extract bitter compounds, or soften a food such that some other processing step can be performed (eg, soften cabbage leaves so they can be used as a wrapper). In this case, you're typically cooking the item more than just superficially, and the pre-cooking results in a different result than you'd simply get by increasing the time of the final cooking (eg, the oil blanch for pommes frites, softening the skin to peel a tomato)
So, to help make a decision on which term to use:
if the goal of the step is color change of the ingredient : blanch
if you cook it for only a few seconds, or up to a minute and shock in cold water : blanch
if there's no additional cooking done after this step : blanch
if you could skip this step with no change in other cooking times : blanch
if you could skip this step by increasing the cooking time at some later step : par-boil
... for other cases, where the step can't be omitted without causing problems in the recipe (eg, cabage breaks because it wasn't softened), or final result (too bitter) ... you can often use either term. You might consider how far 'cooked' the item is after the step if you want to prefer one or the other. (under about 25% cooked, go with 'blanch', if over 50%, go with par-boil)
My copy of The New Food Lover's Companion (which I have found to be an indispensable reference for a huge number of culinary terms) reads as follows:
Pages 488-89:
parboil To partially cook food by boiling it briefly in water.
Page 68:
blanch To plunge food (usually vegetables and fruits) into boiling water briefly, then into cold water to stop the cooking process.
I find this to be a very trustworthy dictionary for culinary terms (a number of professional chefs I know own copies that they also reference on occasion) and it seems to make the distinction very clear and simple.
Both involve briefly cooking food in boiling water; however, blanching involves plunging into an ice bath immediately afterwards to halt the cooking process, while parboiling does not.
That said, if you boil potatoes for 5 minutes then you might call that "parboiling" on the basis that 5 minutes is brief for potatoes (of particular size, blah blah). If you boil potatoes for 5 minutes and them dump them in cold water I'm not certain that would be considered merely "blanching", for all that both are brief. Possibly the word "brief" here doesn't fully characterise the ranges of times covered by the terms, to me "plunge into X briefly and then Y" implies that the thing barely comes to rest in X. Possibly I'm wrong and you're correct that the difference is solely the cold water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.536971
| 2014-08-26T16:46:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46677",
"authors": [
"Alex Griffiths",
"Grace Samuelson",
"IAN TAYLOR",
"Julia Flammula",
"Merry Joy Pastor",
"Mike K",
"Paul Dawson",
"Steve Jessop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49079
|
Halloumi ended up too soft
I made halloumi at the weekend using this process with cows milk. The rennet I used had a best before June 2014 date on it.
The cheese came out fine and tastes good after being brined.
However when I fry the slices of halloumi the result is that the cheese is too soft (by general concensus in my house) and doesn't 'squeak' like a true halloumi should.
So my question is what might be the cause for my too soft halloumi? and what can I do to make it firmer next time?
My initial thoughts are that I could 'press' the curds more before poaching, or it could be the rennet (although they seemed to work fine). Or it could be the cows milk rather than ewes milk.
It may also be that it will firm up whilst it sits in the brine. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Any thoughts?
You are right that you need to use pressure to get enough whey out of the curd to get a firmer cheese like halloumi.
I am surprised that the recipe you're linking to tells only to drain the curd in a sieve or cloth. Just draining the curd will give you a very loose or moist product similar to cottage cheese or quark.
Thanks. It was much firmer than that, I presume because of the cooking in the whey. I'll try pressing more whey next time and see the results.
I am not an expert by any means, but in my attempts at making halloumi the milk definitely made a difference. The best halloumi I've managed to make was made with 100% goat's milk, bought locally so that there was as little pasteurization as possible. I think using unpasteurized milk (if you can get it!) would yield the best results.
Thanks franko. 'best' as in flavour? or in some other way? I'll be trying again with raw milk (and goats milk or a mix if I can get it) but want to know specifically what I need to do to make the resulting cheese a bit firmer when cooked (and preferably squeaky :-)). Do you think that making it with goats milk alone will result in a firmer cheese?
Well, "best" as in "all the above," really. To me, it tasted better (more like the halloumi I've bought), and the texture was firmer. I don't know if goat's milk is key for the firmness -- it might be -- but it definitely seems key for the flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.537393
| 2014-10-20T11:57:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49079",
"authors": [
"Afflu Kelvin Mawufemor",
"Annabel Piera Trebski Hesketh",
"Mayur Sangvi",
"Sam Holder",
"Shadyn G.",
"Shawn Welty",
"Spammer",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21482
|
When making french press coffee, what is the purpose of blooming the grounds?
When making french press coffee, you are often instructed to "bloom" the grounds by adding a small quantity of boiling water, stirring the grounds into a slurry, and then adding the rest of the water.
What I don't understand is... Why?
For clarification, most other situations where you are instructed to bloom something it makes sense to me - cornstarch being added to soup needs to fully hydrate before it hits the hot water to not get clumpy, "active dry" baking yeast needs to dissolve the pellets and start releasing nutrients to the yeast before being diluted in the dough, and gelatin needs to hydrate fully being integrated with other ingredients without clumping. The coffee case seems mysterious to me.
Sounds like marketing flap
I found a quote from this article
One thing you may not want to do with a press pot, especially a larger model, is use beans roasted less than 2 or 3 days before. What, am I crazy? Nope. There's a problem with ultra fresh beans and it is called "bloom". When beans are only a day or two off the roast, they contain heaps of Co2. Heaps of it, I tell you. That Co2 will translate into a massive bloom of brown suds on top of your press pot, possibly overflowing, but also making it easier for big particulate matter (your ground coffee) to hop and skip over the top of the filter portion when you first apply it. Bloom looks cool, but can make using a press pot more difficult.
The poor filtering part sounds questionable to me, so I googled it and found a few bloom-related comments on this blog post. It seems like some people start timing their soak time only after they see bloom.
This seems like the real reason to me. I know for sure that the air content in ground substances can vary significantly: one cup of flour can contain double the volume of another if one is loosely sifted and the other is compacted. The above quote is accurate about that in my opinion.
Apply this logic to coffee and in order to produce an accurate, general recipe for how long some compounds take to come out of coffee grounds, you need to factor out a variable between coffee grounds: how much air is in the grindings. Maybe the first small pour will saturate with coffee compounds, or drop in temperature quickly, reducing how much it can extract from the grounds. Once it squeezes out all the air, the rest of the water is poured in to do the real extraction work.
+1, I think the CO2 is it. I've actually seen that before and wondered what was going on. Recently I've been using beans pre-ground (I know, I know) so haven't had that foaming. Sounds like the "blooming" pre-step is best for freshly ground beans.
'bloom' when it comes to French press is the effect that the grounds collect on top of the water when pouring quickly. Presumably this is because of rapid release of carbon dioxide.
If not stirred into the coffee this 'bloom' will cause the grounds to be partially extracted. When wetting the grounds this bloom occurs prematurely, and the force of pouring the remaining water breaks the grounds apart.
I'd say you get the same effect by stirring after 20 seconds or so. :)
I have also had good results with stirring after pouring
tl;dr answer is: no well-research reason why, or effect
More detailed discussion at https://www.reddit.com/r/Coffee/comments/39t5k2/ive_stopped_doing_blooms_for_now/
Dampening grounds before flowing water over them may improve diffusion (pour over) - but that doesn't apply to French Press because the water just sits and soaks in the coffee anyway (which one assumes you've stirred).
Improving diffusion might have a tangible effect for a pour over due to the water having limited contact with coffee as it flows through.
However, a coffee champ seems to think to think it's not important here, either.
https://colinharmon.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/the-bloom/
The first dozen google results on 'blooming coffee effect' describe info like CO2 release, and improved diffusion. If the grounds are homogeneously distributed (stirred to distribute and remove gas), I can't see blooming adding anything.
So, no facts for superior coffee from blooming that I can see. Do some blind testing and make your coffee the way you enjoy it.
Hi there. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I'm finding your answer difficult to understand. You've said the "answer is no" but it's not a yes/no question. It seems like you have some great information here, but is there anyway you could add some structure to make it easier to follow? It's just rather confusing as presented.
Maybe I'd had too much coffee! Have edited.. hope it's a little clearer.
This is wrong, Max is right and Eric gets to the real point in the latter part of his answer. "it's irrelevant for French Press because the water just sits and soaks in the coffee anyway." is wrong. If you just pour all the water into the dry grounds, the gases released from the grounds cause them to float to the top of the press, and the water is not making full contact with the grounds. You can get around this either by stirring the grounds after pouring the water, or by saturating the grounds before pouring (blooming). Or both. Your two links are both by people who are doing pour-over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.537612
| 2012-02-18T18:10:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21482",
"authors": [
"Crystal Washington",
"Dan C",
"Eric Allen",
"Laura Perčić",
"Nini",
"Pat Sommer",
"Preston",
"Priyanka Shinde",
"Sam Ley",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"natasha dower",
"user2763985"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25353
|
Do I need to grease, grease-proof paper?
This feels like a very silly question, but I'm about to bake some american style cookies, and I wanted to know if I had to grease the grease-proof paper first, or if the idea was that 'grease' would come out of the stuff being baked?
You don't need to grease the paper. However, if you really want to, you can grease it, but beware that the bottom of your cookies can bake quicker due to the extra fat that transfers heat.
In most cookies, there is already a lot of fat which prevents them from sticking on their own.
No. You'll find the cookies over-browned on the bottom, and spreading inconsistently if you do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.538298
| 2012-07-30T18:45:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25353",
"authors": [
"Carl",
"John Pardon",
"Lorna Kearney",
"Mary Stewart",
"Nurten Hsn Karaman",
"Patricia Leinonen",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65792
|
What factors to consider for a long lasting salad?
I'd like to make salad in bulk for the week ahead on a weekend, which I will store at home in the fridge, to take to work. My gut feel is that what I'd typically put in salad (leaves, tomatoes, cheese etc) won't last long enough to be worth making in bulk, even if I store it at work. If it matters, I typically leave my salad at my desk, as I don't like cold salad at lunchtime.
What factors should I consider when picking ingredients and storage, for a long life salad? What sorts of food should I look for and how will I know they are more likely to last?
What storage life did you have in mind?
@rackandbone I'm considering making it in a Sunday and it lasting until the next Friday
No way to reheat anything at work? Can you store things cold there? How long is the fridge-to-fridge transit?
@rackandboneman I can reheat, but I love salads. Fridge to fridge is ~40 minutes, but I usually let the salad warm up when I bring it in.
That "warming it up" could make the difference between "reasonably safe for a week from a food safety standpoint, if properly refrigerated and prepared and packaged cleanly" to "of dubious safety".
@rackandboneman sorry I wasn't clear. I intend to make a batch and keep it in the fridge at home, then what I typically do is leave it in my bag until lunch time, to come to room temperature.
-Make slaws of hardier vegetables - bell peppers, carrots, unripe papaya, hard cabbages. Both kinds - the ones that are slightly cooked with a boiling vinaigrette, or the ones prepared raw (som tam for example) , can last a few days in the fridge.
-Pickles tend to be a hardy ingredient.
-Keep a cold but not freezing fridge (I recently started a discussion here ... Why do fridge temperature standards between US and other countries differ? read what EVERYONE wrote )
-If there are leafy greens involved, either store dressings separately, or only put the acid and/or oil on the salad before storing but nothing that brings in salt or sugar. The acid could help, esp when there are fruit in the salad, but could also cause problems...
-Look at plant based proteins - TVP, tofu (optionally smoked), burmese tofu, tempeh, seitan... fried and maybe spice rubbed and/or marinated and/or breaded... cooked beans and lentils... less risk of meat-related dangers... keep fried items in separate container so they do not get waterlogged
-Potato and pasta salads could work for you...
Lettuce can be prepped and stored for a few days, but you have to do one of three things:
Store it completely submerged in water in the refrigerator. Drain it thoroughly before using/serving it. (ie, put it through a salad spinner the morning of ... of course, this might defeat the whole intent of the effort).
Keep the heads whole, and don't cut them up until you're ready to use them. (ie, cut them up at lunch time ... or the morning of, which again might defeat the purpose of this.) This also requires finding smaller heads of lettuce that are of an appropriate serving size.
Select heartier lettuces, wash and dry them well, then cut them with a non-metal knife (to reduce browning), and then pack them in an airtight container that's been lined with a paper towel (to ensure the lettuce has good airflow around it), and keep chilled.
If it's only a couple of days, you might be able to get away with the storage in #3 with more delicate lettuces ... but tear the leaves instead of cutting to minimize moisture loss.
I know you mentioned that you don't like cold salads -- but keep everything refrigerated until at least the morning of. If you transport it in an insulated bag (possibly with freezer packs if it's a hot day), you can then just take it out an hour or so before your lunch break to let it warm up some.
As for things to add to the salad ... many things have already been mentioned, but :
Look for items which can go on mostly whole, as it'll reduce moisture loss (or leakage into the salad, causing problems). Eg, grape tomatoes, snow peas, sugar snap peas, etc.
Firmer vegetables that you typically buy unfrigerated and don't ooze water when you cut into them. (carrots, radishes, broccoli (especially the peeled stem), etc.)
Pickled items (olives, bell peppers, etc) ... but keep them away from the other items 'til you're ready to eat.
I personally would avoid cheese or meats ... if you really want something with extra salt in it ... make some croutons.
You can make salads that will keep in the refrigerator for a few days by avoiding vegetables that wilt and get soggy, such as lettuce. Instead, choose ingredients that will withstand or benefit from prolonged marination. For example:
Cabbage
Beets
Celery
Bell Peppers
Carrots
Tomatoes
Cucumbers
I often make a cole slaw salad consisting of cabbage, green pepper, and carrots; dressed with olive oil, vinegar, and maybe a little mayonnaise. You can eat it right away, but it will actually taste better after marinating for a while. Kept in the refrigerator, it will last for a several days.
Another "refrigerator" salad I like has cucumbers, tomatoes, beets, onion, green pepper and olives; dressed with olive oil, vinegar, salt, pepper, and oregano. Optionally, add a (drained, rinsed) can of kidney beans or garbanzos.
Beans are a great addition to your salad — no fat, but lots of protein!
Fresh beets can be shredded into your salad like carrots, but I think they taste better after cooking (sliced, and steamed until tender). Other vegetables fall into this category — you could eat them raw, but they're better cooked.
Asparagus
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Green Beans
Summer Squash
Zucchini
As with beets, pare and slice as desired, and steam just to the brink of tenderness. Typically, I'll eat some as a hot vegetable with dinner; with plenty left over to eat cold in a salad the next day. This gets down to your own personal preference, and favorite vegetables — in general however, most fresh vegetables when cooked simply and minimally, will taste good cold in a salad.
Canned Vegetables?
No, most canned vegetables do not taste good cold (if at all). However, there are a few exceptions:
Canned Beets
Canned Olives
Canned Hearts of Palm
Canned Asparagus
Canned Beans (kidney, black, pinto, cannelloni, etc. — drained and rinsed)
Beets are actually a vegetable that cans quite well. Adding a can of (drained, sliced) beets can add a lot of flavor and color to your salad. Like beans, they're an inexpensive staple to keep on hand in your cupboard to extend whatever fresh ingredients you have available.
Kale
Last but not least, (steamed) kale is excellent served cold. A batch will last for several days — a little salt, olive oil and vinegar (or lemon juice) — delicious! — ( PLU #-4627 - I love kale! )
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.538426
| 2016-01-24T18:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65792",
"authors": [
"AncientSwordRage",
"Cathy M",
"Herold Pineda",
"Janet Smith",
"Jennifer Koo",
"LaShawn Moses",
"Manps Samra",
"burkscr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119270
|
Accidentally left the oven on overnight, do I need to do anything?
I turned my oven down to around gas mark 3 last night while I finished the rest of dinner. After taking the food out of it, I accidentally left it on for about 5 hours overnight.
Our CO meter didn't go off, and I've turned the oven off now.
Besides having switched the oven off (if it wasn't obvious) is there anything I need to do to make the situation safe or prevent oven damage?
I set off my carbon monoxide alarm at 4am doing this in a studio apartment. That made one heck of an early alarm clock.
Make sure you sit down before you open the gas bill!
@JamesD - I’ve made slow cooked ribs, 18 hours in the oven, barely noticed it on the bill. Heating the house is many time the cost of that oven.
No, ovens are designed to function for long periods if necessary, for example in overnight cooking. You might have some burned-on dirt that is harder to clean than usual.
I've done this before and been spooked about having a (mild) fire risk due to my own negligence; to reduce the likelihood of it happening again I try to incorporate checking the oven/hobs are off into my routine as I take the food to the table.
I normally do have that routine, but it failed me this time. Good to know this isn't as bad it could have been!
I make it a habit to turn the oven light on whenever the oven is on; this is a fairly obvious visual cue that I need to turn it off if it's empty.
@crash, I'm fairly sure that the light was on as well
Ventilate your home. Your CO detector will not detect high CO2 levels, see https://gaslab.com/blogs/articles/carbon-monoxide-carbon-dioxide-detector
Use your smartphone and set a timer/reminder to turn your oven off next time :)
There's no way in hell that an oven would produce dangerous CO2 levels in a house. At least not without also producing dangerous CO levels. This really is a non-concern
@Persistence: 1. Burning a given volume of natural gas will release approximately the same volume of carbon dioxide (and twice the volume of water vapour) -- that can be far from negligible for the span of 5 hours if ventilation is not sufficient.
Carbon monoxide emission is much much lower then that (up to 400 ppm) and becomes an issue only if the combustion is not complete because of lack of oxygen. The CO detector will only trigger if you have incomplete combustion.
The only way that you could end up with the CO2 not being dispersed into the wider atmosphere is with really, really bad ventillation. In that situation, there wouldn't be enough oxygen and you'd end up producing plenty of CO. If you have enough ventillation to prevent CO buildup, CO2 buildup really isn't a problem.
@Persistence, Agreed with your first sentence. But the CO2 poisoning threshold is around 10.000 ppm = 1% when exposed for an extended period. It will bring down the O2 level from 21% to 20%, so no, not "plenty of CO" at that point. We are talking about a situation when the over is working perfectly, but over a course of >5 hours.
Aye, I'm well aware of that, but you misunderstand me. There is categorically no realistic situation where an oven would be working perfectly and burn through enough oxygen to give someone CO2 poisoning without them succumbing to CO poisoning first. You'd quite literally need a hermetically sealed house. Otherwise, the CO2 is just going to diffuse perfectly happily into the environment. It's such a contrived example it's not even worth considering
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.538951
| 2021-12-22T08:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119270",
"authors": [
"AncientSwordRage",
"Crash Gordon",
"David Parks",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"James D",
"ScottishTapWater",
"g.kertesz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97021"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113240
|
Can I use a crêpe pan instead of a comal?
I've recently been given a recipe for tortillas by a friend, but it calls for a Comal, and I only have a crêpe pan, or a non-stick frying pan.
Are either acceptable replacements for a Comal?
Based on personal experience: yes. I'd recommend the frying pan over the crepe pan, because the frying pan likely has a thicker bottom and can just be left on low heat for an even heating surface. Rolled steel crepe pans develop hot spots if not moved around. In either case, you heat the pan dry.
Better than either of those, however, is a griddle. You can cook up to five tortillas at a time on a large griddle, whether electric or cast iron. I make corn tortillas at home, and I always use a nonstick electric griddle for them. Since it takes just about as long to press out a new tortilla as it does to cook one long enough to need flipping, I can get a real production line set up, and make 20 tortillas in less than an hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.539258
| 2020-12-20T02:58:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113240",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121336
|
Water soluble vs oil soluble vegetables
I was watching an educational documentary on cooking vegetables and the chef (Sean Kahlenberg) categorized vegetables into two large groups: water-soluble (do well when cooked in oil, poorly when cooked in water) and oil-soluble (vice-versa). There were even examples for each category: carrots, asparagus and zucchinis as water-solubles; green beans, broccoli and cabbage as oil-solubles. The video is from 2019 and I cannot find a comprehensive list for either.
Is this approach still used?
What the chef refers to as 'solubility' and their ideal cook methods is better explained by each vegetable's density, ideal cooking temperatures, and heat transfer abilities of oil vs. water-based methods.
As far as I know, 'solubility' referring to those concepts has never been used for any professional culinary manuals, let alone research articles.
Cooking in a water system, i.e. steaming, poaching, boiling, etc. would have submerged ingredients limited to a maximum temperature of 100C. This would be ideal for avoiding caramelisation and Maillard reactions ("browning reactions") where you want to showcase the food's characteristics, say for delicate flavours or novelty.
In contrast, 'cooking with oils' would generally be high heat applications where the maximum temperature is determined by the heat source and heat transfer by the smoke point of the oil as a transfer medium, above 100C. Think grilling, frying, sauté. Surface water typically evaporates too quickly to limit the surface temperature, unless the technique is poor or heat source insufficient.
Foods benefit from that type of high-heat cooking where added flavour complexity from browning reactions is desired, like for steaks, or where low-temperature prolonged cooking generates unwanted flavours - Brassica family vegetables (cabbages, Brussels sprouts) release sulphur compounds.
This isn't to say that mixing methods doesn't yield good or even better results. Grilled asparagus and zucchini, and boiled cabbage with corned beef come to mind.
Re: actual water solubility - most compounds in both vegetables and meats can be easily solubilised with water in normal cooking. In a live state plants and animals have natural barriers to prevent nutrient leaching, like wax coatings, dry protein skins, etc. Cells rely on nutrients being soluble in water-based systems (blood plasma, cytoplasm) to get from A to B in organisms.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.539361
| 2022-08-11T20:31:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121336",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38004
|
Bread Making - Ideal times
I have read a few of Recipes but I failed to get the times lines and proportions of preparation or I could not read it well. Here are my doubts.
For a Ideal bread making (In general)
How much time I must keep the Active yeast + sugar solution aside before I mix in flour to make dough.
What is the Ideal time I must keep aside dough before I put into bake
Your expert opinion will help me understand and read the Recipes better. Thanks a lot.
I am sorry, there is no single answer to these questions; there are many breads with different recipes and outcomes, and many different techniques to getting to those outcomes.
I am sorry actually for generic question but I am just starting so basic bread rolls/bread and basic cakes(I do eggless, not vegan)
Dear Always, we only focus on one question per thread (or two very closely related ones). You asked five. I left the first two in, which are related. If you want answers to the rest, create new questions with them. But I am afraid that there is no general answer to them as they were stated, it is just "pick a recipe and follow it".
There was another question about good books about bread. We couldn't answer the question because it was too subjective, but there's a link to a chat transcript where we discussed a few books. I'd suggest getting one of those. These variables will change from recipe to recipe, and a good book will explain them in each.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37675/bread-book-suggestions
Keeping "active yeast + sugar solution aside" is for the purpose proofing the yeast: that is, determining that it is still alive, active, and is going to give a good result for your bread.
If you don't see significant activity (foam or bubbling) in 5 minutes, 10 at the very outside, then the yeast is no good. Otherwise, you can use it as soon as you see the foam.
The second question about rising times is not answerable in the general case.
It really depends on the bread you are making, and the method you are using. The answer could range from as short as 15 to 30 minutes for a fast bread or pizza dough, to several days for certain artisan style or no knead recipes.
The right time can be anywhere from a few minutes to two days. It depends on the technique you are using.
Most home recipes work well when you leave the sponge (= yeast + water + nutrients mix) sit around until you see the yeast blooming on the surface, maybe 10 minutes with warm water. The proofing (= letting the dough sit between kneading and baking) normally goes until the dough has doubled in volume. The time needed for doubling varies depending on the amount of yeast used and the room temperature, so nobody measures it by time.
When you move on to more advanced recipes, you will have to accomodate several stages of proofing, and techniques such as retarding the dough in a fridge. They make this much more complicated. For this, find a good resource which explains them, they are too much for this post. But for now, if you are going with a single rising stage, the above rules of thumb tend to work well.
I don't know about proofing the yeast since I bake bread using sourdough only, but I can tell you a thing or two about letting bread dough rise:
The most important rule: The dough dictates the amount of time you let it rise, not the clock. The time a dough needs to rise is heavily dependent on temperature, amount of yeast, salt water and fat (if any) in the dough.
As a general rule: When the volume of the dough has increased by 75 - 100%, you can put it in the oven.
For wheat dough, you can check if the dough is ready to bake by slightly pushing a dent into the dough using yoir finger. If the dent you made recovers but does not completely come back, it is ready to bake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.539655
| 2013-10-30T11:11:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38004",
"authors": [
"Always",
"Colored life power",
"Mrry W.",
"Repaint Takumi Suzuka",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sanele Mdletshe",
"ShaunOReilly",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"aschultz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89644",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32902
|
What strategy can I use to identify a cookbook with a torn off cover?
My mother left me a cookbook that is the most amazing one I have ever seen. It is approx 1700 pages, the last pages are missing on my copy. I remember the cover, which is long gone, was green. It is definitely American as it has instructions for dressing American game. Also includes canning, preserving and pickling. As well as freezing, menus, diet patterns, a homemaker's handbook for purchasing fruits and vegetables. Also instructions on stretching the food dollar. So my question is how or where can I find out the name of this cookbook?
Old housekeeping guides like this are treasures! If it's old enough, there's a chance there is a digital copy online (or at least excerpts) -- have you tried web searches for sentences or phrases from some of the sections?
I don't know that there is any possible way to identity it positively from a description--the suggestion above is a good one. It does sound a lot like an early joy of cooking. Does it label its "best" recipes "Cockaigne"?
You could also search phrases in Google Books or even Amazon. Also, not sure how many of the first pages are missing, but there is often publisher info in small print a few pages back from the cover. Or take a picture of one of the first pages and post it.
I also think it sounds like some edition of the Joy of Cooking, although that's only about 500 pages IIRC. We really need something more specific. Try to name some of the more unique recipe or chapter names, maybe.
If it isn't one of the items in Project Gutenburg that Shaima mentioned, could you at least give us the various section headings / table of contents, so that we can attempt to match it against other cookbooks?
Oh ... and I should mention -- the New York Public Library specifically has a 'culinary collection'. Much of it is menus and writings on the history of cooking ... They also have 16k cookbooks
You can find online copies of such cookbooks in Project Gutenberg, in the cooking section. For example:
The American Frugal Housewife, by Lydia M. Child
The Golden Age Cook Book
The Allinson Vegetarian Cookery Book, by Thomas R. Allinson.
If the book is online, a Google search for a phrase found in the book will often turn up the title. For instance, searching for "housekeepers in home departments of newspapers" yields "Vaughan's Vegetable Cookbook: How to Cook and Use..."
I would not go and look through all the Project Gutenberg books by hand. Books there are out-of-copyright, which currently means that they were published before 1923. Most such books were published after that, they were especially popular shortly after WWII. Details like "green cover" (most books on Gutenberg were published before colored covers were common) and especially "freezing" (practically nobody had a home freezer before 1923) make me think that Project Gutenberg is the wrong address.
This follows the advice given in Steve's answer, except for a description of the book instead of the contents.
Since there probably aren't that many 1700-page cookbooks, I went to Google and looked up:
"1700 page" cookbook
The second hit was for a forum post at "The FAL Files" describing a book that pretty much matched your description. The book is called:
Meta Given's Modern Encyclopedia of Cooking
Published by J.G.Ferguson, it has a green cover and comes in either a 2-volume set, or a complete all-in-one book. The complete version is 1699 pages. You can find it on Amazon.
Choose some unique phrases from the book (things you don't expect to appear in many other books) and search for them (in quotes) in Google books. Look at the scanned pages in the search results and see if they match your book.
If that doesn't work, try a general google search, again with the phrase quoted. (If you're looking for an old cookbook and it's on the web, it's likely at Google Books or archive.org, but there are some other, smaller collections out there.)
If you get too many results, you can take a 2-3 of the chapter headings or phrases and do a search for the combination. You'll want to choose headings that you don't expect to both appear in many books. E.g.,
"Dressing Game" "Preserving and Pickling"
If an online search doesn't work, you could also try asking a librarian or bookseller who specializes in old cookbooks. They may know the book or have more resources to look it up.
The + doesn't do anything; double quotes are all you need to require an exact word or phrase. See the search operator help.
Hmm, you're right. Some other search engines use '+' in this manner, and I thought google did too, but looking at archive.org, it seems that + was only ever used to include "stop words" in a search.
It did also previously require a term to be matched exactly (not by a synonym/stemming variant) like double quotes do now, but Google essentially always requires all terms to be present unless it's confident it can safely drop them. All the misunderstanding around the + operator is part of the reason it was deprecated in favor of the double quotes; it was very frequently used incorrectly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.539991
| 2013-03-21T23:35:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32902",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Dong Nippano",
"Edmund Fong",
"Erica",
"Evilbob",
"Hassaan",
"Joe",
"Majkeee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"Stuart W",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zm_ranger",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76346",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3000
|
Can agave nectar be substituted for honey in baking?
The only sweetener called for in the bread recipe I want to use is honey; can I substitute 1/3 a cup of agave nectar for 1/3 a cup of honey without throwing off the proportions of the recipe? When using agave nectar as a substitute for honey in salad dressing recipes, I tend to use less agave nectar than honey called for because I find agave nectar sweeter than honey, but I don't feel confident doing the same thing in baking.
You can use agave nectar instead of honey or sugar if you modify your recipe a bit by lowering the amount of liquids. Agave nectar has more water than honey and is sweeter than honey (about 50% sweeter).
Honey
Fructose: 41%,
Glucose: 36%,
Water: 18%
Agave nectar
Fructose: 53%,
Glucose: 15%,
Water: 25%
As a starting point in modifying the recipe, keep the amount of water fixed by using less agave nectar than honey (amount of agave = 0.72 amount of honey). Also, dishes made with agave nectar will brown faster than those made with honey because of the agave's higher fructose content. Start checking a little earlier.
+1 - This confirms what experiment has told me. If you use 1-1, you end up with deserts that won't hold their shape while baking. You need to use a bit less Agave than honey.
If you're making some sort of quick bread or muffin recipe, you should be fine. I've never had any problem and I can't see why it'd make much difference other than in the sweetness. Agave nectar seems a little thinner than honey to me, so that probably means the ratio of sugars to water is lower; however, that doesn't mean it's necessarily less sweet, and as you say it seems a little sweeter to me (mostly because it lacks that back-of-the-throat twang that honey has).
If you're making something that requires extreme chemical precision, I suppose there might be a problem, but then honey varies all over the map in terms of density and taste anyway. (edit — I just noticed the word "bread" in your question - if it's a yeast bread, I would be stunned if that substitution would make any difference at all; it's such a small amount.)
I used agave in a yeast bread recipe in my bread machine. With the small amount of honey needed (1, 3/4 Tbsp) I could substitute an equal amount of agave with perfect results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.540427
| 2010-07-23T14:10:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3000",
"authors": [
"Andres",
"Karilee Anderson",
"bojan",
"garconcn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80667",
"l0b0"
],
"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
}
|
8956
|
My Cheese Melted while in the Fridge?
I have a sandwich that says "sell by 11/4". The sandwich is white bread, provolone cheese, turkey breast, and some lettuce wrapped in a plastic bag.
I went to go eat the sandwich today and found that what appears to be the cheese has melted into a liquid goop. Within the sandwich the cheese was sitting on top of the turkey.
The provolone cheese says: pasteurized milk cheese culture, salt, enzymes.
I didn't know cheese could melt in the fridge?
No power was lost to the chilly bin since the turkey butty was put it in there.
Update:
So I pulled out my backup sandwich which is a little more recent in the aging period and it looks like the cheddar cheese is melting in this one too but not yet like the previous one's attempt to become school's next favorite Elmer's glue, although a little sour.
This ham butty has been in a different chilly bin so no connection to a power outage.
Is it the meat that's melting it, such as the salt in the meat, or something else?
Why is this tagged [sour-cream]? I don't see any reference to that in the question?
Sorry, I tried to put "sour". I removed it.
I'm not going to post this as an answer since I have no way to verify it, but it sounds as though it may never have been real cheese to begin with. Perhaps it's just some processed Cheese-Whiz-like product that's been hardened somehow, and what you're witnessing is not melting but breaking down.
@Aaronut: That was my suspicion, but I didn't think you could sell processed cheese product with an ingredient list like that...
@Jefromi: What else would you expect to see in the ingredients?
@Aaronut: I thought I remembered it saying something about being processed. Maybe that's only required in the product name, though (in the US).
My guess is that you don't have real cheese in your sandwich.
I've seen this before with things called cheese that were really types of American cheese. It happened when then product was exposed to moisture that it seemed to absorb, which then caused it to turn soggy and glue-like. If you'd have said that you had tomato in your sandwich, I'd have been sure this was what was going on.
We buy pre-shredded Kraft cheese for salads. If I make one (just baby spinach and cheese) and leave it in a tupperware and forget to eat it for two days, the cheese turns into a goopy mess, sticking to the sides of the container and the lettuce as if it was melted in there. With so few variables in that situation I can only assume the cheese is absorbing moisture as David describes. I do not necessarily understand why, but there's some extra info to potentially help you sleuth!
After almost 5 years and 2500+ views, I choose you Pikachu.
Moisture is likely the problem, but I've seen it happen with some pretty good cheeses, not just "not-real" stuff. If cheese is let sit exposed to moisture for a long time, most of them can soften and turn runny even if it was a good cheese to start with - though I will admit that drier and more aged cheeses take longer to soften up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.540620
| 2010-11-08T20:18:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8956",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Mark Arthur",
"Megha",
"Motomotes",
"Patrick O'Doherty",
"Rob Olmos",
"Ryan",
"Stormy",
"doblak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"stephennmcdonald",
"stslavik",
"theeddieh"
],
"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
}
|
23373
|
Why is salt sometimes added to straight coffee?
Sometimes a pinch of salt is added to a cup of coffee - but why?
Is this only done for low-quality or mediocre coffee? When is the best time during the coffee-making process to do this?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9292/does-putting-salt-in-coffee-really-remove-bitterness
I'm not a coffee drinker, so can't comment on the timing -- but it's due to salt's effect of masking bitterness.
This is common practice in places like Ethiopia, where it is used (much like Americans use sugar) to cut the bitterness. This is a longstanding cultural practice (they domesticated it, so I figure they probably know better than we do), in an area where sugar was not readily available. In this situation, it is added just prior to drinking.
In my experience, sugar does absolutely nothing for coffee's bitterness; you have to add milk or cream to have any hope of producing a drinkable liquid. But maybe I'm just strange. :D
You could allways switch to drinking tea if you don't like the taste of coffee. Kind of like complaining about sugar tasting sweet, and you want to reduce its sweetness.
The question, and the answers have astonished me. In Spain, the combination of coffee and salt is a popular "recipe" for provoking vomit to sober up; popular but wrong and even dangerous in cases of heavy intoxications.
It's likely a difference in the amount of salt ... for what KatieK is asking about, it's only a pinch, not a large proportion. See the comment from Neil Fein in this answer : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/7512/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.540908
| 2012-04-26T17:59:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23373",
"authors": [
"Askar Kalykov",
"Chad",
"Chuck",
"Dmitry Minkovsky",
"Joe",
"Judith Williamson",
"Marchi",
"Marti",
"Michael Allen",
"Nancy Jean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"johnny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23532
|
How can I get a corn tortilla to be pliable enough to work with?
I like the flavor and texture of corn tortillas (store-bought), but they always tear apart whenever I try to use them in a non-flat way - enchilada-style, for example. How can I make the corn tortillas soft enough to work with (to roll around some ingredients, for example)?
You need to warm them up a bit. There are a number of ways to do this
20 or 30 seconds on a griddle (or a comal if you have one)
wrap a stack in foil and place in 325 oven for until warm
wrap a stack in a clean towel and steam them using a steamer
slightly moisten a towel and wrap it around a stack and microwave them for a bit
If you've warmed them and they are still tearing then your tortillas are no longer fresh.
For enchiladas, dipping in hot oil is also a good way- the oil also keeps the tortillas from getting mushy in the sauce.
When I make enchiladas, I throw each tortilla onto the open flame of a gas range for ten seconds or so. They get nice and soft and the occasional black spot is a flavor enhancer. Use tongs!
If possible, don't buy your tortillas from a modern super market, but look for a source of homemade/fresh tortillas. These can be found in many cities in the U.S. at Mexican or Latin American stores or neighboroods. Perhaps check your yellow pages for "Tortilleria" (The spanish word for "Tortilla Store"). These tortillas will also taste much better (at least in my opinion), and have fewer preservatives or other additives (such as artificial colors, etc).
If you can find a good source of fresh tortillas, they will generally be much softer than those you buy pre-packaged in a supermarket. They will be fresher, and if you find a good source, they'll be sold to you still warm (often kept in an ice chest or similar, to keep them warm until sale).
If you can't find this, you can learn to make your own tortillas.
Or, you can do as @djmadscribbler suggested, and warm your tortillas gently. Between warming and using, keep them covered so they don't dry out or cool down. Don't overheat them, or you'll dry them out (especially if you're warming them individually on the stove).
I spread coconut oil on the tortilla (thin layer like butter) and heat them in a hot skillet for about 15 seconds per side, drop it in the enchilada sauce, stuff and roll. That way the tortilla gets pliable, the sauce gets on the tortilla, and the sauce helps it stick together and look nice and neat. I've tried many ways (enchiladas are one of my favorite dinners to make with leftover beef or chicken) and this one has proven to be the easiest for me.
My husband is Mexican grew up in Puebla, Mexico, the proud "mecca" of Mexican cuisine. His family puts their corn tortillas in a plastic grocery bag and microwaves them for a few seconds. Or, they warm them in a frying pan in olive oil for a few moments on each side, long enough to soften but not crisp them. I've never seen Poblano cuisine use crispy tortillas.
i have kind of given up on having perfect store bought corn tortillas. so i decided to just layer them all across the bottom of a casserole dish and then filling and then all across the top with whatever sauce and cheeses you want to add. almost lasagna like. i know its fake bu i slice them in enchilada size portions. no one knows the difference.
I used to make enchiladas all the time and what I did was dip the corn tortilla in hot oil briefly, flip and do it again. However, now the tortillas I get turn mushy and tear easily, so I think something about the tortillas in my neightborhood has changed.
A friend's family's technique is to fry them in oil until they are almost hard enough for tostadas since she explained that the enchilada sauce will soften the tortillas once they are cooked.
How can you roll the tortilla after you fried it hard?
Using tongs, dip corn tortillas in hot manteca (lard) briefly on both sides, and drain on paper towels.
Just made a large pan of chicken enchiladas. Heated the corn tortillas in a small, dry skillet (no oil). This is the first time I have not either dipped them in enchilada sauce or fried in oil. Was able to easily roll them, except for repeatedly burning my fingers. :o( I think I prefer the dry way, as I'd rather not add additional calories if I don't have to. [Note: the tortillas were pretty fresh, which I do believe helped.]
Dipping in sauce isn't just to soften them, it's to put sauce on them!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.541094
| 2012-05-02T16:11:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23532",
"authors": [
"Atsuki",
"Bo_",
"Cascabel",
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"Larry K",
"Mien",
"Pizza eyes",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Sue Amerson",
"Xee",
"anthony medina",
"babybutterfly",
"dodgy games",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77075",
"ron postian I.C.I.",
"sylvia bullus",
"user77075",
"venkatvb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47450
|
Why does my jelly crystal box single out pineapple, kiwi fruit and paw paw as preventing setting?
Assumptions:
For American readers - I'm talking about Jello not Jam.
in Australia Paw Paw refers to Papaya
I've got a box of Aeroplane Jelly that states:
DO NO ADD FRESH PINEAPPLE, KIWI FRUIT OR PAW PAW AS JELLY WILL NOT SET
My question is: Why does my jelly crystal box single out pineapple, kiwi fruit and paw paw as preventing setting? Why not orange or watermelon or plum?
By paw paw do you mean papaya, a fruit sometimes called pawpaw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaya ? Common paw paw is a very different, custardy tasting, fruit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimina_triloba I'd be surprised if it contained large amounts of papain or any other protease.
Sorry yes - Paw Paw is the Australian term for Papaya
Related
FWIW, my party trick is to bring crystal jelly with pineapples to potluck. And when my friends try it at home the jelly doesn't set. The secret is that chili peppers (especially red chilli) contains enzymes that counter the enzymes in pineapples and allow the jelly to set. Just cut be sure to remove all the seed before adding the chili to the jelly and remove the chili before it sets (unless you want people to know your secret)
@slebetman Very interesting. I'm going to have to try that! Are red jalapenos OK to use? How much per 6oz box (170 grams, 8 servings)?
I just use one chili for up to 3 boxes of crystal jelly. You just want the enzymes not the heat or flavor.
Note that this chili tip originally came from Alton Brown's Good Eats episode on jellies :)
Certain enzymes (proteases) cut the protein bonds that create the mesh that causes the jelly (or Jello, or gelatin) to, well, gel.
Orange, watermelon and plum do not contain enough of those enzymes to interfere with gelling. In addition to paw paw (more commonly known as papaya in the US), pineapple and kiwi; mango, ginger, figs and guava also contain enough of those enzymes to interfere with gelling.
The application of high heat will inactivate those enzymes to the point that they will no longer interfere with gelling. That's why you can use canned pineapple, but not fresh, in gelatin desserts.
Really appreciated the range of fruits you found here.
It might be more accurate to say "within the USA" rather than "outside of Australia". I knew it as pawpaw growing up in the UK, and according to Collins American Dictionary the use of pawpaw to describe Asimina triloba is specific to the US.
@PeterTaylor I'll buy that. Edited.
+1 for the very helpful information about heat deactivating the enzymes.
From The naked scientist
Why does it happen? Jelly is made up of long thin protein molecules.
The reason that jelly sets is that as the gelatin molecules tangle up
as they cool creating a huge intertwined tangle which traps the water
and makes a flexible solid.
The pineapple contains an enzyme called bromelain and kiwi fruit
another enzyme called actinidin - both of these enzymes are proteases,
which means that they will chop up protein molecules. In the same way
that the digestive enzymes in your intestines break up proteins to
allow you to digest them. This means that when they are mixed with
gelatin, the proteases chop the gelatin protein up into pieces which
are far too short to tangle, so the jelly doesn't set.
No mention on that website about Paw Paw but I would assume it is for the same reason.
Pineapple, kiwi and paw paw all contain enzymes that break down proteins (bromelain, actinidin and papain respectively). Since the setting agent in jelly is gelatin, which is mostly protein, using any of these fruits will interfere with the jelly setting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.541486
| 2014-09-26T10:16:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47450",
"authors": [
"Alejandra Moreta Çobancaoğlu",
"Brian R",
"Gary Buzbee",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kristina Gleeson",
"Peter Taylor",
"Robert LaFrance",
"Scott Kenley",
"Spammer",
"Steven Foster",
"Sue Cooke",
"Vapid spammer",
"Walter",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"William Harris",
"andrew thomas",
"hawkeye",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"slebetman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23461
|
How to make celery root dish without parmesan?
I've used a recipe before (can't find it anymore, sorry) where I steamed sticks of celery root. The ingredients I remember are garlic (whole cloves steamed together with the celery), probably a small amount of water or vegetable broth and butter - or perhaps olive oil - (for the steaming) and Parmesan sprinkled over in the end. After steaming in a small amount of liquid covered with parchment until tender the vegetables were removed and the resulting broth cooked until thick and used as a glace.
My question is, what could I do to be able to cook this if I don't have Parmesan. As the dish does have a strong flavour on its own I think it would be OK but is there perhaps something (nondairy, non-meat, not from a special shop) I could substitute with? I am concerned with what would complement the tastes, not necessarily finding replica Parmesan taste in another product.
I want this to taste great, not just be edible!
Thanks
You should inquire further into the degree of allergy. Most lactose intolerant people can tolerate hard cheese and butter remarkably well, even without symptoms; it is fresh milk, cream, ice cream, and partly cultured products like yoghurt and fresh cheeses (cream cheese, quark) which produce a reaction (which can again range from slight gas production to strong cramps).
OK I will this afternoon!
My friend is apparently eating everything now so... discussion changed
Look at the discussion in this question (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8179/whats-a-good-nondairy-substitute-for-parmesan-grana-padano-as-a-salad-topper/8203#8203) for an analysis of how to substitute for Parmesan in general. The main issue for your recipe would be the issue of texture.
I find celeriac loves coriander -seed and especially root. White pepper, horseradish or perhaps mustard oil or powder can be added by a smidge for a hint of warmth.
This is still a mild side-dish, ya for something else flavorful on the plate?
I love serving pumpkin at the same meal 'cause they bring out the best in each other... IMHO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.541949
| 2012-04-29T20:26:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23461",
"authors": [
"Chris Nevill",
"Heidi Larsen",
"Martha F.",
"Mary ",
"Penny",
"SmokeDetector",
"davio",
"fanlim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9608",
"rumtscho",
"user53201",
"user53250"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2874
|
How do the various methods of roasting beef compare?
I can think of 3 ways to roast beef:
Rotisserie Oven
Regular Oven
BBQ
What are the pros and cons of each?
Voting to close; at this point, recipe requests are considered off-topic (see http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4/should-i-need-a-recipe-for-x-questions-be-off-topic).
also subjective etc.
Is this a recipe request? I can't answer it that well myself since I don't make a lot of roast beef, but surely there are noticeable differences in tenderness, moistness, savoriness and other characteristics when using the different methods? I must admit that I don't entirely understand the downvotes and close votes here.
Seems like this is a cooking method question. What type of appliance do you use to roast your beef and why?
Whether or not it's a recipe request, it's a "List of X"-type question, so it should still be closed.
Edited out the "best" part - obviously that's a personal decision. Still, this question might be more useful if it was more direct: "How does roasting beef in a rotisserie compare to doing so in a regular oven?" - busy defending an edit elsewhere though; if that interests you Pyrolistical, consider deleting this and re-posting.
I think the revised question is much better!
A roast is a roast is a roast.
Roasting is a method of cooking that involves the aplication of a lot of dry heat to a peice of meat. You can obtain a great roast from all the above the cooking methods as long as you take into account the various ways they work.
A rotisserie offers all around even heat and will remain juicy although you can lose some juice from the skewer through the center, but may not cook the roast as perfectly as you lack good tempature control.
The oven is a great way to roast meat as long as you use the two tempature method. That means you start high and finish low or vice versa. I tend to side with Alton Brown on this and start low (normally 200 but you can adjust according to time requirements) until my roast is ~25-to-20 degrees of medium rare, pull it out and bring the oven to 450, put back in and remove to rest at 15 degrees short of desired doneness. You also have to make sure that you raise the roast off the bottom of the pan because if you don't you will end up braising the roast in it's own juices.
Your grill can work as long as you keep the lid closed and the roast from directly over the coals, but it is going to be the method that needs the most constant attention and will be easy to end up with a overdone outside and a underdone interior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.542147
| 2010-07-22T20:31:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2874",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Hoa Long Tam",
"JustRightMenus",
"Pops",
"Rup",
"Shog9",
"Tree77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"nixy ",
"s_hewitt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24435
|
Is there any difference between cheap and expensive vodka?
Vodka is supposed to be odorless and flavorless (with the exception of flavored vodkas). So if I switch to a dirt-cheap vodka, can I save some money?
Is there any difference between cheap and expensive vodka? Are there any reliable studies demonstrating this?
I've heard high quality vodka does not give off the "burning" sensation that cheaper vodka does when swallowed, which makes it much more enjoyable to drink by itself. But I don't have any sources on that.
I dont know the exact difference but you can definitely taste the difference between good vodka(much smoother) compared to cheap vodka.
I can tell the difference the next morning!
The one difference we can all agree on is... the difference in price! I can tell the difference as soon as I look in my wallet or at my bank statement. ;-) This seems to be a perennial question about vodka. The discussions about aged spirits like whisky or port take on a completely different tone.
Here's a report on an informally conducted taste test suggesting that there are indeed detectable differences between various vodkas: (the report does not say so, but I suspect that much like wine, whether one vodka comes out as better as another one has little to do with its price, except at the very bottom end of the price range)
And, yes, there are differences—a truth known by anyone in the liquor industry with a little sense. But one that is frequently forgotten— partly because our government insists on characterizing vodka as a "colorless, flavorless, odorless" beverage; [...] That there are subtle, and sometimes dramatic, differences in flavor and odor between one vodka and another was driven home recently by a daylong seminar hosted by Absolut. [...] Central to the event was a blind tasting of 12 different vodkas. [...]
The main lesson of the tasting—or re-learned lesson, since many of us in the room knew it already—is that the biggest difference between the flavors of various vodkas derives from the source material, and that difference is easily detected, if you pay attention. Vodka can be distilled from anything, but the most common raw materials are grain and potatoes, with a few using molasses and grapes and other things. Grape-sourced vodka typically has a fruitier character; grain-sourced has the expected bready, yeasty and, yes, grainy notes, with the rye vodkas having more bit and spark than the barley or wheat ones; and potato-sourced vodka has a rounder, sometimes buttery flavor.
From: http://offthepresses.blogspot.be/2010/03/vodkas-and-their-differences.html
Another taste test conducted by the New York Times suggests the same thing:
Delving into the world of vodka reveals a spirit unlike almost any other, with standards that make judging it substantially different from evaluating wine, beer, whiskey or even root beer. A malt whiskey should be distinctive, singular. The same goes for a Burgundy or a Belgian ale. But vodka? Vodka is measured by its purity, by an almost Platonic neutrality that makes tasting it more akin to tasting bottled waters, or snowflakes. [...]
A lack of distinctiveness is a separate matter from a lack of distinction. The vodkas we tasted had character and their own flavors and aromas, even though the differences among them were often subtle and difficult to articulate. [...]
That being said, at the end of our tasting it was Smirnoff at the top of our list, ahead of many other names that are no doubt of higher status in stylish bars and lounges. [...] The prices of these vodkas ranged from a low of $13 for the Smirnoff to a high of $34 for Potocki, a Polish vodka that did not make our cut. The Belvedere also cost $34, but that was for a liter rather than the usual 750 milliliter bottle. Imported vodkas tend to cost more, partly because of taxes levied by various governments, currency exchange rates and, not least, marketing concerns: as has been proved in many industries, wine not least of all, raising the price of a product increases its status among consumers.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/dining/26wine.html
As a counterpoint, here's another report suggesting most people can not tell the difference:
To summarize our findings,
Given a particular brand of vodka, people prefer its taste after it has been filtered, but this is most likely because filtration reduces the alcohol content.
Most people can’t tell the difference between an expensive vodka with high alcohol content and a cheaper vodka with lower alcohol content.
Our second experiment demonstrated approximately equal preferences for Pavlova and Ketel One. Although Pavlova contains 3-5% less alcohol by volume than Ketel One, it is also 70% cheaper, so it would seem a clear winner.
From: http://www.monzy.com/vodka-research/
It is a myth that premium vodkas are somehow purer than cheap vodkas. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Pure grain alcohol, or ethanol, is neither odorless nor flavorless. It actually tastes and smells just like medicinal rubbing alcohol, and it burns like hell going down. Now that is exactly what you get when you buy bargain supermarket vodka. Just pure grain alcohol plus water. Nearly all vodkas are bottled at 80 proof, which means, by volume, 40 percent alcohol and 60 percent water.
Premium vodkas, on the other hand, contain a variety of aromatic compounds. These "impurities" help to greatly muffle both the unpleasant taste and burn of pure grain alcohol, which results in a much smoother and more neutral tasting vodka. They also give each vodka its distinct character.
I am not exactly advocating premium vodkas. I, myself, am much more of a whiskey man. If you like to drink vodka straight, then by all means go with the spendier premium vodkas, but if you plan on using it in mixed drinks, the strong sweet and sour flavor of citrus, or cranberry juice, or Red Bull (if you must), does a very good job in masking the harshness of alcohol. In which case, the cheap stuff will do just fine.
Yes, there is a difference. Maybe there is no noticeable difference between a Moskovskaya and a Smirnoff, but there is a taste difference between a Moskovskaya and a supermakret house brand. There is an even stronger difference between a brand-name vodka and cheap unlicensed knock-offs with fraudulent tax seals.
Unlike other spirits, which are expected to get lots of additional flavor from substances produced during fermentation or aging, vodka is best when it is the purest, just straight ethanol with water - potatoes don't carry the flavorful substances fruit or malted grain does, so you don't want reminders of the vodka's original dissolved in it. But as any distilled alcohol, some tastes of the plant matter do get dissolved in the alcohol during destillation, and there is the risk of getting destillation products other than ethanol, in the worst case even methanol (which shouldn't be present in any legally distributed beverage, but if your sources are dubious, you should consider the risk). Not getting them into the vodka in the first place and then removing/filtering whatever got into it regardless of precautions requires a precise process with tightly controlled conditions. Brand name manufacturers have the know-how to do it, and the selling price allows them to implement it. Cheap house brands probably don't.
So, while the conditions needed to produce a good vodka are the opposite of those needed for a good whiskey or other spirit, they still require a process which only the expensive brands are likely to follow. This also produces a more or less noticeable difference in taste. Sure, there are people who won't notice the difference, maybe because they are genetically less disposed to sensing the off-tastes, or because they are so unaccustomed to vodka that all they feel is an uniform burning sensation from the ethanol masking everything else, or because they drink the vodka with strongly-flavored mixers which cover the taste. But the chemical difference exists, and it can have results not only on the perceived taste, but also on the hangover severity. So, don't buy absolute bottom shelf, it isn't worth it. On the other hand, you are not very likely to notice the difference between two good vodkas (unlike the difference between, say, two good whiskeys), so once a certain quality bar is reached, the exact brand isn't important any more.
Generally a great answer; I have upvoted. But: most vodka nowadays is made from grain, not potatoes. Supermarket own brand vodka can be very good. I personally find Asda Export Strength Vodka to be smoother than Smirnoff Red (Asda being a British supermarket).
All vodkas are made from neutral spirits which in turn are made from any fermentable material. Neutral spirits is ethanol that is distilled above 192 proof or 96% alcohol. It is extremely difficult to distill above that with normal stills. The reason that Smirnoff wins is that it is filtered through deactivated charcoal and not carbon. Their charcoal is made from wood which has calcium. The calcium is picked up by the neutral spirit as it passes through the filter medium, in Smirnoff's case, 11 charcoal packed columns. This calcium produces a soapy type of mouth feel, therefore raising the pH to make is more basic and less acid- less he burn. Some vodkas inject nitrogen after filtering which also changes the mouth feel. Popov, made by the same people that make Smirnoff is identical except that Popov filters through carbon.coal based charcoal. At the end of the day, there are slight differences. filtering is the main quality ingredient in what produces a good tasking vodka.
Filtration is performed using plain or activated charcoal... the activated designation is used to indicate that it has been processed to have more surface area than unprocessed charcoal. Deactivated charcoal is what you would call the waste product after it has been used as a filtration medium. What do you mean "carbon.coal based charcoal"? Fossil-derived coal and charcoal are two different things, both are primarily made of carbon.
There is a difference in vodkas, but they are not always connected to price. EX: Grey Goose is marketed as a "premium vodka" but you can get Tito's for 40% less and Tito's will taste better. Also, if the vodka is made in Europe it typically has additives which are not allowed in the US. They add things like glycerin in their vodka to make it taste sweeter to cover up the vodka burn.
So anyways, what makes a vodka good or bad? Many things go into it, it's not just the water as others have stated. First it's about about what you use. The most common indigents are Potatoes, wheat, and corn. Really anything that can be broken down into simple sugar can be used. Each one has their own taste. The best vodka's typically use wheat... but again there are other factors. The next major factor is fermentation. If this process in not very controlled or sped up, you will create impurities which taste bad and create hangovers. The next is distilling and filtering. When you distill it means you vaporize it, then condensing it by cooling the vapor. Not all distills are equal. Basically... the higher and more levels the better. Then next is filtering, these varies a lot. If you ever hear that a vodka is filtered through diamonds or crystals (EX: crystal head vodka) it is a marketing scheme, these does nothing ti filter the vodka or make it taste better.
Lastly, people forget that water maters. Water makes up 60% of the vodka. Many people like water that has been over limestone because it has a low ph and lessens the vodka burn.
I would suggest that you go to a vodka tasting or buy a few vodkas. My favorite vodka may not be yours. I am a purest, so I think vodka with the least taste is the best.
Price does not equal quality. I have been drinking Vodka straight for over 25 years. While yes you go low spectrum like say Russian Prince or Smirnoff you will get a very low quality drink, but even going medium range like Russian Standard or Finlandia can give you a quality drink. The test I use (as I explained in my FindTheBest Vodka review) is the instafrost test. Take Smirnoff for example its so laden down with chemicals and the rest after 2 hours in a freezer when the bottle is cracked it sweats (IE moisture forms on the bottle) where as a pur distalate vodka such as Russian Standard when cracked after even 45 minutes in a freezer will instantly frost across the entire bottle. Why you ask, the answer is simple, a true and pure vodka is 99.9% ethanol diluted with water and no adultarants, cheap vodka has "cut". When a pure vodka is placed in a freezer it seperates and when it hits room temperature it condenses the same as in the distallate process, but the low temp of the bottle causes frost. The only test a man should make with vodka is purity, not price, or flashiness, just purity.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any references that provide more details on the test you've outlined? Also, welcome to Seasoned Adivce!
Distilled vodka starts out as grain neutral spirits at a very high proof (>150 proof). It is then watered down (with plain water) to cut the alcohol content to about 80 - 100 proof. Then it is filtered and bottled for immediate distribution.
When you buy expensive vodka you are paying for perceived quality, a fancy bottle and label and expensive advertising. The actual vodka product is all pretty much the same. The difference between an $8.00 bottle of vodka and a $28.00 bottle or a $48.00 bottle is slight. Certainly not worth the cost differential.
Well done, vodka marketeers!,
I compared Belvedere (rye / 4 x distilled, 2014 Silver Medal World Spirits Competition) to Liquor Barn Nicholai ( few if any flavors and straight up produces very light burn) so, unless straight martini is your goal there appears absolutely no difference to me - wait - Nicholai is what? Four times dollar savings?! Truly this is not made in a dump, Sazerac purchased brand from Seagrams in 1989!
Please clarify. The conclusion, not the vodka.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHEAP AND EXPENSIVE VODKA! VODKA IS JUST RUSSIAN MOONSHINE! Thats all it is but marketing and popularity of Vodka has made it into something greater than it really is. Vodka snobs will of course disagree with this but whatever to each is own and its your money!
Every distilled alcohol in the world started out as moonshine. And you talk like somebody who hasn't had the really cheap vodkas. Drink 100 gram from a 1.50 Eur/liter vodka and tell me how your head feels the next day.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.542402
| 2012-06-14T03:06:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24435",
"authors": [
"Demiteli",
"Didgeridrew",
"Dorcas",
"Elliot Yu",
"Jay",
"Jim Gable",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kareen",
"Ken C",
"Ned",
"Preston",
"Reclame Hub",
"Seshadri Krishnasamy",
"Spammer",
"bartektartanus",
"christy chavez",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90200",
"kemis",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"slisp",
"user359491 spam",
"user55685",
"yashevde"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24436
|
Is "angostura" (as in bitters) a flavor?
I'm confused by drink recipes calling for "Angosutra bitters". Is "angostura" (as in bitters) a specific flavor combination?
Or is "Angosutra" a specific brand or manufacturer (like "Tylenol" is to aspirin)? If so, what's the closest possible replacement for it?
First hit in the big G tells all you need to know?
As the question states: the flavor is bitter.
@Ray what has this got to do with cocktails?
By far the primary use of Angostura is in cocktails
I've moved the issue of how we tag this (and similar) over to Meta: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1533/how-do-we-deal-with-borderline-questions-during-contest-week
I think this is a good question, as it is an issue that is frequently misunderstood. There is an aromatic flavoring called angostura bark, though it seems to be more used in traditional medicine than in any food or cooking situation.
Angostura brand bitters, on the other hand, do not actually contain the bark at all--they are instead a brand--House of Angostura--named for Angostura, Venezuela.
As a flavor, this formula belongs to a class of bitters called "aromatic bitters" (as opposed to, say, orange bitters. Angostura is probably the best-selling brand of aromatic bitters, at least in the US, but they are by no means the only player. Fee Brothers and Peychaud's are both popular alternatives. Though there is a fairly wide variety among aromatic bitters, and their formulas are secret, they do have some commonalities. For example, gentian root tends to be the strongest flavor. They are also, as the name implies, very aromatic, so that a "dash" or two is plenty to flavor a drink.
Angostura Bitters is a specific brand of bitters. The Angostura in the name refers to the town where it was originally produced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.543471
| 2012-06-14T03:21:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24436",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Jason",
"Jon Barker",
"McGariet",
"Phil Scott",
"Ray",
"Rob M",
"TFD",
"geegee9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"modular",
"user55676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28648
|
How do I know when my stock is done cooking?
I'm making stock from turkey bones and all of the other leftovers hanging around the refrigerator. Since the cooking time varies quite a bit depending on cooking method (I'm doing a slow simmer on the stovetop) and bone type, how can I know when my stock is done cooking so that I can begin to chill it?
Wait, what methods for stock making are there except a slow simmer on the stovetop?
One recipe advised putting the pot into a 250 degree oven for 2-3 hours. The author must have had a pretty large oven.
@rumtscho Here is a recipe from Ruhlman for Turkey stock in a 180-200 degree oven overnight: http://ruhlman.com/2010/11/turkey-stock-oven-method-2/
I've also heard from a french chef bringing your stock pot to a boil over a low heat, then holding the temperature of the pot at 98 celsius overnight in the oven or an induction top. This way he said, the flavours still infuse but the lack of boiling movement keeps the stock from getting too cloudy.
Given the significant investment of time, energy, and ingredients, I don't have much opportunity to experiment with different stock cooking times. There must be some way of gauging when the maximum deliciousness has been extracted.
@rumtscho I use a pressure cooker to make all my stocks, finished in 45-60 minutes for chicken stock. Not sure water at 120°C could be considered as simmering! ;)
@Megasaur I'm confused, isn't the water boiling at 98 degrees centigrade?
The absolute time a stock will take depends on the quantity of stock you are making and also on the ratio of solids to liquid with which you started (along with the strength of your burner, the starting temperature of the water, the geometry of your pot, ...). Intentional variation is also possible depending on your intended use.
The best advice I've heard comes from Judy Rodgers in the Zuni Cafe Cookbook: taste the stock often as it cooks, more and more freqently as it starts to taste good. When it doesn't taste better than the last time you checked, it's done.
Really it's up to you. I generally cook mine for 4 hours, but you can cook it longer or shorter. Cooking it for a short time will lead to a lighter, less flavorful stock, and cooking for longer leads to a darker, richer stock.
Once again, there's no right answer, but I believe 1.5 hours and 6 hours would be best.
It depends on what is in the stock pot. Thick bones like beef joints may take all day. A simple vegetable broth can be had in 30 minutes.
Generally, for chicken stock (which is what I make at home the most), when everything is falling apart and the bones are kind of bendy, you have gotten all you can get. This takes about 3-4 hours at a slow simmer depending on the size of chunks you have put into the pot.
OF course, as the other answer indicates, it also depends on how patient you are.
Turkey stock/broth? The bones have given up all their goodness when they're soft and the smaller long bones can be bent, like the thinner bone in the wing, analogous to the human radius (yes, in birds, the radius is the smaller of the bones). When the bones are bendable, the marrow has given up it's goodness, particularly if you have cleaved the larger of the bones. At a low simmer, that can take 10+ hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.543681
| 2012-11-25T21:05:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28648",
"authors": [
"Antoine Boisier-Michaud",
"CHER NeverbeashamedofJesusChri",
"Cindy Wilson",
"Jan Lynn",
"KatieK",
"Megasaur",
"Sharon F.",
"Stefano",
"Steve",
"cjmorgan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jfa",
"rumtscho",
"user66241"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24437
|
How can I smoothly sugar the rim?
Sometimes I end up with a nice even coating of sugar on my lemon drop's rim (it's served in a martini glass). But most of the time the sugar is clumpy and uneven. What can I do to encourage a nice smooth professional coating of sugar on my glass rim?
The clumps come from too much liquid on the glass when applying the sugar.
The way I learned to salt a glass was to dip the glass upside-down in a shallow plate or bowl of water, let it drip for 5-10 seconds, then dip it into an evenly layered plate of salt. I think this should work for sugaring a glass.
Also I think use powdered sugar.
Powdered sugar - or icing sugar - would almost certainly not produce the desired result; you need the crystals in the sugar to stand out, which powdered sugar would not do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.544076
| 2012-06-14T03:33:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24437",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Ray Holloway",
"evil_potato",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61826",
"john williams",
"keystagetutors spam",
"razumny",
"sal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12458
|
What is the criss-cross pattern on top of peanut butter cookies used for?
I've been making peanut butter cookies, but skipping the step of pressing the top of the cookie down with a fork. What does this step do for the cookies?
Great question, this is something I have always wondered. If nothing else, it's a convenient way to identify exactly what type of cookie it is.
Peanut butter cookies don't spread as they cook, so you have to flatten them before hand. This ensures that the middle will cook through before the outside burns.
As for the pattern created, it actually creates slightly more surface area, so you'll get more browning at the extra edges that you create. Think of it like a meringue, or the top of a shepherd's pie -- if it's too smooth, you won't get the little bits of browned crispy bits that you'd get if you rough up the surface.
I believe the main reason is to help the dough spread out. Peanut butter cookies recipes typically don't go for a lot of spread, and therefore you need to manually flatten the dough in order to get a proper cookie shape and allow the cookie to cook properly.
It's not clear to me whether the non-spreading recipe is a requirement for some aspect of the cookie, or if the reason that a non-spreading recipe is used is specifically to allow the fork-marks to remain, so you could experiment with some of the factors mentioned in this thread on cookie spreading if you'd prefer the cookies to spread on their own and skip the fork marks.
The fork lines are so you can tell the difference between the peanut butter ones and the sugar cookies.
You know ... I was debating mentioning that part of it ... I mean, it's not like trying to decode what it's a box of assorted chocolates by the swirl on top, but it can be something you can teach to a kid with peanut allergies as a warning sign.
For my purposes, I can see the color difference between sugar and peanut butter cookies. Also, I use chunky peanut butter, so the peanut chunks are often visible.
I actually just asked my wife about this! It turns out that the dough used for most peanut butter cookies is a little thicker than regular cookie dough. Pressing it can help it to cook more evenly. I don't know how much it helps, but she seemed to think it was pretty important!
It's not just there for cooking, it's to make the cookie look like the peanuts shell.
Nothing. It's just cosmetic. I didn't even know I was "supposed" to be doing that until I'd been making them for years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.544445
| 2011-02-22T01:53:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12458",
"authors": [
"Aquarius Power",
"Giovanni De Gaetano",
"JJ Caldwell",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Michael Fever",
"Ola",
"Pham Hoan",
"Steven Donohue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lydia wall"
],
"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
}
|
11643
|
What is the purpose of tempering chocolate?
What is the purpose of tempering chocolate? If I'm dipping something in chocolate, can I get by with just melting the chocolate?
Chocolate is an odd substance when it comes to melting and hardening. When chocolate hardens, its melting point will end up being just a few degrees higher than the hardening temperature.
When chocolate crystallizes at high temperatures, it forms a strong, dense crystalline structure that, texture-wise, is quite brittle. Most bought chocolate (baker's chocolate and chips) is already tempered, but when you melt it, you break down that crystalline structure, and if you harden it at room temperature then it ends up forming very weak crystals that will melt in your hand.
If you use a special coating chocolate (couverture or the lower-quality compound chocolate) then you don't need to worry so much about tempering (although it's still a good idea), but if you use ordinary chocolate and don't temper it then your coating will end up being messy and wet and rub off on your hands while you eat it. It might even melt while stored.
Tempering is the key to making a room-temperature-stable chocolate coating. If you don't do this, you'll need to keep your pastries refrigerated until they're ready to consume.
In addition to Aaronut's answer, tempered chocolate is generally smoother, glossier, and 'snaps' better.
Tempering, in scientific terms, is a process of encouraging the cocoa butter to form a stable From V crystal structure.
When you temper chocolate, you are first melting the chocolate to a temperature that will break all of the crystals, leaving you a more or less uncrystalized soup of melted chocolate. From this clean starting point, you somehow encourage the chocolate to form only the right kind of crystals (Form V). This can be done either by adding pre-tempered chocolate as the melted chocolate cools or by agitating the melted chocolate on a marble slab. The former method is obviously much easier.
All real chocolate (including bars, most chips, and courverture) is sold in tempered form and must be in temper to use. The best way to use this chocolate is by melting it fully and adding unmelted tempered chocolate, but, if the chocolate you are starting with is tempered, you can also melt it very slowly until it is just barely melted it should remain in temper.
As far as the practical differences, tempered chocolate:
Glossy finish
Hard snap
Higher melting temperature
Will not have fat bloom (white splotching after hours to days)
Sets in 5 minutes or less
The beauty of chocolate is that it firm, crisp and solid at room temperature however when at body temperature like in our mouths it melts.
The simplest explanation of the effects of tempering chocolate is that the melting temperature increases when the chocolate crystallizes so it melts in your mouth and not your hands. Also, the texture of the chocolate is finer as cooled untempered chocolate has a grainy texture on the tongue.
Years ago I watched Pierre Herme who was at that time executive pastry chef of Fauchon in Paris put a plastic bowl of chocolate in the microwave until half was melted and then use a handheld electric blender to mix the melted and unmelted chocolate together to create a perfect tempered chocolate for dipping.
Perhaps, the easiest way to temper chocolate is to grate half the chocolate with a vegetable grater and melt the other half in a plastic bowl in the microwave until it is all just above body temperature. Then with a spoon stir in the grated chocolate. This is called the 'seeding' method. If the chocolate begins to get too cool just place it in the microwave for 2 or 3 seconds without melting it again.
I wondered this myself over the holidays when I wanted to dip some cookies in chocolate. I couldn't be bothered with buying a thermometer and figuring out how to do the tempering, so I just melted the chocolate (some nice quality chocolate bars, so not special chocolate meant for dipping) gently in a double boiler (ok, metal bowl on top of a pot of water), dipped, then set things on parchment paper. It took a few hours to set and it probably would melt if you sat with it in your hand, but it worked well enough for me. I stored the cookies at room temperature and they didn't seem noticeable melty when we ate them.
Chocolate bars tend to contain a high amount of lecithin as a preservative, which raises the melting point; that's probably why yours didn't melt straight up.
Put your Hershey bar in your car's glove box. Wait for a hot day. Remove it. Fix the situation by putting it in your fridge.
Now taste it. That is what chocolate that is way out of temper tastes like. It is still chocolate, but something is clearly, terribly, wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.544703
| 2011-01-30T03:32:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11643",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Antzi",
"Carol Boyle",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kevin Crough",
"Pdxd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54204",
"spammer",
"user23901"
],
"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
}
|
70816
|
Which bread keeps the longest?
I want to buy the type of bread which last longest. It should be toastable, so no zwieback and other dry types. Which is the best bread for this purpose? Is the standard toast slices or loaf of bread better?
Hello Jim, you had posted two questions in one. The first (how to store bread) was a duplicate, so I removed it - see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61. I reworded the second one (which bread keeps longest) to avoid the question of "best", as that would have been misinterpreted as "tastiest", "the one the author finds best suited for making toast", etc.
Should we assume that you want to leave your bread out on the counter? If I'm not eating bread quickly, I just toss it in the freezer and it lasts practically forever and still toasts well... then it doesn't matter what kind I get, I just buy the bread I like.
@Catija:No I don't want to leave it out on the counter. I want the type that is most suited.
Most suited to what?
@Catija:For toasted bread for breakfast
Which bread you want to eat for breakfast is utterly opinion-based. Everyone has a favorite type of bread to toast and eat for breakfast.
@Catija:But I assume some breads are better preserved than others right?
Much of it has to do with how you store it, and what the issues are in your area with that storage method in the given season (is it going to go stale before it goes moldy?)
I find that the bread that's least likely to go off before I get to the end of the loaf is sourdough ... but I get my sourdough from a place that uses a real starter, and isn't just mass produced with a sour flavor added.
... but there are also breads with additives & preservatives in them that they'll easily resist molding for more than a week ... but it doesn't make particularly good toast in my opinion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.545088
| 2016-06-19T14:10:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70816",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40441",
"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
}
|
75190
|
Should I maintain a carbon steel knife with oil?
I just got a new All Clad chef's knife that is carbon steel. I've read that carbon steel knives require a lot of maintenance like wiping twice after every single use(once with a damp cloth and again with a dry cloth) and not leaving it in the sink for even a minute. I was thinking of buying an oil for carbon steel, but I've read that carbon steel SHOULD develop a patina. So should I buy this oil? Is that patina really a good thing?
Why would you buy a carbon steel knife if you are not going to bother with maitenance?
Do you want it to be useful, or pretty?
I write it as a seasoned carbon steel knife user and a hobbyist knifemaker.
Use edible oil or nothing
Safety first. You can use any oil as long as you are really, really sure you wouldn't mind it added to your food.
Patina is good.
There are two kinds of iron oxide. Let's call them red (rust) and black (patina). Black one is good.
It mitigates red rust
It's less sticky
It's mostly tasteless
It's main drawback - it's ugly.
This is my everyday carbon steel knife. It's scrached and developed patina. It does not mind being used for cooking. It no longer requires wiping every minute, it can well be washed and dried after few hours.
How to develop good patina?
First, the less patina you already have, the slower you need to go. Don't keep virgin steel wet too long. Only after it begins to darken you can allow it to stay wet longer.
Remove red rust when you see it. But don't just use scrubber. If you want to develop patina fast, you should boil your knfe's blade for ten or twenty minutes when you see it getting red. This will convert some red to black. Then gently scrub the rest of red from your blade. If you don't want to boil, just gently remove rust, carefully not destroying patina.
If you want to artificially develop patina, dijon mustard is especially good for that. Few hours in warm place should do the job. Lemon juice is not half bad, either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.545265
| 2016-11-02T05:44:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75190",
"authors": [
"Mołot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87858
|
What is this in the beef stew?
To make beef stew, I start by simmering a chopped onion, add cut up top round beef, add water, and bring to a boil.
In about 15 minutes, millions of bits of horrible looking gunk appear in the water. Picture below. What am I doing wrong?
This is protein that is coagulating in the water simmer environment.
Most beef stew and braises in general start with a high heat sear of the meat, often dusted with flour or starch to begin a thickener.
Simmering any animal protein in water will produce this curd like gunk. If you continue, and add other ingredients, and reduce the liquid, it will eventually incorporate,more or less, bt will look like that for a while.
Wondering what recipe or, more importantly, technique you are trying to use.
If you provide more details about timeline and technique, more can be said, but simmering meat in water makes this curdy mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.545434
| 2018-02-18T22:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87858",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56175
|
Chicken bone broth, what is the brown stuff at the bottom of the pot?
I often make chicken bone broth using a simple recipe of chicken backs, chicken feet, water, apple cider vinegar, parsley, salt. Ingredients are organic. The resulting broth tastes excellent.
My concern is the brown crud at the bottom of the pot. Pictures below. What is this? Is it normal?
Looks like sediment from stuff like the marrow settling out of the rest of the stock. You could avoid that by skimming the froth and brown bits when it's boiling, but it's otherwise not a problem.
Could be a lot of things, depending on how clean the bones were, but assuming everything was clean, then my guess would be bone marrow. It's exactly that color and texture:
(Source: My Life As A Foodie)
It gets darker when cooked - refer to the link above for more photos. Don't worry about safety, bone marrow is nutritious and delicious.
You're more likely to end up with marrow in your broth if any of the bones were cut, cracked, or broken, either intentionally or during the cooking process.
It's coagulated protein and particulates from the bones. Nothing to worry about. If you want crystal clear broth, you can make a consomme with a raft of egg whites (though usually ground meat is also used). Any classic French cookbook will have instructions for this; I refer to Julia Child's The Way to Cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.545534
| 2015-03-29T16:33:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56175",
"authors": [
"Abhinay Shukla",
"Carol Ann Norton",
"Florita Purvis",
"Isaac Kotlicky",
"Jo Ann Redding",
"Lois Nickells",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33878",
"lisa-marie philips"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68317
|
Why must the oven be preheated for a Pyrex glass pan?
This Pyrex glass safety label says "Always preheat oven". Any idea why?
@TimPost Generally it's fast heating that messes with glass, and it does say right below it to avoid sudden temperature changes.
It says preheat oven... Not the pan. Preheating the pan empty is not usually recommended
Arguably (as @Catija implied) preheating the empty pan is instructed against, at least for cold food. I reckon the "always preheat" instruction is about the time it takes for the food to come up to temperature in a pan with poor thermal conductivity and large thermal mass. Now that modern ovens preheat much faster and some reckon that preheating is only required for some foods, this instruction is probably open to debate.
I suspect that's for the food, not the glass. Placing food in a cold oven has disastrous effects, culinary speaking.
@BaffledCook: When in doubt, read the original manual (see answer below: it's just to extend the life of your glassware...)
FWIW, placing food in a non-preheated oven works just fine, especially for casseroles, pasta dishes, and similar. The only things it doesn't work for is items which need to be "crispy", which need the sudden blast of heat when they go in, and baked goods which need oven spring.
While an oven preheats, the heating element or gas burner will be running at full output. For an electric oven in particular, this will generate a great deal of radiant heat. Radiant heat increases the temperature of the objects it shines on, without directly changing the air temperature.
So, if you place a pyrex dish in a cold oven and then turn it on, some surfaces of the dish will be exposed to this intense radiant heat for a long period of time as the oven heats up, while the air temperature in the oven the rest of the dish is exposed to will still be much cooler.
If the dish is placed in the oven after it has preheated, it will still be exposed to the radiant heat as the oven cycles on and off to maintain the temperature, but it will be for shorter periods of time and the ambient temperature the rest of the dish is exposed to will not have such a large differential, resulting in less thermal stress on the glass.
This is an excellent answer. I'd add that thermal stress, if it creates enough temperature variation, can cause your Pyrex to explode. That's also why they say to put it on a dry, cloth potholder as that will slow the loss of heat from the dish to the countertop and why you don't use it on the stove or broiler (lots of direct heat = lots of thermal stress). Similarly, adding liquid to a dish before cooking meat or vegetables means that the parts of the dish not covered by meat/vegetables won't heat up too fast.
@Duncan — There's a plethora of website extolling the virtues of glass cookware. I can tell you from personal experience that when they unexpectedly break while cooking a meal in the oven, it kills all the fun.
I have a number of glass cookware pieces and have been fortunate enough (and careful enough) that I've never had one explode on me. My sister has, though. Turns out that lasagna with chunks of glass is an underappreciated family Thanksgiving delicacy.
@Duncan — I would wager your sister's replacement lasagna pan is not made of glass. Any possible benefit glass bakeware might have is outweighed by the prospect of a total disaster occurring at the worst possible time.
Now I want to see an actual test of this. If someone wants to test and video, I'll pay for the pan you break.
Do you think this is true with smaller ovens like toaster ovens and air fryer ovens?
As Fabby says, it must have something to do with a sudden change in heat. An hypothesis: they misinterpreted the French original written by Pyrex. It says, again thanks to Fabby:
Assurez-vous de toujours préchauffer le four avant d’y mettre votre plat en vitre.
This means, "make sure to always preheat the oven before putting in your pan". It could be interpreted in two ways: "always preheat the oven if you're going to use the pan in it", or: "always preheat the oven before putting in the pan, not after putting in the pan".
The latter would make sense: pre-heating is a special function in many ovens with its own button. This function uses the grill on the "ceiling" to make it heat up extra fast (in addition to the normal heating element located outside the internal oven compartment), and this would result in too much direct heat on the pan. The warning in the picture in the Question also says "do not use under a direct heat source".
Another (weaker) hypothesis: they interpreted the French correctly. A good oven should not do this, but some ovens may turn on the grill even when heating up the oven normally (non-pre-heating), to make it heat up faster from room temperature. If, however, you put it in after the oven has already reached the desired temperature, the grill element won't be on at full power all the time any more, if at all.
My oven only uses the added heat from the grill when I'm pre-heating, so this wouldn't happen—as it shouldn't. But maybe some ovens are crazy.
I don't quite understand the distinction between the two meanings here... if you heat the oven after putting the pan in, you're not preheating it.
@Jefromi: Perhaps I should have been clearer: this is about using the preheat button on the oven, not about preheating in general. Edit: is this better?
So the short answer here is, it's important to have the oven at a consistent temperature before introducing the pan, something that often wouldn't be true (for various reasons) while the oven is heating.
@Shog9: Yes, well, if my primary hypothesis is true, it is even more important not to have pan in the oven while the "pre-heating" function is operative, because the pan is not supposed to be under a "direct heat source", i.e. the grill at full power. Which I think is strange, because normally oven pans don't seem to have any problems with the grill function, but that's what it seems to indicate.
Glass baking pans can handle high temperatures well, but tend to handle temperature differences poorly, often spectacularly so. I suppose if the pan was close enough to the flame / element, the radiant heat could cause it to heat unevenly and fail in a manner less likely to be triggered by the more even convective heat present later on.
That's just a precaution to extend the life of your Pyrex glassware.
Transliteration from the French original:
Some precautions:
Plates in Pyrex glass can be used to heat and reheat food, in the oven or microwave oven, if you take a few precautions:
Avoid sudden changes in the temperature of the glass.
Ensure to always preheat the oven before you put your glassware inside.
Pyrex is French so that was the first hit on google.fr for Pyrex préchauffer four...
But wouldn't that be contradictory? Putting it into an already hot oven would be a more sudden change in temperature than letting it heat up slowly as the oven heats.
@Joe That's what they say and what I've been doing for a very long time too... Just don't pour any cold liquids in them while they're boiling hot and don't drop them and you'll keep them for 25 years (my oldest one)
What originally was named Pyrex was a glass designed for laboratory glassware, and extremely rugged regarding temperature changes, prompting users to take advantage of these properties and using it almost like metal cookware, including subjecting it to strong and rapid temperature changes. Still sold in Europe. American market Pyrex is ordinary, though certainly high quality glass.
@rackandboneman: I live in Europe and even the original French stuff doesn't stand cold tap water after coming straight from the oven at 200°C... (I used to own some test tubes too and you had to start with very hot tap water and slowly go down the T° scale after taking them out of the Bunsen-burner) ;-)
all pyrex or other glass container cookers, please pay attention:
glass should not be heated suddenly 1.b if placing hot food in glass pot then first put warm water in the pot and then hotter water to mach the temp of the food
place matching hot water in a larger metal pot/pan
empty the now warmed glass pot and place hot food in the glass pot and place the glass pot with food in it in the larger metal pot/pan with hot water in it
r. place both metal and glass pot/pan with hot water between them in the preheated oven(this is called cooking in a water bath)
it is ok to let all water evap during cooking, if the glass pot/pan should break while handling the combined metal and glass pots/pans you will be safe from cuts/injuries
the water betwee the metal and glass pots/pans with temper/slow temperature changes in a uniform manner Yours in Christ, Phil
I think the always-preheat instruction is there so that the cooking time is similar to that of metal pans, rather than for safety.
Glass conducts heat poorly compared to metals; preheating the oven fully is one way to make the cooking time stay similar to that of the same dish, in a metal pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.545707
| 2016-04-16T15:28:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68317",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cerberus",
"Chris H",
"Duncan",
"ElmerCat",
"Fabby",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"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
}
|
64827
|
What is a good method to clean stainless steel hot water pot?
Cleaner / Stripper
Note - If this question requires more information to be a better fit for the website, please comment so that I can make it a better question.
I have seen the suggestions over at the following thread: Given the images of my pot and the nature of the stains (not sure if they are grease or what, we do use the pot only for boiling water, but the stains feel thick and somewhat greasy). I have no interest in buying a new pot as this one seems serviceable.
To be honest I can't recall if the pot was this orange color or not but at this point, I'd like to end up with a stainless steel pot stripped down. Please give me a solid recommendation to accomplish this objective.
Thanks in advance.
BTW ~
I've already used a lot of elbow grease and Brillo pads with cold water to get to this point (~ 1hour). I am hopeful that any solution could simplify the task.
If it's enamel, paint stripper should work (Strypeeze). If a layer of grease or oil oven cleaner should remove that layer. A "Scotch-Bright Paint & Varnish Remover" for an electric drill (maroon color) saves much labor.
Wow! That is quite a patina you have built up there.
I would try Barkeeper's Friend (oxalic acid) in a thick slurry and soak it for a day and see what happens to remove the blackening. It still won't remove the orange enamel paint though. So you might end up having to wet sand it after taking it to a wire wheel.
Sound like a project.
I suppose there might be some paint there, but it certainly looks a lot like burned-on grease/oil. Have you got a larger pot or washtub (perhaps sink) this can fit in? Even a plastic bag might work.
First thing I'd try would be HOT water and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and let it soak overnight. That cures many of my nastier stained stainless problems simply.
If not enough, I'd then go the opposite direction and use an acid (barkeepers friend was already mentioned, or citric acid, or vinegar, also with an overnight soaking.)
If both of those fail then I'd start contemplating paint strippers, though I might first switch back to (stronger) bases and try the already mentioned oven cleaner first. Be very careful with the stronger chemicals - a new pot is far less trouble and expense than a chemical burn on you.
If this is really stainless steel, all parts of it, EZ-off oven cleaner should be ok for it. I have used it to get the jellied oil off of stainless steel items, with good success. Spray it on, and let it sit a few minutes, approx 2-10 maybe, then wipe it off. One of my pots had grease cooked on for decades, and it needed multiple treatments,but it was obvious from the very beginning that it was working. It did not damage the stainless steel underneath. But: if any part of your item is some other material, I wouldn't attempt it.
Have you ever made or even heated tomato sauce and has some drip down the side and leave a super shiny streak down the side of your pot after cleaning it off? That's because it's a great cleaner for stainless and for copper as well. Open a can of tomato sauce and soak the stainless in that for a little while, it'll soften up that patina so you can get to the shiny metal without damaging it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.546531
| 2015-12-26T20:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64827",
"authors": [
"Alfred William Balboa",
"Chirayu Poundarik",
"Craig",
"Dawn Coulter",
"Emma Heap",
"Jeff Eastick",
"Maddie Gradidge",
"Michelle Thompson",
"Nosh Johnson",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154939"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47511
|
How can I evenly grill a thin steak on a skillet?
When I fry a thin (1/4") beef steak on a skillet/pan (iron, but not cast iron), I face the following problem:
The steak bends, becoming slightly irregular-dome-shaped
Because of that, the parts of the steak that are in direct contact with the pan sear well, while the ones that only rest on the air do not
When the steak is turned, the same is repeated for the other side, with reverse areas (e.g. if the steak had the edges curved down and seared on side 1, then the center will be curver down and seared on side 2).
How can I prevent this from occurring, short of putting a heavy metal bar on top of the steak while searing; OR using my tongs to press the curved-up parts down to the pan surface?
My method of preparation:
Frozen 1/4" steak, ~6-8" in length (chuck boneless shoulder). No thawing
Salt lightly right before searing, on both sides.
I tried searching on this question but didn't notice anything.
Thin cut meat will curl if there is an outside perimeter of gristle or silverskin (which there usually is). Those things shrink faster than the meat, causing the curling. Take a pair of kitchen shears or a sharp knife and make tiny cuts (it shouldn't take more than 1/4 inch) every inch or so around the perimeter of the steak, just into the meat itself. That should solve the problem.
"there usually is" - that's correct, it is typical of most of the steaks I have.
Experimentally confirmed that this works perfectly!
@DVK I love comments like that.
The unnecessarily complex gastronomic chemistry way: Sous vide the steak to 130F / 54.5 C (perfect medium-rare for beef muscle). Then use your pan (or blowtorch) to add some nice maillard browning.
That is a very effective way, but I've found I need a better blow torch, it takes way too long to brown it correctly.
Press it down in the pan with a potato masher (ricer). A potato masher is better than other large surface area implements because you can apply vertical force, therefore more of it.
A brick wrapped in aluminum foil works, too ... and you don't have to stand over it the whole time. Or another small (but heavy) pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.546838
| 2014-09-28T16:49:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47511",
"authors": [
"Alan Shutko",
"DVK",
"Ella Robbins",
"Jeremy Fancher",
"Joan Goodman",
"Joe",
"Joe Klinkhoff",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathleen Smith",
"Sabia Kauser",
"Tejal Thangamma",
"Zzz Zzz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"susan goldsmith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90547
|
Why does the recipe for ketchup call for bell peppers?
The recipe in the Joy of Cooking for tomato ketchup calls for an initial mixture of tomatoes pulp with "bell red peppers".
Recipe is here
At least in my area bell red peppers have very little taste and are mostly used just as a flavorless substrate for ranch dips and things like that.
Why would the recipe be calling for this item? Do they actually mean a cayenne pepper?
Red bell peppers have a distinctive taste, and no heat. Cayenne peppers have their own flavor, plus some heat. The Joy of Cooking is a classic text that has been updated and reprinted many times. I doubt their recipe would call for one thing and mean something else.
Maybe for color ? does red bell pepper hold color better when cooked ?
I would suggest that the addition, in this case, is for the flavor of the pepper, and the sweetness to balance out the acidity of the tomato...that, and the brown sugar...
Red bell peppers should be bursting with flavor, you need to hunt for good ones.
Sorry, there is no way to know why a recipe author decided that a particular item will go well in a recipe. A question which invites random guesses is not a good fit for the site. If you tried the recipe and don't like it, it should be easy to find another one to try.
1 red bell pepper for 7 pounds of tomatoes!! I don't think it would make a difference if you have or not in.
@rumtscho That statement is totally wrong. First of all, the author of the recipe might have written elsewhere, possibly in the same book, an explanation of why a particular ingredient is important. Secondly, there is a theory of cooking taught in culinary institutes that includes reasons why certain combinations of food are mixed together. Finally, there might be some traditional explanation. For all you know, Rombauer gave a newspaper interview in 1955 explaining exactly why bell peppers are used in catsup. Saying "there is no way to know" is just wrong.
@rumtscho In fact, I just did some research into the history of catsup recipes and I found out why the bell peppers are there, but I can't write that as an answer because you closed the question unilaterally.
@rumtscho I would agree that this can be opened and edited. Why is a small amount of bell pepper used? This is a theory question that can have a home here...
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars In that case, will you nominate the question for reopening please?
@DrisheenColcannon Mods are human; we can disagree and make mistakes, and also listen and learn. I appreciate your efforts with this question, but let's try to avoid escalating confrontation.
Now that the question has been reopened, I would very much like to read your answer.
@JohnEye I wrote the answer.
I did some further research on this question and what I found is that originally (more than 100 years ago), there were a lot of different types of "catsup", grape catsup, tomato catsup, mushroom catsup, cucumber catsup, etc. The two most common types were tomato and red pepper catsup, where tomato catsup was made with tomatoes and pepper catsup was made from bell peppers. Tomato catsup was normally a spicy catsup and bell pepper catsup was a "sweet pickle". So, for example, here are typical early recipes:
So, in the above recipe we can see it is designed to be strong with cayenne pepper, black pepper, mustard, onions etc. Now compare to the bell pepper catsup:
So, we can see the bell pepper catsup is designed to be mild. Naturally, the inevitable happened: somebody just conflated the two recipes, mixing ingredients from both. The first example of this I could find was by one "Mrs. Scattergood" in an 1897 ladies journal:
We can see this recipe has the same weird combination of a huge amount of tomatoes with 2 small red bell peppers found in the Joy of Cooking. This recipe seems to be the origin of what ended up in the Joy of Cooking.
So, ultimately there is no logic to it, it is just some random lady from Albany randomly combining what should be separate recipes.
It seems as if you have drawn your own conclusions, rather than provide a proven answer. Where is it said that the two most common types of ketchup were tomato and red bell pepper? Also, it doesn't appear that the timelines for these recipes line up. (Note that the first recipe calls for tomato pulp or 2 cans of tomatoes.) And the recipe for the bell pepper ketchup doesn't call for red bell peppers, just sweet bell peppers. Lastly, how did you determine that the last recipe was the combination of the other two? They do have a few common ingredients, but it seems like quite a stretch.
BTW, a peck is 8 dry quarts according to kitchn.
Or 1/4 of a bushel. There's a song - 'A Bushel and a Peck".
@Cindy I have drawn my own conclusions and just presented the results, the ANSWER. I am not going to write a book about ketchup or start listing 5 page bibliographies for you. I answered the question to my satisfaction. If you don't like my answer, then go start reading a few dozen 19th century cookbooks and make your answer.
Drisheen, I don't think you're fairly describing Cindy's concerns. It's not that we want to see 5 page bibliographies, but we would like to see evidence that directly supports your claim. As-is, we know that bell pepper catsup existed, and that eventually recipes with both bell pepper and tomato existed, but the idea that someone conflated the two is unsupported.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.547094
| 2018-06-24T19:08:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90547",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"GdD",
"JohnEye",
"Jolenealaska",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85334
|
Can I season a cast iron pan on a charcoal grill?
Every time I attempt to season my cast iron pan in my oven, it sets off the fire alarm in my house! My battalion of fans just isn't working.
Can I season my pan on a charcoal grill? Is it better to put it in right-side up or upside-down?
Give it a try. Not sure you would be hot enough.
Hello brian, I am afraid we can only discuss food safety in terms of food poisoning through bacteria here. We are not qualified about anything that is potentially cancerogenic, and it is explicitly off topic here, so I had to edit your question to exclude this part.
Speculating, so only a comment. Charcoal may not be high enough and consistent enough temp and I would question if the seasoning oil would capture smoke and flavors. Most gas grills would probably be able to reach plenty high temp, but my concern would be the uneven nature of the heat causing hot spots.
Maybe you are using heat that is too high. It really doesn't take that much. A 375 - 400 F oven will do the trick. Light coat of oil, heat for an hour. Allow to cool in oven. Wipe out. Upside down allows excess oil to drip out (use a drip pan)...but you don't need that much to begin with. There is no reason you could not do this on your grill. For the first few uses, wipe out and scrub with kosher salt to remove cooked on bits. Then give a light coat of oil and wipe out. Once you have built up the surface it is fine to clean with soap and water.
Yes, and it's a good way to avoid the smoke. However, the challenge is keeping your grill from getting too hot; if it goes above about 500F you'll be burning the oil off instead of polymerizing it on. So you need a grill you can reasonably hold at between 375F and 450F, depending on whose seasoning technique you're following. I didn't have a problem doing this on my gas grill in San Francisco (mostly because the hard thing was getting it hot at all), but on many grills it may be hard to control the heat.
There was an episode of Alton Brown where he seasons cast iron using indirect heat on a charcoal grill, but unfortunately that segment isn't on YouTube.
Some Serious Eats resources on seasoning:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/how-to-buy-season-clean-maintain-cast-iron-pans.html
http://www.seriouseats.com/talk/2008/07/seasoning-an-iron-skillet-on-the-grill.html
Nobody I can find speaks of any advantage for seasoning it upside down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.547530
| 2017-10-30T16:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85334",
"authors": [
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86241
|
What plants have the most oil?
I was looking into making my own vegetable oil, something exotic they don't have on store shelves.
So my question: Which plants, or what kind of plants, can you extract the most oil from? Would it be ones with low water content, or is it more complex than that?
This question should really be limited to the manner in which you are able to make the extraction of oil: "hard press" or a "distillation method."
@KenGraham distillation is not really practiced at home for cooking oils (as opposed to essential oils) and presents logistical and legal difficulties. I would say that we can safely assume pressing here. Also, I doubt that, for a given oil-rich plant, you can get higher yield thought distillation than through pressing. But also, if somebody wanted to answer with two lists - one with yield by pressing and one with yield by destillation - I think the amount of requested information is still doable for one question.
@rumtscho Graham has a fair question.
Can you provide and example of exotic?
@Paparazzi I agree that Graham raises an important question, yes. The distinction between distillation and pressing should be considered in the answers. I hope that we can answer this question without insisting that the OP limits it only to the one or the other, and that the answers can make the distinction. Other users are free to disagree with me, of course.
@Paparazzi Rhubarb oil? Turnip oil as the natural pun to rapeseed oil?
Some background
Unlike animals, which have large amounts of fat and related substances throughout their body (cholesterol for example is a major part of the animal cell wall, the insulation of nerves also contain lots of fat), plants have cellulose based cell walls and very little fat in most of their tissues. They use fat mostly for energy storage for their seedlings, and sometimes to bribe animals towards their seeds. So, meaningful amounts of oil are practically always restricted to the seeds, with some exceptions (olive, avocado) found in the fruits. Fat does exist in other parts of plants, but in miniscule amounts.
The economics of oil making
Traditionally, oil has been made by pressing. For this, people used edible seeds, preferring those which are rich in fat, large, and easily separated from non-seed matter. That's how you get traditional oils like sunflower, walnut or peanut. With industrialization, seeds as byproducts of other food became available (e.g. rice bran or grape seeds) and methods were developed for getting oil out of seeds which are lower in them, for example chemical extraction. So the palette of available oils grew. Nowadays, you also get speciality oils which are not traditional, for example argan oil and pine nut oil. They tend to cost more because 1) there are no economies of scale, 2) there is less demand, and 3) the traditional oils are the low-hanging fruit in yield.
By the way, even though you tagged this with "vegetables" and stores use "vegetable oil" as a catchall term for different oils, the oil is not made from the plant parts we eat as a vegetable. Corn oil, safflower oil, etc. are all made from the seeds, not from the green parts of the plant you would usually cook as a "vegetable".
Making oil at home
You obviously cannot start a huge production with hexane extraction and whatnot, so you will have to keep to traditional methods, which is basically pressing. This can be fun, but you also have to consider what it is not:
it is not going to save you money. Because of the logistics involved and the economies of scale for industrial producers, the seeds used for 1 liter of oil will cost you more than buying one liter of oil of the same time. That's before you start counting opportunity costs.
it is not going to be convenient. The logistics of having a large oil press sitting around, or dealing with large amounts of raw material and spent pomace for small amounts of oil, or spending time to make the oil, are considerable.
it will not give you access to more exotic oils. As discussed above, with home methods you are constrained to certain oils, and these are the same oils which have been popular since preindustrial times and thus widely available. Even when you think of plants which have a good oil yield but are not traditionally used for oil, you only have to search a little bit online and you will find that the oil is probably easier to obtain than the raw material. Good examples are argan oil or hemp oil. If they seem costly, read the points above - they will be even costlier when you make them yourself.
I am not trying to tell you not to do it, but to point out the realities of doing it. If you still want to do it, go ahead - sometimes the joy of having learned something new, or of making the things you consume with your own hands is worth the hassle.
A rough list of good plants to use
I will restrict this one to nuts, because 1) it is much easier to obtain nutritional information for them than for other seeds, and 2) it is unlikely that you will find a good source for other kinds of seeds. So here is what a simple search on nutritiondata yields for nuts high in fat. Note that it is not perfect, because it depends to some extent on the preparation of the nuts. Also the categorization isn't perfect - the list includes some not-exactly-nuts like coconut and sunflower seeds, but not others like peanuts. Note that you can buy the oil from practically all of these. The ones I have not seen as oil are hickory nuts and butternuts, but I have never seen the actual nuts either, so I suspect that in areas where you can get the nuts themselves, you will probably also find the oil.
Macadamia
Pecans
Coconut
Pine nuts
Brazil nuts
Walnuts
Hickory nuts
Hazelnuts
Butternuts
Sunflower seeds
Almonds
Sesame seeds
Just a note: sunflower seeds for human consumption are different from the ones used, eg, as birdseed - and I think those used for oil are the birdseed ones. This may reflect both a price difference and a yield difference. Also, for saving money there are different economics involved if one is going to buy the bulk seeds/nuts for extracting oils, vs whether they wish to grow some or all of them. http://www.survivopedia.com/how-to-make-vegetable-oil/
@Megha My grandparents used to live in an area with lots of sunflower fields grown for oil. If there weren't meant for humans, we never knew - we just ate them. They didn't taste differently from what I can buy nowadays in the supermarket for sprinkling over salad. Maybe our oil was made from "human" seeds, or maybe the differences aren't so large.
The difference I meant is price and availability. It was not well phrased to say seeds for human consumption, I meant commercially intended as such. I've had seeds of the oil type. Taste was not much different but I recall a thicker and more flexible husk, harder to crack and less clean to remove, and a smaller seed inside. Both would make for a smaller yield, and a less pleasant experience... not a problem for individuals, but a bigger difference on commercial scales. I'd guess they're a bit higher in oil content as well, from what I read, but it wasn't a difference I really noticed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.547744
| 2017-12-10T09:25:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86241",
"authors": [
"Johnny",
"Ken Graham",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63603",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116894
|
Preserve crustiness/freshness of toasted bread
In long trips i.e. over 3 hours long, I take some toasted break with either pb&j or something inside e.g. slices of turkey etc (toasted).
I wrap them with aluminium foil and place them inside those transparent food bags/freezer bags we use to for placing items in a fridge.
The problem is that the toasted bread becomes very soggy.
Is there a way to prepare/wrap/store them that would be more fresh after few hours?
i would do a bit of both answers, toast dark and cool longer for best results. Cool in the freezer to really dry it out...
@dandavis: If I put the toasted bread in the freezer (I suppose before applying pb&j) for instance, won't it be stale when I take it with me? When would a apply the pb&j then?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18435/67
As has been stated, you are trapping moisture vapour. I don't think it is possible to perfectly preserve the texture of toast over a prolonged period, but you will improve matters by letting the toast fully cool before you construct your sandwich.
Edit: when cooling your toast it is helpful to prop it vertically rather than lying it down as the underside will still get soggy. A toast rack is the perfect way to do this, but you can also just prop the slices against each other like a little tent.
You may also consider wrapping your deli-meats and any salad items separately and only adding them to your sandwich when you are ready to eat.
Mayonnaise will also tend to make your toast soggy, particularly if you use a low-fat version with a higher water content. Butter/spread applied when the toast is cold should only have a minimal damping effect.
How would you wrap it for carrying in a bag?
What about if a toasty with slices of turkey or ham? I can really toast the turkey slice without the bread, and I don't think I can split it to cool it
@jim some things just can’t be achieved. If you want a sandwich with toast to have a semblance of crunch after three hours wrapped up. If you are taking about a toasty with sealed edges I don’t think it can be done. You can try making some steam holes to help it cool, but I don’t think it would work well.
The issue is that you are trapping moisture with the foil and the plastic bag. I am not sure what you mean by "more fresh." If you want your toasted bread to be crunchy, like it just came out of the toaster, that is a challenge over a several hour time span. I think your best bet would be to toast a bit darker, and perhaps wrap in paper towel or napkin, loosely. This would help, but I don't think you'll be able to preserve the freshly toasted texture completely. Alternately, you could pack the toast (again, wrapped in a napkin) and sandwich filling separately, then build your sandwich when you are ready to eat it. That would also help, though may not be all that convenient.
By more fresh I mean not to be soggy. If I use a napkin only, how am I suppose to place it in another bag without concern of something spilling? Also those gadgets that remove air when wrapping, do they help?
Anything you do to contain moisture from the heated toast or toppings will add to the problem...sealing...wrapping....etc. So you have to weigh convenience against quality to arrive at the best solution for you.
So those air removals gadgets for sealing bags are not relevant for moisture?
@Jim...highly relevant if you are looking to retain any crispness that results from toasting. They trap moisture (even small amounts) which will immediately begin to rehydrate your toast, leading the the issue that you are trying to remedy.
What about toasting the bread twice. Toast it lightly once, let it cool on a rack, toast it the second time, well done and let it cool well before wrapping it
Is the idea to completely dry it?
Completely dry toast actually doesn’t make good sandwiches. It’s brittle and cracks apart when you bite into it, potentially making a mess. And you often have to compensate for the moisture as overly dry bread will suck moisture out of your mouth as you’re eating it. (Like eating too many crackers)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.548314
| 2021-08-18T10:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116894",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Joe",
"Spagirl",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91376
|
Nixtamilizing Corn for Tortillas
I am new to the process of making tortillas from corn, I understand that the nixtamalization process and using heirloom corn are important to make traditional tortillas. I do not want to use pre-nixtamalized and ground corn, and am attempting to do it from scratch. Living in Canada makes this process difficult as most companies will ship within the US but not to Canada. I have found a local producer of Native corn that would be appropriate for this product, but the corn is fresh.
So, can fresh corn be nixtamalized for tortillas, or must it be dried and then processed accordingly?
What kind of fresh corn? The corn for masa is a starchy, non-sweet variety that is seldom sold fresh. Substituting sweet yellow corn isn't going to work.
Too long for comment so:
I should think fresh would work. It's just dried that comes prehydrated. I'd cut down on boiling time. Say 5 cup corn, 1.5 gallon water, 1/4 cup CaOH (Cal, slaked lime, pickling lime). Boil gently 30 min (instead of hour). Let sit overnight. Rinse 4-5 times to remove excess CaOH, put thru your corn grinder to make massa. add a tablespoon or two of salt, about 2 cups water to get texture right, mix well. Should make about 2400 g masa -> enough for 40 tortillas. If unlucky, your prehydrated corn will turn to useless mush, but I don't think that's what happens. Don't rinse the nixtamalized stuff too many times. That removes CaOH, but also the corn coating that holds the tortilla together while cooking. CaOH is bitter. Crumbly tortillas are no fun.
I made my press out of maple wood, with sheets of flexible storm window plastic to keep massa from sticking. No need for that expensive metal contraption to make 5" tortillas Cooking goes smoothest if you have two 2 tortilla size griddles. That way you can cook 4 at a time. The timing works out to keep you busy, not waiting. If you have vertigo though it will make you dizzy.
My metal tortilla press cost me $9USD. Just sayin' ...
@FuzzyChef You can pay $25 plus for them round here. I had the maple and a spare hinge.
Huh. No Mexican supermarkets anywhere near you, then.
It burnt down. The new one isn't open yet, except as a mini-mart.
What with the beauty of Amazon (despite it's obvious downsides - I live in the country and access to many things is limited) all things tortilla are but a few days wait. I have bought masa harina flour for current experiment and are awaiting a big bag of dried corn to do the traditional method. Fresh corn was definitely a reach! Thank you so much for your advice!
Since you posted this, I've dug into a couple of my cookbooks that have instructions on corn nixtamalization, such as Hot Bread Kitchen, and looked at multiple Internet resources (see below). Every single one of them, without exception, starts with dried corn kernels, and I can't find any discussion of using fresh corn kernels anywhere.
I'm not sure you can make it work with fresh corn. In the corn nixtamalization process, you take the dried corn, and rehydrate it with boiling water and calcium hydroxide. If you treated fresh corn this way, the calcium hydroxide might not penetrate the corn kernels because they are already hydrated. You could, of course, try it and see.
However, don't despair! There's an easy solution: dry your own corn. There's online instructions on how to dry both ripe corn and older corn. The older corn process is what's used traditionally, but that means probably waiting until the end of the corn season to start your trial.
All of the above is based on research, I have not done it myself. I'm lazy and buy masa harina from a Mexican market.
nixtamalization recipes:
https://www.cooksillustrated.com/science/789-articles/feature/transforming-corn
https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2016/04/nixtamalized-corn-tortilla-masa-recipe.html
http://threelilyprovisions.com/blog/how-and-why-to-nixtamize-corn
Thank you! Yeah, I was wondering because at the latin store in Montreal you can find frozen corn kernels (the right kind for tacos) and it appears they use them in another way. There is a farmer near me who is growing corn now, and he hang drys it and turns it into flour before selling so I will get ahold of the dried corn before he flours it. Thank you so much for all the extra info!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.548654
| 2018-07-31T20:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91376",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"soup4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23326
|
How can I approximate a Starbucks latte at home?
I'd like to save a little money by making my morning latte at home instead of buying it. But it seems like the barista does something beyond just mixing coffee and warm milk to result in that perfect latte.
What ingredients go into a coffee-shop latte, such as those made at Starbucks? What techniques do I need to approximate one at home, with common household equipment?
This is a recipe request, I think?
Technique more than recipe.
@ChrisCudmore: The question explicitly asks about ingredients, and doesn't ask about technique. Either way, a recipe is basically ingredients plus instructions (technique).
Is this something that's not answered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latte ?
Espresso, steamed milk.
It isn't a complicated recipe at all, but it does require some equipment and technique.
Espresso:
You need to use an espresso roast coffee that is finely ground. If you like Starbucks, then buy a pound from them.
Milk:
There are a whole bunch of beverages made out of coffee and steamed milk. My joke about Italians is that every time they make one tiny little change in the preparation of something, they give it a brand new name.
You need to steam the milk to introduce air and to warm it up, subtly changing the flavour. If you watch the barristas at starbucks, you'll see that they end up with a steel pitcher of warm milk with a thick foam on top.
I'll define a cappuccino as the base beverage.
A Cappuccino is 1 measure of Espresso, 1 measure of the warm milk from the bottom of the pitcter (Use a spoon to stop the foam from pouring out) and then one measure of the dry foam spooned on top.
A Macchiato is a DRY cappuccino. Omit the milk. Just spoon the dry foam on top.
A Latte is a WET cappuccino. Omit the foam. You can spoon a little on top for appearances.
I've used the terms wet and dry. If you were to actually order a wet cappuccino, you'd get something between the Latte and Cappucino. If you were to order it dry, you'd get something between the Cappuccino and the Macchiato.
The French Cafe Au Lait is strong coffee (brewed, not expressed), with almost boiled milk. If you don't have a steamer available, this might be the route to take. It's similar to a Latte, but without the equipment.
If you don't have a steamer or an espresso machine, I would spend $30 on an immersion blender.
And $30 on a French Press:
Brew coffee in French Press, heat milk in pot on stove, use immersion blender to froth milk while still in the pot and then combine it with your coffee. As Chris mentioned, this is technically a Cafe au Lait, as you will want your ratio of coffee to milk to be more 50/50 rather than the 25/75 in a latte.
However, the immersion blender will give your milk that frothy creaminess that you get from a steamer. The French Press will give you the Crema on top of the coffee that you get on espresso, but don't get from traditional drip preparations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.549091
| 2012-04-25T16:53:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23326",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dee Berthel",
"Elizabeth Stevens",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Karen P Schooler",
"Kcoder",
"Sean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52829",
"jjkk",
"user52805"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21871
|
What are the hallmarks of a traditional alfredo sauce?
There are many recipes for alfredo sauce, using ingredients from pesto and soy milk to low-fat milk and cream cheese. What is the gold standard for alfredo? What properties indicate a traditional Italian-style alfredo sauce? What type of pasta is it traditionally paired with?
In this rather embarrassing (for me) old question, it came to light that Alfredo either isn't well-known or doesn't exist at all in Italy; it's American cuisine. So there probably is no such thing as a traditional Italian style. ;)
@aaronut Oh dear - that's a little embarrassing for me too.
In Italy you can find pasta covered with nearly anything and everything. If Alfredo can be simplified to just butter and Parmesan cheese, this it just a common quick topping, not a real sauce as such. Just like Olive oil and fried parsley etc.
Aaronut, really? I'm pretty sure I have sources which attribute it to restaurants in Rome (fairly recently, though). I'll research.
Alfredo sauce doesn't exist here in Italy, whatever you may say :)
Sorry @KatieK, Alfredo sauce does not exist in Italy. I've found the recipe in an american cookbook. If memory serves, It's pretty much a mix of butter, parmisan, cream and some spices. In italy it's quite common to make pasta with just, for instance, butter and cheese, but none of those mixes has a name. Besides, the "Alfredo mix" it's really strange and I have never seen it in my life.
According to Cooking The Roman Way by David Downie, Fettucine Alfredo is a traditional Roman recipe called "pasta del cornuti" (cuckold's pasta). What either Alfredo Di Lelio III, or Mario Mozzetti, depending on whom you believe, invented in 1914, was the dramatic tableside preparation of Fettuccine Alfredo, which is what made the dish a hit with visiting Americans in the 20's and 30's.
The tableside preparation is really what makes Fettuccine Alfredo what it is: the hot pasta is tossed with the butter and cheese in front of the diner, and then served to them immediately.
Again, according to Downie, the only ingredients of Fettuccine Alfredo are egg fettuccine, lots of butter, lots of Parmegiano-Reggiano, and (if necessary) a little salt.
Recipes which add cream or milk are Americanized recipes designed to allow restaurants to hold orders of Alfredo for a long time under heat lamps (and turn it into a gooey pasty mess). Italians, from my experience visiting Italy, rarely put cream or milk on pasta (a real Italian could speak up here).
Downie has a fun 3-page digression about the ongoing lawsuits between the Roman families who claim to own the name. It's worth a read.
Alan Davidson, predictably, says nothing about Fettuccine Alfredo. The Glorious Pasta of Italy likewise does not cover the dish.
Wikipedia supports Downie's story, except only attributing Di Lelio, and adding the tidbit that Di Lelio apparently called it "Fettuccine al burro" (fettuccine with butter), and the Alfredo name was appended later when it was copied in the USA. Wikipedia also says butter and cheese only, on fettuccine pasta.
So, to answer your question and the questions asked in the comments:
Fettuccine Alfredo is an Italian dish, if more popular in the USA than in Italy.
It is a variation of a traditional Italian dish.
In its traditional form, it has only egg pasta, butter, and cheese.
The pasta for Alfredo is egg fettuccine.
No Italian would ever go to a restaurant and ask for pasta Alfredo (as they simply don't know what it is) nor they would ask for pasta with butter as it's something that you would do at home when you really don't have anything else in the fridge. Or when you're sick and you need something light to eat. It is definitely a dish invented for American tourists in Rome. And only in tourist restourants in Rome you will find it.
In my training as a chef, I have learned that there is no Alfredo with cream in Italy. The closest approximation is just butter and cheese with some added pasta water to thin it out.
Hi Gina. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've proposed an edit to your answer to help make it a little easier to read.
Now that we've established it's a modern American dish, I, an American, will tell you that authentic alfredo is cream, butter, parmesan, black pepper, and fettuccine.
It is made by melting butter in a pan, adding heavy cream and bringing to a simmer, adding cooked and drained fettuccine, tossing in grated parmesan and a few generous pinches of freshly ground black pepper, and serving immediately it's reduced to your desired saucy thickness.
Anyone who adds garlic or cream cheese is going to food purgatory! ;-) Or just enjoying a lovely variation of a creamy white sauce on noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.549361
| 2012-03-01T00:07:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21871",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anneb",
"FuzzyChef",
"John Hackett",
"KatieK",
"Madlyn Bynum",
"Preston",
"Sheryl Miller",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"loscuropresagio",
"napolux",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23713
|
What is the purpose of the sugar in ketchup?
Most ketchup recipes - even homemade ones - include several tablespoons of sugar. Commercial ketchup often has lots of high-fructose corn syrup. What purpose does all of this sugar serve in a ketchup recipe?
High fructose corn syrup is a preservative. While sugaring your ketchup is good for flavor, HFCS is great for shelf stability, as is the vinegar.
The reasons you typically see HFCS in American Ketchups is that it is (1) heavily subsidized and domestic and cheap, (2) farmed by the same companies making the tomatoes, and (3) a preservative. Also, it helps to improve flow while maintaining viscosity.
Sugar generally can be used to cut the acidity in a tomato dish without inhibiting the taste or outshining the tomato. My stepfather had digestion issues with high acidity meals and swore by a teaspoon or two of sugar to help aid the stomach issues. Likewise, the acidity of ketchup may well be mitigated by all the sugar.
Everyone who likes ketchup surely likes the sweet and tangy taste it always has, so in some sense the question's a bit circular.
But I imagine part of the reason people started making it that way is that the sweetness helps cover up the sourness, so it can contain more vinegar (which helps preserve it) without tasting awful.
Sugar acts as a preservative and also adds taste to the food. Also, many food products use natural preservatives like sugar, salt and oil.
at high enough concentrations sugar or salt or acid is a preservative. Oil itself not. Rather, it blocks out oxygen directly in contact with the food, slowing degeneration rather than killing wee beasties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.549748
| 2012-05-11T18:38:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23713",
"authors": [
"April Galjour",
"Calyth",
"Dimitrios Dalagiorgos",
"Heather",
"Manuel Balmaceda",
"Monica",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sarah",
"VaLLe.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"lily kangas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18718
|
Does beetroot and chorizo work together in a dish
I'm currently going through a phase of cooking a lot of beetroot. I also love Chorizo. I was thinking of doing a Beetroot and chorizo risotto. But I'm unsure if the flavour profile would complement each other.
I'm thinking of trying to balance it with balsamic vinegar and/or using red wine instead of white. In general can you cook these 2 ingredients together and make it taste nice? Normally I'm quite good with food pairings (though I generally tend to stick fairly tried and tested combos) but don't know if this would work without cooking it.
As you go further west from Russia the borscht often has pork sausage to replace the beef shin etc. If you like it spicy, often chorizo is then substituted for the plain/spiced/smoked pork sausage
It's not everyone's ideal of a meal, but with a good dollop of sour cream it's great!
I was thinking off adding some goats cheese (probably crumbled on top). Sour cream would prob work too.
I prefer the tried and tested too, what you speak of reminds me of the Goan pulao recipe that uses chorizo. I've seen that carrots and other veggies go well with this dish, though I've not tried beet-root, I reckon it should work fine, because there are a lot of beetroot pulao recipes
Note that the Goan sausage (Chouriço) used here is quite different, is a spicy version of the Portuguese one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.549927
| 2011-11-02T09:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18718",
"authors": [
"NBenatar",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67213",
"lawrence toogood",
"the klaus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68113
|
Air Fryer effect on Vegetables?
Does the Philips Air-fryer work as well as a standard deep-fryer?
Most of what I've been reading about Air Fryers is centered on:
Potatoes/ Fries
Some of fish/ chicken/ meat dish
Being a veggie, I am curious how Vegetables turn out inside an Air Fryer; let's say at a variety/ range of settings from start/ low to high?
Would it any stage be able to an alternative to Stir Frying?
Having experimented with an air fryer I think it's an alternative to stir frying, but not a particularly good one. An air fryer is basically a device that blows hot air on food as it slowly stirs it around. It seems to work ok as long as the vegetables are hard, if they get a bit soft and sloppy (think cooked zucchini, eggplant) they do not stir effectively as they rely on ingredients tumbling over each other to bring bottom ones to the top.
Air fryers don't cook as quickly as stir frying, you can cook food much faster on a nice hot wok or pan than an air frier on its hottest setting.
You don't use less oil in an air frier than stir frying, you use the same as if you stir fry on a non-stick pan. Dry frying didn't work well for me in an air frier but a bit of water kept things moving until the cooking process got moisture out of the ingredients.
You can leave an air frier unattended, but you have to be willing to get overcooked results unless you check on it frequently towards the end of the cooking process. Also, the stirring is not perfect so you can occasionally get ingredients bunched up and need to clear it. So as long as you check on it occasionally it will probably work fine. Call it semi-unattended cooking.
Essentially, if you want to do semi-unattended vegetable cooking as a use case, or you can't have a stove/hotplate then it makes sense to go with an air frier, but if it's good results that count to you then stir frying the old fashioned way is your best choice.
GdD - I'd like to do unattended cooking and know that an Electric/ Rice cooker can do a decent job in replacing a cooking pot. I was wondering if an AirFryer can help add something that the Electric/ Rice Cooker cannot - Especially with the Veggies - As I do like stir fried veggies - Al Dente.
I don't know on that one @AlexS, I've never tried to use an electric rice cooker to make anything other than rice. I would go with the with air frier because it stirs automatically. Just keep the vegetables chunky, small pieces don't stir well.
Sounds like these devices roast rather than fry?
It's much closer to roasting than frying as the cooking is done with hot air rather than hot oil
So with softer vegetables, are the results roughly like roasting with a too-crowded pan?
That's not too far off @Jefromi
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.550068
| 2016-04-08T06:55:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68113",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"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
}
|
65353
|
Portable ways to daily grind & powder/ paste 8-9 overnight soaked & peeled Almonds while traveling?
Portable ways to daily grind & powder/ paste 8-9 overnight soaked & peeled Almonds while traveling?
Portable/ Light while Traveling:
May lack access to large food processor/ mixer/ grinder & will consider ideas/ methods using:
Manual/ Hand drive device/ or crucible/ vessel/ tool?
Automated & mechanized Small/ portable dual voltage 110/240 V device(s)
Lacking food processing expertise:
I'm a young male who lacks the knowledge/ wisdom from my mother's decades of kitchen expertise & experience; and tool set / utilities
I will ask her as well, but hope wider pool can give some diverse answers
Purpose:
This is for a herbal/ traditional medicinal home made recipe
Needs to be done freshly every morning after overnight soaking
So easy, fast, time efficient will be crucial
Overnight Soaked & Peeled Almonds consistency differs from dry almond/ or almond powder
It may or may not become a butter
PS: First question on Cooking SE, so please be kind :) and don't negative me.
Read this already: How do I grind almonds for making marzipan?
please explain why the other question doesn't work for you. Is it because your almonds are soaked, because you're traveling, or for some other reason?
@KateGregory - I think, I outlined it pretty clearly. 1. I'll be traveling so wont have a food processor/ most kitchen tools people have access to. Portable hacks are key. 2. Cant pre-do it as it needs to be freshly done every morning - portable + time efficient 3. Additionally, I don't know for sure, but DRY vs WET/ STICKY items act differently.
I made sure to get these outlined constraints across clearly so that people get where I am coming from.
It's possible that a manual coffee grinder might work. I don't know for sure that the almonds will fit through the process, if it will work with wet almonds, nor how easy it would be to clean, which is why I'm not posting this as an answer.
Use a small mortar and pestle, so you're not dependent on electric outlets, batteries or such. With this small amount, the required manual effort is very low, and you can use a very small mortar and pestle, so you can pack light. Also, you can soak the almonds in the mortar itself. And it is also possible to add other ingredients directly to the mortar after the pressing is done.
You will end up with a paste rather than ground almond flour, but I don't think you can get almond flour with soaked almonds in a food processor or a mill either.
Thank you for this advise. If at all I was to look for an "automated" option, is there something small that could help?
Have you tried a battery operated pepper or coffee grinder? That must exist I would guess. The only issue might be you will be using soaked wet almonds so you will need a powerful motor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.550303
| 2016-01-13T04:53:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65353",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"Ardissa Fenske",
"Danaja D",
"Human Maja",
"Its Lundy Time",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kevin Huang",
"William Jackson",
"carol velasco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"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
}
|
41178
|
How to make a complex novelty cake at home?
how would one make a cake like this?
This is my drawing of what i want my LOs cake to look like. The bakery estimated it at being over 500 dollars! So I'd rather make it myself.
That looks really hard...You're sure you want to attempt that?
Do you have any experience making elaborate decorated cakes? If so, perhaps you have specific questions about accomplishing particular aspects of that design, and you could edit your question. If not, that's a very ambitious first project - there's a reason someone estimated it costing so much - and the answer might be that you should try something simpler.
I have a cake pan that I was going to use to make the rounded cakes and I have a ton of artistic experiance, I won over 500 art shows with sculpture and photograuphy my senior year of high school alone. :)
More than one art show per day? In any case, assuming you have some pretty solid artistic skills, think of the skill involved here as analogous to picking up a completely new medium. Unless you're exceptionally gifted (and a bit lucky), you're going to make some mistakes, and some of them will be the kind that mean you have to go bake a new cake. If you really want to get into this (and you have enough time for some trial and error), and rumtscho's summary isn't enough, you might want to post questions about individual aspects of the process (shaping, applying decoration, etc).
Given your comments on rumtscho's post, it does sound like you have some of the necessary skills, so I'd definitely encourage posting some more specific questions. "How do I make this cake?" is way too broad, but people might be able to help you with "how do I carve a dome into the right shape?", "how do I attach the pieces so it doesn't fall over?", "how do I carve that handle?", "how do I make a checkered pattern?"...
I did multiple contests and art submissions at once and some pieces were entered in more than one art show:) like a piece I did of bronzed dipped pointe shoes were part of a travelling show that sent pieces to 15-20 different competitions:)
To hold the cake up I was going to make a rectangular base with a dowel in the center to hold the cake up screwed into the base with the cake around it after i sanded it down REALLY well... Then use like a pvc pipe or something else to make holes in the center of the cakes before i filled and stacked them:) to hold the filling in i was going to make a really really thick butter cream to hold the filling in (either cherry or chocolate ganache)
then for the round tears i bought a wilsons ball ban for sports balls and the tea cup i was going to make one per tea cup with a normal round cake on top to give it more of a tea cup shape, but cut the round at a angle so its like two triangles to give it more of that topsy turvey look :) the handles i was going to sculpt out of modeling chocolate over rice crispy so there not super super heavy same with the teaspout and lid!
and then for the checkers i was going to use fondont squares over the base color(pastel pink on bottom with lime and hot pink squares over it in a checkered pattern) the chevron i have no idea but for all the misolanious mustaches i found a couple mustache shaped cookie cutters to use to cut the fondont out
oh and on the topsy turvey bit i was going to cut a level spot out of the tier below so the cake thats sitting on it has a flat spot to sit on with the thin dowels i bought at the cake specilty shop in it:)
This is not a forum. If you have a specific new question, please post it as a new question. If you'd like to add information to your question, please edit the question.
If you want a sculpted cake of this type:
then I would advise against trying it at home. This is a skill you have to learn over years. Basically, you have to be an experienced sculptor in working with cake materials, which are harder to use than the typical art materials like clay. Look up "cake sculpting" on YouTube to see what they are doing. Or search for Cake boss episodes, taking into account that this "reality" TV is heavily edited - they are showing you a very clean and quickened version of the process. Really, I think that 500 dollars is cheap for having your drawing sculpted. By the way, the airbrushing tool alone used for finishing the cake in the picture runs at around 200 dollars, although of course you don't strictly need it for making the cake in such a shape.
You seem to be good at drawing. If you can make a finished, colored drawing out of it instead of just a sketch, you can go to a bakery who has a foodgrade printer, and have it printed on the cake. They mainly advertise it as "your cake with your photo on it", but of course they can print a digitized drawing too.
If you don't want a picture, it is also doable as a 2d picture piped onto a flat cake. If the 500 dollars are for a sculpted cake, then having the picture piped can be much cheaper (I don't think that they would have required 500 dollars just for piping, but who knows, maybe you live in Manhattan). It would be this type of cake, but with your drawing on it:
If you have steady hands and some artistic experience, this kind of decoration is a skill that can be learned in maybe 20 hours. Take a piping bag, make icing, and practice on other surfaces first, even stretched plastic wrap. When you are good enough, attempt the drawing on a practice surface. Then you are ready to make the cake. Fondant or marzipan will look best as the background for the piping, but they are very hard to work with. If you have never done it before, use a cake frosted with buttercream as the background. If you have the time and inclination, you can learn how to make marzipan flowers and add them as 3-d elements on top of your drawing.
The basic skills you need are:
bake consistently good bisquit layers. You can cut off domed parts, but it is a hassle, and if you are not good at getting the leavening right, you are risking cutting into a metallic tasting cake after all this work.
Making buttercream. It is not hard, but requires a bit of exercise and a few tools. You should be accustomed to baking by weight, know the feel of butter and eggs at the right temperature and the right stage of beating, etc. If you have never done it before, again, make 2-3 batches of buttercream before you try the actual birthday cake.
Frosting cakes. Your drawing will probably require a large rectangular cake, which is harder to get evenly frosted than a small round one on a turntable.
I already covered the piping. Marzipan flowers are a further skill I mentioned, but optional.
The Internet is full of tutorials on decorating cakes, watch YouTube videos about the more visual parts. There are good articles on making icing too, and we also have one or two older questions on that.
I bake quite a bit from scratch! Ive made sheet cakes and a couple smaller stacked cakes before just not.. this... lol! I can pipe ok as well with things like drop lines, roses and a couple other things ive picked up just playing around with piping bags and such,.. for the flowersi was going to make daisys cause ive made those before with out alot of trouble at all and I have a dome shaped cake pan.so I wont have to do a intensive ammount of carving either. Though I do have alot of experience with clay, and other molding things like chocolate and ive done sugar work as well. :) :)
They had wanted 500 for just the cake not any of the decorations or anything just for a plain fondont cake :/ which I could technically afford but it wouldnt be as pretty as I would of liked!
There are a few issues with the cake design you've posted, and I'm probably missing some, as I don't do this professionally, but here's a start:
Stacking cakes that aren't prefectly symetrical requires determining the proper center of gravity; if you're too far off, the cake will topple. Building a central support pillar helps (which must be securely mounted to the cake board), but can't overcome something that's significantly off-center. The small base that you've shown will make things even more difficult.
You need to use a denser cake so that it will properly hold up to the weight being placed on it, this is especially important for designs such as yours where the base is smaller than the top of the cake, as the pressure will be exerted over a smaller area.
Depending on the size of the cake that you are planning, you may be better off finding metal bowls to use as molds, and baking the layers in that, rather than attempting to stack and shape them after baking. However, because of the size of the cake, you'll need to insert some sort of a heating core. Once it's baked (it will take a while), determine what angle you're going to want it at and slice the layers appropriately -- do not just flip over the cake and slice parallel to the flat top or you'll end up with a slip plane if you use jam, pudding or something that's not really viscous between the layers.
Flowers can be made from either icing or gum paste, but it takes some effort to get right; I still screw up icing flowers as I only do them at most one a year ... but they can be done in advance and saved for later. Depending on the humidity, you might need to make them days in advance so that they can be transfered to the cake. Some cake shops will sell pre-made flowers, but if it's a good time of the year, you might be even better off going to a florist and using real edible flowers.
The flowerpot handle and spout could be made from gum paste or modeling chocolate, but attacking may be a problem. The spout is tricky as it's effectively coming out of the bottom of the cake, and only connects in a really small area.
Some of the geometric patterns are more difficult; your checkerboard pattern on the lower bowl will take a bit of work in either fondant or icing -- the fondant would normally be easier, but as you have a round surface that you're applying to, you'll have to determine the circumfrance at each level and use trapezoidal pieces. Icing could be faster if you set a grid and then filled in, but you can't easily use a flood fill. You'd probably want to pipe in the fill, and then smooth it (or don't even bother to smooth it).
... in the end, by the time you got to your stripes, polka dots, etc ... you'll probably start to appreciate why they'd charge $500 for a cake. This is probably going to take a week of work, as you need time for the layers to cool before you can frost them, and working on your own means that you'll be working on one layer at a time ... which could be a couple of hours. As most of us aren't used to marathon cake decorating, you might need to take breaks to rest your piping hand and/or back, so might have to plan for one night per tier (if you have a day job, and aren't trying to do this over a weekend).
They wanted 500 just for the cake not any of the decor or anything :/ and my drawings not particularly to scale either i was just sketching out in the middle of the night while my LO slept what i wanted XD I did buy a round cake tin from wiltons to do the teacups and teapot though! so that should help:) I was thinking of doing a square base with a down thats screwed into the middle for the big support with smaller cake dowels to hold up the next layer where needed! and this doesnt have to be perfect its for my baby lol just pretty! And sadly wehre i live even in the summer fresh flowers suck
they wilt as soon as there cut so i was going to make these flowers but i did debate ordering them from the specialty shop to make life easier XD but i felt like id be cheating then!
@user22564 : was it the spherical mold they have for soccar balls and the like? If so, then you can probably get away with making it twice, then using the two halves for the lower cups ... and as it's only about 6" across, you probably won't want to slice each part to add a filling ... but the pillar is still going to be important. The easiest is probably a fairly substantial wood dowel, pre-drill the middle so it won't split, and then screw it down to some MDF or plywood. The flowers can potentially be placed on at the last second if you're not too obsessive each one being perfectly spaced
Yeah its the 6 or 7 inch one XD this cake isnt entirely all that big just fancy! the mustache on the bottom is a flat cake that im making out of 2 9 inch rounds cut like this https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRj2xdw_-UZ12KD84BXOUgeI0EZA6IfQAsoEFrWj_dpBbwMZ0oyhA so its not really that big:)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.550560
| 2014-01-15T06:07:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41178",
"authors": [
"Bella_Blue",
"Cascabel",
"Devika Ros",
"Joe",
"John",
"Loisa Dela Spam",
"Nick Stauner",
"Paula Myers",
"Spammer",
"W.R.P.S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95987",
"user22564",
"user297556",
"xhek55"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41853
|
Cleaning white bubbles on induction stove
I recently moved into an apartment with an induction stove. After the first use with a designated pan, some white bubble marks have appeared. Has anyone had these types of stains? Any suggestions on how to clean it?
I can't recognize the material of the stove surface. (It is not dependent on the fact that it is induction, I have even used a bare-coil design). Is it glass? Also, can it just be dried out spilled hard water?
Have you tried doing anything at all?
On my ceramic top stove, I use a scraper to remove residue, along with a commercial-grade stove cleaner.
I have an induction stove and have had similar marks. I think rumtscho is right; these are mineral deposits from water. Water gets between the surface and the pan, most likely because the base of the pan was initially wet (spillage from the pan will mostly end up beside it, and only areas directly under the pan will get significantly hot), the heat of the pan evaporates the water, leaving dry deposits.
There is some good advice on cleaning glass stovetops from eHow, which suggests leaving a "[vinegar-drenched] paper towel on the stove top for an hour", and using ceramic cooktop cleaner if still present.
But I've found these marks can be mostly prevented by making sure the base of your pan is completely dry before putting it on the stove.
We bought/installed a new Samsung glass top stove today. After the first time of using the top, it looked like little bubbles arose on the burner in wich I used.
I thought maybe a protective film was there. Couldn't find one... I also didn't understand how there could be one as I used the eye for 20 mins with no other sign of a film melting or anything like that. It looked like the bubbles appeared from under the surface.
I started reading posts on this and other websites.
I had just washed,and patted dry, the frying pan I used. I read it could be mineral bubbles from using a wet pan when begaining to cook. I also read on the Samsung website it is not a default in the stove top.. to use some "elbow grease" (I am paraphrasing) and the spots will come up. I didn't have a 000 steal wool pad so I used the backside of a sponge (the scratchy side..but it wasn't very abrasive..) and rubbed in tiny circles OVER and OVER with a tiny bit of dawn dish soap. The bubbles disappeared.
This is my first time dealing with this. I don't know if it is because we use well water.. or if a wet pan caused it. I don't know if it was my elbow grease, so to speak, that helped remove the spots... but it worked.
After using my new glass-topped stove to do a chicken stir fry. Used the suggested cleaner closely following directions. Allow to cool totally shake and spray cleaner - use special pad and wipe clean and buff with clean paper towel. There were raised prickly bubbles all around he rim of the burner and streaky marks across the center of the burner I was sick. I researched and tried each suggestion with the least abrasive first. FINALLY I used my old stand by BonAmi cleaner made into a paste and rubbed aggressively with the special pad. Wipe with damp paper towel and then I sprayed the area with Windex White Vinegar cleaner and wiped with special microfiber glass cloth. Perfect - like new. However I will note - it took me 20 minutes to do the entire stir-fry dinner and over an hour and a half to clean the stove. If I had it to do over - I'd go coil.
Is there still a protective plastic film on the stove, which you melted in spots?
You have a couple of options.
Grade 000 steel wool. I was put onto it by a builder when I was cleaning very dirty windows, we pretty much use it on everything, when its not rusty (throw away when it is) its virtually scratch free for all surfaces but removes tough built on dirt, sopa scum, fades hard water marks and eventually removes them.
You can try a scrapper but you would have to be cautious not to scratch it as this is a possibility. You can also try a product like "Bring it on cleaner" we have used this product and can vouch it is what it says it is. Unfortunately is is pretty costly. Another option is cerium oxide. I wouldn't recommend this option unless you have worked with it before.
promotion in posts, for your or others' blogs or sites, is allowed as long as it is pointing to a page which contains a direct answer to the question. Your links weren't, so I removed them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.551841
| 2014-02-08T15:12:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41853",
"authors": [
"Auto Spam Factory",
"BWJP Spam",
"Blackout Ink",
"Melissa A Kellison",
"Montse San Mamés",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tony",
"dant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97988",
"rackandboneman",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"s3v3n",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41935
|
Are there substitutes for Parmesan without the aged cheese flavor?
I absolutely can't stand the flavor of parmesan cheese. Unfortunately, it is a very important ingredient in Italian cooking. What is a good substitute? It can't be anything that even resembles parmesan. Despite the fact that I love cheese, no feta or blue or any of that strong stuff.
Note by the moderators If you want to suggest a cheese with a similar flavor, there is a separate question for that. Look at the answers there, and if your suggestion is not already listed, add an answer to that question. This question is for food with different flavor only.
Parmesan is added to these dishes for the sole reason that it tastes like parmesan. I don't think there are criteria under which we can suggest a substitution - if we suggest things which taste similarly to it, your food won't taste good to you. If we suggest things which taste differently, then we must start randomly pointing at ingredients, none of which is a good substitution. If you want your food to not taste like parmesan, leave it completely out. If you want your food to have a distinctive flavor which is not parmesan-like, pick something which in your opinion fits a particular dish.
Cynthia, am I right that it's a particular strong cheese aroma that you dislike, not just the salty and umami flavor of the cheese? (Umami is the rich, savory, "meaty" taste that you find in things like meat/broth, mushrooms, tomatoes, seaweed, and hard cheeses.) Parmesan isn't just to make things taste like parmesan; it has core flavors that are present in other ingredients too, so this is actually answerable.
And for the record, here's exactly what happened with this question: the OP was somewhat vague, and didn't return. I made my best guess about her intent (not at all a wild guess), and adopted the question, turning it from something that people wanted to close into a specific, answerable question that has produced useful answers. As it says in the body, this question is not about substituting other cheeses, and there's already a question about that. So if you want to suggest a cheese, there's a place to post - but it's not here.
A common replacement for Parmesan among vegans is to use a combination of kelp powder, nutritional yeast, and ground sesame seeds and walnuts, and salt. It works in about anything that won't require the cheese to melt. The kelp and nutritional yeast provide umami, the seeds and nuts provide a nutty flavor and some fat, and the salt... well, adds the missing saltiness. It hits most of the same notes as Parmesan without having the "funk".
And parmesan only sort of melts to begin with, so this sounds like a great substitute!
Yep, hacked walnuts - they aren't just a hippie parmesan substitute, they are actually found in a delicious chinese noodle recipe called "kindling noodles", which is probably where some western vegan got the idea from.
You can use crumbs; it's called "the parmesan of the poor" and can be some kind of substitution. :)
This gets you the texture but I don't think it gets you as much of the flavor as it could.
@Jefromi in the moderator note there is mentioned "This question is for food with different flavor only." so.. second thing, this substitution was used in typical italian poor-mans dish :/
There are multiple components to the flavor: the aged cheese flavor (what we're trying to avoid) and the salt and umami (good).
I think that if you made breadcrumbs that were sauteed in olive oil or butter, this could work pretty well. (ie, actually making breadcrumbs, not using the sawdust replacement from the store)
You can certainly make some substitutions, though it of course won't be the same. If parmesan was really a critical ingredient of the dish, you should probably find something else to make. But if it's just an accent, I would try to substitute something a bit of salt plus something else umami-rich.
Salt's easy enough. My best guess for the umami would be mushroom powder. The flavor will hopefully fit with most Italian dishes you're trying to make, and it's not so overwhelming a flavor that it'll compete with the dish. Nutritional yeast might also be a good option, or even plain MSG.
Beyond that, there's a list of umami-rich ingredients here, but I think I've picked out the best few. A lot of them won't work well for you, since you want something pretty dry (like the parmesan). And a few of the others, like nori (seaweed) might add an unwelcome flavor.
If you're "sprinkling" it on top of a dish, here is an alternative recipe my mother makes:
Farmesan (aka Sprinkle Cheese)
Ingredients
1 cup raw almonds
1 cup brewers Yeast
2 teaspoon onion powder
2 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon salt
Method
Pulse almonds in blender or food processor until they're crumbly like a parmesan.
Add the other ingredients and process until integrated.
Sprinkle on anything you would have put parmesan on. Great on pasta, veggies, etc.
Can you please clarify the units used in the recipe?
@JohnEye Done. Units expanded. 1cup = 48 teaspoons, but adjust to your liking.
Thanks for maintaining the answer more than four years after it was posted ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.552239
| 2014-02-11T16:53:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41935",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Tabor",
"Ian Ooi",
"JohnEye",
"MY DREAM UMRAH spam",
"Paul ",
"Prudence",
"SourDoh",
"Spam Marketing agency",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Sriramanotebook spam",
"Vincent",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98065",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sebpa",
"sudo pkill depression"
],
"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
}
|
34330
|
Edible supports for a fondant palm tree
I am working on a zoo themed cake for a 2 year old. I have made all the animals and added a piece of spaghetti through the body and attached the head on it to keep everything edible on the cake as its a kids' cake. I do not want to add toothpicks or wires as they are not edible. I now want to make a palm tree (about 10-15 cm). I have been looking on the web and all the tutorials ask for wires or dowels for support.
Can someone please suggest what else could I use as an edible support to make a fondant palm tree?
P.S. It could also be used as a support for other tall fondant figurines.
I don't see how a 2-year-old encountering a piece of raw spaghetti in the cake is any better than said 2-year-old encountering a wooden dowel. Neither is edible, but at least the latter is unlikely to break when bitten.
@Marti: Thanks for your comment. It is the linguini that I am using and is a replacement to a toothpick. It is still edible and easy enough to break, if the figurine was to be eaten, which the kids do. It is better than putting non edible things on the cake, at least in my view. I know that spaghetti won't be able to hold longer structures like a tree and hence my question.
Pretzel sticks sound promising! The normal sized ones aren't quite 10-15cm, but there are longer ones out there. You could also look for Pocky or some other kind of cookie stick - sometimes things like that are sold as edible coffee stirrers (maybe coated with chocolate).
If you can't find any of that, it should all be easy enough to make yourself; pretty much any crispy cracker or cookie, rolled out into thin sticks instead of its normal shape, should get you started.
I bought a mint filled chocolate stick and will be using it to create the support.
For something a little more durable than pretzels or cookies, I generally suggest candy canes, especially if you can find the un-bent 'peppermint stick' style. Unfortunately, they're a little harder to come by at this time of year.
You might also be able to glue together a bunch of spaghetti or linguini to make it stronger ... either use egg whites or a flour paste, coat the pasta, then tie it together in a bundle and let dry for a day or two.
That's a great idea. Will try it next time. +1. Thanks
Make them out of fondant, and then freeze them, Make sure you have extra long tree trunks
When you are ready to serve, poke in the palms and candles and no problem
Kids like frozen fondant too!
Sorry, should've mentioned that its for someone else's kid and I will be transporting the cake, which is 30-45 minutes away. So freezing might not be a good idea this time. Like your idea otherwise +1
Will still work, use an insulated container and ice packs, they wont defrost that fast
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.552690
| 2013-05-25T23:38:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34330",
"authors": [
"Alfredo Zamudio",
"Divi",
"Kulbhan Singh",
"Marti",
"TFD",
"Yogith Teegala",
"cle4pa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79982",
"iamthedrake",
"jcgoble3",
"jezzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36087
|
Baking wheat and dairy-free bread with only dry yeast
I am going to try and cook my own wheat and dairy free bread. It says use dry and fresh yeast.
Can I use only dry yeast, and if so how much more do I have to use?
Yes, you can use dry yeast. Fresh or cake yeast, active dry yeast, and instant dry yeast are all interchangeable, although differing amounts may be required, and they have different requirements for proofing or activation.
If you are using traditional active dry yeast you will want to proof it.
According to the Fresh Loaf, you can substitute dry yeast for fresh yeast at a ratio of 1:3 by weight:
Professional bakers often use fresh yeast. If you encounter a recipe
that uses fresh yeast, divide the weight by 3 to calculate the proper
amount of instant yeast to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.552958
| 2013-08-18T09:18:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36087",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"Celeste",
"Kay",
"Patrice Placencia",
"bobby w",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84658",
"sstreet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34598
|
Canning tomato sauce problem, jar broken in boiling method
It was my first try to canning tomato sauce but I failed.
I prepared a tomato pizza sauce.
I boiled a jar and lid then removed it
I filled the jar with sauce and left one inch empty space and closed with the lid.
Then I put it in the boiling water and what happened:
As soon as I put the jar in the hot boiling water, some air bubbles appeared.
Then after few seconds, the jar broke from its bottom
And I failed in my first experiment.
What should I be doing differently for this not to happen next time?
Was it a canning jar? Was the tomato sauce hot or cold? Was the jar sitting on the bottom of a pot or suspended in a canning rack?
Jars burst either because of internal pressure or thermal shock.
There are a couple things you can do to reduce the risk of bursting.
use actual canning jars.
Some people like to reuse regular jars that aren't as strong. This will often work fine but increases the risk of bursting.
make sure the jar is hot.
A cold jar into hot water or a hot jar into cold water will burst almost every time.
bring water to a boil after adding jars
don't overtighten lids.
Rings should be tightened just enough to firmly hold the lid on. Too much and pressure won't be able to escape during boiling. Remember the bottle is sealed by pressure-not by the ring.
Based on your description, if you had any of these problems I would suspect the last.
However, sometimes bottles just burst because of manufacturing defects. This doesn't happen often but it is sad when it does.
Thanks for your detail reply. Jar was placed directly in boiling water without canning rack. It was not in standing position but in laying position (Actually i saw in one youtube video and they was canning by laying the jars). Your answers are really logical.
Your jar may have died of thermal shock. The bottom of your canning pot should have a spacer that keeps the jars from directly touching the pot's potentially quite hot bottom. You can buy purpose-built spacing grids, or use something like this:
Those are canning jar lids in the bottom of the pot.
Can we use this type of jars, click for jars Photo ?
Sure. That's just an old style canning jar, unless possibly it's a modern knockoff meant soley for decorative purposes. For general and accurate canning info, check this site: http://nchfp.uga.edu/
By the way, the purpose of boiling method is to "remove the air" from the jar? or it change some chemical properties of the sauce too?
Purpose is to sterilize, but it also replaces the air in the bottle w hot steam, so that when things cool down the steam condenses and you get a nice vacuum seal.
It seems that you added room temperature or (just warm) jars into boiling water, thermal shock broke the glass. Put room temperature closed jars in water, put cotton kitchen cloth between jars in the water, turn the gas on and continue. When the water starts boiling leave it boiling for 30 to 40 min. Turn off gas, leave them for one hour to cool and then take them out and dont open the jars. Store them in a relatively dark area, open only the one u need to use first. Basically speaking, jars with circular metal lids should have their top lid surface become slightly concave after boiling, this means the air went out and now they can be stored for a year. If the top of the lid remains straight or convex, there is a chance that the sauce will rot after a few weeks because air is still inside, and bacteria can resurrect to life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.553081
| 2013-06-09T09:22:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34598",
"authors": [
"Charles Schoppet",
"DataMiner",
"Graydyn Young",
"JimmyShoe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kath H",
"Scrapper Loredo",
"Thorsonic",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"eva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80666"
],
"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
}
|
105602
|
Steak dropped in soapy dish water
I accidentally dropped my steak in soapy dish water for a couple of seconds then rinsed it off and now I'm marinating it. Will it be safe to eat?
So, how was the steak?
If no answers for more than 48 hours, can we assume soapy steak did it's job?
Dish soap won't kill you. You probably eat it, in traces, with every meal.
If you can't smell it or taste it, then no real harm done.
If the dish water were dirty, would the extra contaminants be a threat?
@BalinKingOfMoriaReinstateCMs unless the OP was planning to make steak tartare, no.
There are countries where it's typical to not rinse off dishes after cleaning them, so they get even more dish soap each time. (I've heard Japan and the UK are this way),
As Stephie says, if you're cooking it, you're going to be cooking most of what's on it or saturating it also. It's obviously worse if you've dropped a steak in dirty water than not, however. Sinks in particular can be full of nasty germs.
If the dishwater was dirty enough to be a health hazard… why would you still be washing up in it?
@user76129 - rinsing makes streaks & water spots. Not rinsing doesn't. Dish soap is designed that way. They're hardly going to 'build up soap' either way - that's just a preposterous idea ;)
So, we're down to personal preference. Rinsing is not necessary, neither is wiping them over with a tea-towel.
@Tetsujin If you don't rinse it wouldn't it taste soapy next time you eat with that dish since it has a ton of dish soap on it still?
'a ton of soap' …? Well, approx one thimble-full to a large bowl of hot water, then allowed to drain until air-dry… Nope, can't say as it does.
@Onyz, I've drank water from a glass that wasn't sufficiently rinsed after washing, and it had a distinct bitter taste to it. Maybe if you never rinse your dishes, you simply can't taste it after a while, since you're used to it.
You guys are either just making this up now, or you're washing your dishes in 80% carbolic & battery acid. I've never heard anything so over-the-top.
@user76129 : The mention of Japan came from an NHK show Home Sweet Tokyo, but when I went searching on my phone, I found mention that it was a British thing. I guess I shouldn't have expanded that to 'UK'. In the NHK show, I think they specifically mentioned that the dish soap was specially formulated to be safe, so I guess it's possible it's not safe everywhere.
The 'British thing' seems as contentious to Brits as it does to everybody else. Your 'reference' is just a bunch of comments in a newspaper. Each to his/her own. All it has served is to prolong a whole series of equally opinionated comments in here & doesn't help the answer one bit.
I audit meat plants in the US and there is actually a thing called a meat wash sink. Red meat can legally be picked up off the floor and washed in a sink, but not with soap. I am agreeing this is pretty disgusting, but it is the case. I have done a similar thing and been fine, but do not do this in a restaurant please, it is not OK there. As long as you remove the soap you're fine, but if the water had old food or other items, then, well, that is not the best idea.
If you tolerate this in a meat plant, why not in a restaurant?
@bobuhito Because then the cat is out of the bag. People in the modern day just freak out by the tiniest things.
@bobuhito Sink washed meat is the dollar store special. Paying for non-floor meat at a restaurant is an expectation.
Restaurant grill-station cook, after dropping a NY strip on the floor: "No germ could survive that fall." *rinse and serve.
Do you have any source on the regulations that allow steak rinsing?
@AlexD: Presumably it's allowed because water is Generally Recognized As Safe (Gras) in food, but soap isn't.
All I can tell you is every red meat plant I visit has a "meat wash sink" it is allowed under USDA regs. I am not going to search the CFR to find that info for you sorry.
@AlexD I did look for guidance documents and found this reference in a USDA document. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/FSRE_SPS.pdf Again this is not me tolerating this is the USDA. If you dont like it call Sonny Purdue the Commissioner of the USDA.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.553439
| 2020-02-29T15:09:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105602",
"authors": [
"Alex D",
"Beanluc",
"Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні",
"Jan Kyu Peblik",
"Joe",
"Josh Grosso",
"Lin",
"MSalters",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Onyz",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Veljko89",
"bobuhito",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81481",
"tfrascaroli"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35787
|
Does pizza need yeast?
I have been looking into some recipe without yeast. Jamie Oliver has a recipe in his 30 minute book that does not need yeast.
Will pizza have less crunch or flavour without yeast?
You would have to provide the recipe to get any serious comments, and some notion of what you are comparing to. But there are a myriad style of pizza. Most of them do involve yeast.
There's a biscuit style pizza crust that's popular in some parts of Maryland. No yeast required. also see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33032/67
@Joe I once spent hours searching for recipes for Ledo's style crust, or Maryland pizza or whatever, to no avail. And outside of Maryland, this style of pizza seems non-existent.
Many kinds of pizza base are made from a yeast-raised bread dough. As with other breads (and beer, and wine, and cider etc.) the yeast, while it feeds and gives off the gas that causes the dough to rise, produces other substances which contribute to the flavour. So, a dough used as a pizza base which was not leavened with yeast isn't going to taste the same because it's not going to have these yeasty byproducts in it.
Texturally, it's also likely to be different. One of the other things that happens while the yeast is working at making the dough rise, and during any kneading that is part of the process, is the formation of gluten, which is essential to the structure of many risen breads. Anything else is unlikely to have the same behaviour. Take for example soda bread, which, despite being made from wheat flour, is made in such a way as to minimise gluten development and thus has a very, very different texture to a yeasted loaf made from the exact same flour.
So, your non-yeast pizza recipe is likely to be quite different to yeast-risen pizza. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't be nice, but you'll have to make it in order to find out.
I once made a pizza with a base made from scone dough, which has the advantage of being fast, as would a pizza based on a soda bread base. Yeast takes a while to work, so there's no way you're going to get a good yeasty base inside 30 minutes. It'd be hard to do it inside an hour. My usual strategy involves a no-knead dough recipe set up the night before, so actual preparation of the pizza takes perhaps three quarters of an hour, with the yeast doing most of the work while I'm at work or asleep.
But I'm just airily speculating. The only way to know for sure what this recipe is like is to make it and find out.
I just tried it, and I found it is somewhere between a buttery biscuit and a cracker... and it can work. It does not have a developed yeasty taste, nor is there any chewy pull, but it can be a basic base for good toppings.
It will be like a pliable biscuit if barely browned, or a nice crunchy thick cracker if darkened well on the bottom.
Use good toppings and some salt and I would not be too embarrassed to feed it to some friends. You won't bee selling it on the street, but when you are out of time or yeast, this can work.
So expect and accept a basic blander tasting pizza crust and you might not be too disappointed.
I used about:
1/2 cup all purpose
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt (or more to pull out what little flavor is in flour)
1/2 tbs melted butter
splash olive oil
1/8 milk (plus however much more needed to make dough consistency.)
Mixed all these, kneaded for about 5 min, let rest for 5 min or more, roll out with rolling pin, par bake around 450 on bottom rack on cookie sheet till it starts to develop brown on top, then add your sauce and toppings as desired. This made a small single serving.
Yes, it is possible to make a pizza without yeast but there is no guarantee how good it will be.
here i give you a recipe to make a pizza without yeast.
Ingredients :
2 c. flour
1 tsp. salt
2 tsp. baking powder
2/3 c. water
1/4 c. vegetable oil
Mix flour, salt, baking powder and water. Knead on floured counter just until workable and spreadable, about 2 minutes. Put on pizza pan, with fingers spread vegetable oil on crust (helps so tomato sauce won't soak in crust) then put pizza sauce on, next put on toppings. Bake at 425 degrees for 20 minutes.
Try above recipe to make a yeast free pizza.
While not a direct answer to your question, you can make a good pizza dough without commercial A good alternative is to utilize a Sourdough Starter which uses the wild yeast in the air to leaven the dough.
I have made many pizzas without yeast because it was not available?
plain flour, 2 table-spoons of margarine, pinch of salt, 1 cup of milk.
1-preheat the oven first, in bowl put 2 cups of plain flour, add butter. use your hand to mix.
2-add salt and cup of milk and mix with hands. the mixture is sticky now. (If you want you can add teaspoon of herbs or Italian herbs in the dough.)
3-dust the kitchen bench with flour and put the sticky mixture in the centre. knell the dough slowly until the mixture is not sticky and ready for the rolling pin. roll the dough out to the size you want on pizza tray.
4-place the dough on the pizza tray and place in the oven at high heat for 5 mins. While the pizza base is being treated, you can cut up the ingredients for the pizza.
5-Use gloves, get the hot pizza tray and squeeze BBQ sauce as the base sauce add 5 different types of meat: I preferred cold cooked chicken, hot dogs, salami, sausages, ham. sprinkle some cheese over the pizza then back in the oven.
6-second pizza I often make is garlic pizza, mix 1/3 cup of garlic with 1/2 cup of margarine, very lightly with cheese. strong but popular
I take it this results in a denser, thinner crust?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.553959
| 2013-08-04T01:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35787",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie",
"Debz Lee",
"Don Teal",
"Eirinn1975",
"H W",
"Jeanette",
"Joe",
"Joon Bahng",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Serena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84006"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43477
|
Can I add butter to yeast dough which has already risen?
I used yeast,water,milk,egg,sugar and flour in my dough. I forgot to put the butter the recipe called for. My dough has risen already.
Can I add the butter after it has risen or can I make something out of what I got already?
No, you shouldn't be adding butter at this stage, it will take too much kneading and undo the rising.
Whatever it is you were baking, just go ahead and bake it this way. There are many breads which don't use any fat at all. The taste will be different than with butter, but it will still be a good bread.
Have just done it in error before reading up on it. It will change your bread so you will get a buttery croissant feel to the outside of the roll, plus your bread may turn out a bit ugly. I personally liked it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.554396
| 2014-04-13T06:31:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43477",
"authors": [
"Cash App Login",
"Fiz",
"Noor",
"Rahul Akula",
"Spammer",
"azadeh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101873"
],
"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
}
|
42783
|
Roasting pan substitute / roasting rack for pork shoulder?
I'm making pork shoulder, slow-roasted in the oven, but I don't have a roasting pan. I have a baking sheet, a glass casserole dish, a large, high-sided cast-iron skillet, and an enameled cast-iron dutch oven. Does it make a difference which I substitute, and if so, why?
Second question: I've seen some recipes where a bed of celery is laid down to act as a rack. How does doing that or not affect the dish.
Update: I suppose this question is a partial answer to part one: Enameled Cast Iron vs Stainless Steel Roasting Pans
Any of those will work, but you want a rim to prevent any drippings from making a mess in your oven. In general, the lower the sides, the better for overall air circulation around the roast, but it is not essential. If you want to be able to deglaze the pan, avoid the ceramic or glass pan, as they cannot be used stove-top.
Using celery (and carrots) as a make shift roasting stand is very effective. They will add their aroma to the pan juices, which is often a good thing. (Note that by the time the roast is done, they are usually spent and not worth eating.)
IF you don't want the flavor from vegetables, any small rack which will fit will work. If you don't have one, you can improvize one by crumpling up aluminum foil into a long snake shape, and coiling or zig-zagging it on the pan just large enough to fit the roast.
For a slow roasted pork shoulder, you could also go without any rack or elevation, at the cost to some small amount of crust development on the bottom. Depending on your desires, this may or may not matter--when I do an indoor pork shoulder for pulling, I don't bother with a rack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.554507
| 2014-03-15T23:22:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42783",
"authors": [
"Arvind",
"Maria",
"Shane Colon",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99992",
"nouveaulingua",
"sbhatt33",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70567
|
Is "krapfens" commonly used to designate donuts?
"Krapfen" is a German word which means "donuts".
I wonder if the term "krapfens" is commonly used in English to refer to donuts or if it may be pretty odd.
I have such doubt because it sounds similar to "crap" and it might sound not very good to designate food...
In other terms, if I say "Krapfens" in England / America does everyone understand what I meant to point out?
I'm curious, why did you think the German word might be used in English?
because it seems to me that in Italy it's used commonly -> http://ricette.giallozafferano.it/Krapfen.html . The italian word should be "bomboloni"...
You might be stumbling about the fact that "Krapfen" is more ambiguous that your Krapfen = donut conclusion.
The small piece of yeast-based dough, often filled and/or fried.
That's the category your "Krapfen" and donuts fall into. In many dialects they are also called "Kreppel". (And a bunch of other names.)
Filled pasta dough, sweet or savoury, typically folded and/or crimped together.
While an Italian would talk about "ravioli", an Estern European about "pieroggi" and an Asian about "dumplings", someone from Southern Tyrol or the Allgäu would call them "Krapfen" (but also use the term for the variety above) and in Jiddish cuisine it's a "kreplach".
So if you want a donut, say so. The term krapfen won't mean anything to an English speaker (check your favourite dictionary, I just did!). But don't be surprised if you are offered kreplach and get a ravioli, not a donut.
I can only answer as to the USA. In the US, English speakers do not say krapfen, nor would most English speakers be familiar with the word.
I've never heard the term used (even in areas of high German descent in the US).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.554687
| 2016-06-09T07:10:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70567",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"franz1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47284",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70949
|
How much EGCG and caffeine can specific amount of water absorb from tea leaves?
For example;
1) 100mL water + 4 tablespoons of green tea leaves
2) 100mL water + 12 tablespoons of green tea leaves
Will the second one result with higher EGCG and caffeine content? Or is there a upper limit for the absorbable amount? If not, how much difference can occur? 3x content of the first one?
Hello Leloux, and welcome to the site! Note that we do not take questions about health and the effects of food on the body, so I had to remove the last sentence. But the rest is a nice first question, even though I suspect the answer is not the one you hoped for.
3x tea would not mean 3x extract
But it is going to be close to 3x for small amount
Water is a good solvent for those chemicals but there is a limit
The solubility of caffeine is 2 g/100 mL at room temperature (by weight about 1 : 50).
66 gram / 100 mL at boiling.
A coke is 20 mg (milli 1/1000) 12 oz.
The caffeine we drink is not even close to saturation.
In extraction you equalize the mole fraction with a fudge factor. I don't know where to find fudge factor for tea. But it would favor the water.
A dry tea leaf is about 3% caffeine. Getting the caffeine out with boiling water you can pretty easily get up to saturation at room temperature. But you would need quite a bit of tea. 2 g caffiene would be 66 g of tea. A tea bag is about 2 grams.
In a commercial extraction they would use a solvent like ethanol.
There are two factors here, both of which will limit you.
The first is the solubility of caffeine in water. Paparazzi found it for room temperature, it is going to be higher for a hot beverage, but whatever it is, it is a hard upper limit. So, if you were to drop a tablet of 1 g pure caffeine into 100 ml water, and a tablet of 6 g into another glass of 100 ml, you would only get 2 g of caffeine from drinking the second water, not 6 g. But that's unlikely to matter in real tea making.
The second one is the extractability of caffeine from tea leaves. I am not going to do any back-of-the-envelope calculation for that, but basically, the amount of caffeine you can extract into the tea depends on the concentration of caffeine in the tea and the concentration of caffeine remaining in the leaf. The less concentration you have outside the leaf, the more can you get from inside the leaf to the outside. In practical scenarios, this is going to limit you much earlier than you hit the caffeine solubility problem.
It is impossible to predict how much the difference in extraction will be. Somebody with a scientific computing background and access to the right formula and hardware could make a model for a given tea making recipe and a given leaf, but a recipe which uses different time, temperature, and a different plant will end up with a different factor. The best we can say is, there will be a difference (it won't be the same amount extracted), but it will be noticeably less than 3x the same amount.
This goes for basically anything you extract from the tea, so also EGCG.
You do not need a computing background. You need a chemist or chemical engineer. The are formula for extraction. I just could not find to coefficients to plug in.
OK, I don't know enough about chemical education to know if the average chemist or chemical engineer has access to something (formula, software, whatever) to easily calculate it. It probably depends on how much precision you want - I was considering a case where you take into account the cooling of the liquid during the extraction process. Anyway, such calculations are of limited usefulness, because as far as I remember they depend on the initial concentration of caffeine in the leaf, and that's highly variable (or can you assume "unlimited" supply of caffeine on first extraction)?
Extraction is a very common process. Any chemist or chemical engineering would receive training. You can only extract what is there. As the water get closer to saturation then it will only get part of caffeine out. The precision is you can get to saturation at room temp pretty easy and don't need and advanced model for that.
Ok, that's great to know! Is the background information on that formula available somewhere freely on the Internet? Also, how does it account for different forms of tea (shredded vs. whole leaf vs. matcha-like powder etc.)?
Read my answer I don't even need the formula for this one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.554849
| 2016-06-26T03:53:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70949",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76706
|
Does cooking black bengal gram with salt lead to increased cooking time or lack of softening?
I have heard that cooking bengal gram with salt can lead to increased cooking time compared to cooking it without salt.So i used to add salt just before serving the curry.Other pulses like green gram are cooked with salt without any noticeable similar problems of delayed softening. Is this problem about bengal gram or chickpea is true?If so why is it so?
I'm curious what your source for the longer cooking time is?
Not authentic source...its an advice we used to get from elders...i also felt its true when once i tried with salt...it was not at all becoming soft even after prolonged cooking
I had the feeling that we have had quite a few questions about this on the site, maybe not about this specific bean, but the principle is the same. But I only found questions about adding salt to the soaking water, not the cooking water. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20754/does-adding-salt-when-soaking-dry-beans-toughen-or-soften-the-skin-of-the-bean.
No, this is a common myth. If you want to test it, you don't "try once with salt", you divide the same batch of beans and cook them both, one with salt and one without, under the same conditions, and repeat. This is what a food author did, although he seems to not have repeated the experiment: http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/09/salt-beans-cooking-soaking-water-good-or-bad.html. His salted beans were somewhat better than the unsalted, and he states he now always cooks them in salted water.
I have tested in two batches.I felt its not becoming soft when salt is added.I am noting this only with black bengal gram.All other pulses even the white bengal gram goes well with salt.Black bengal gram is exceptionally harder than other pulses and beans.Question is specifically about it.That is why i have provided the photo to avoid possible generalisation.
I don't think this is true. If anything, salt would help the bengal gram (chickpea or garbanzo bean) soften sooner because it would absorb moisture more easily and therefore soften sooner.
If you soak the bengal gram overnight (you should for taste/texture/ease of cooking) then salting during the soak would definitely not cause an increase cooking time, as once again they will contain more water and therefore cook faster.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.555157
| 2016-12-22T08:41:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76706",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"aelin_s",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90100
|
How to take care of a wooden mortar and pestle?
How to maintain a wooden mortar and pestle?
I just got it, and understood I need to first oil it to seal/protect it from keeping the taste of what I grind, which makes sense.
But how to maintain it for long term? Wash it with water and maybe soap? Oil it again after sometime?
I have always considered these to be decorative only, I personally would not use it in any food preparation. Think about it, you're rubbing two pieces of wood together, what's going to be the result? Sawdust.
I won't even talk about the absorption of liquids into wood.
Depends on the wood. Woods like teak and acacia are superdense and really unlikely to give off any dust or splinters in use. The main reason I wouldn't get one is that even the hardest woods are softer than ceramic/stone, and thus problematic for very hard things like peppercorns.
@FuzzyChef but they tend to be larger, and less expensive than stone ones, so if you’re mashing plantains for mofongo or making large batches of aioli or pesto, wood makes sense.
Also lighter, which is a plus for some. I have a beautiful antique porcelain M&P, holds a quart, grinds anything ... and my sweetie can't lift it.
The mortar and pestle is unique in the way in inconveniences cooks for no added benefit. You can provide the manual friction with the associated tennis elbow yourself or you can just use a blender
Note that a wooden mortar is first and foremost a wooden utensil and the same care instructions as for other wooden equipment apply.
So oiling it regularly with a food grade oil is a good idea. You can find Q/As on how to oil e.g. cutting boards here on the site.
For general cleaning, it depends on what you used it for.
Dry herbs and spices are easy: a quick wipe with a dry cloth should suffice in most cases. Wet preparations (think curry paste) are trickier, but a rinse with hot water is your first step. You will often find warnings about using dishwashing liquid and they have a point. Wood is prone to absorb whatever liquid it comes into contact with, and who wants the next preparation to taste like dishwater?
But your curry will also leave a taste. A common remedy for lingering smells is rice: grind it in your mortar and it should absorb it. Repeat until it remains neutral. Similar advice uses salt. And of course being diligent about oiling should reduce the absorption of liquids and flavors.
To be very honest, I would probably do two things:
Reserve it for dry ingredients or at least roughly the same flavor profile - prevents that touch of garlic in your dessert - and live with the fact that it will develop a patina of past preparations.
I might rarely even ignore the advice and use the tiniest bit of a non-scented dishwashing liquid for a very quick wipe followed by a good rinse off and probably oiling after it’s dry - but only if it’s absolutely necessary. Proceed at your own risk.
The absolute worst thing you could do is running it through your dishwasher or giving it a good long soak. Do “the opposite” and you should be fine.
Depending on the size, it might be better to do a lemon/coarse salt scrub like you’d do for a cutting board and avoid the dish soap
Thanks! I'll try grinding rice or lemon/coarse salt in case I see that some flavors stuck to it, and regularly clean with water and then oil it
Mix a drop of blue Dawn with warm water, not hot, use a soft sponge over entire surface, then rinse with the same temperature water and allow to air dry for 48 hours, then crush a couple of tablespoons of white rice in the mortar.
Finally coat and soak in butcher block oil then wipe off excess
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.555372
| 2018-05-31T20:11:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90100",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jeffrey Barber",
"Joe",
"Neil Meyer",
"arieljannai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16011
|
What do green spots on the inside of a butternut squash indicate?
When I was cutting a butternut squash, I noticed a greenish discoloration near around third of the seed pocket. I scraped it off, but I was wondering
if it would have been safe for a young toddler to eat (whose the primary consumer)?
with the green parts scraped off, is it safe for a toddler to eat?
was it in the process of going bad, so I'll know what to look for later?
I always go with my gut in these situations, so scraping it off is probably a good idea.
If the green was not really dark and moldy looking, or really soft in comparison to the rest of the flesh, it could be that it just wasn't fully ripe yet in that area.
Either way, you're planning on cooking the squash, correct? I believe that this would be perfectly safe to eat now that the questionable parts have been removed. I'd eat it with no qualms.
If the rest of the squash was firm, and not bad looking on the outside or inside, then I am guessing this is not a problem, unless said green part was much softer than the rest of the squash.
If I remember correctly, it was somewhat softer. So, I scraped it out, ensuring a took normal orange flesh with it, and cooked it anyway. I figured it was safe, but I was curious if anyone knew differently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.555674
| 2011-07-07T18:45:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16011",
"authors": [
"Audrey",
"Bobby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35856",
"rcollyer",
"ricdel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18847
|
How to modify a quick bread recipe to add spice / tea flavors?
I have a trusty pumpkin bread that I make countless loaves of every year. My wife and I love Chai Tea and I was curious how one could go about adapting the linked recipe above to include Chai spices or some type of Chai tea as part of the ingredients. To me this seems like the best convergence of many tasty flavors for the fall.
Have you ever made chai from scratch? That'd be a great starting point; you could take the spice proportions from there.
Maybe make a very small, very concentrated batch of chai tea and then mix it in the batter? It would probably work better to use the actual spice mix of chai tea rather than the tea, unless you can't get the raw spices themselves.
I just noticed that your recipe uses water. That's an ideal way to get tea flavor into things - you can replace it with concentrated tea. Assuming you use teabags, you should be able to steep two in that 2/3 cup of water. Tea is a fairly subtle flavor, so you may not taste it too much in the bread, but this is easy and doable with what you have! There's also instant tea, if you want to try to boost it - but it of course won't be as good as real, fresh tea. (You could buy chai concentrate, but I think it's usually about double strength, so not really better than you'll do on your own.)
I'd then replace the spices normally in your recipe with chai spices. If you've ever made chai from scratch, you could use that recipe as a guide, but it sounds like you might not have. There's an awful lot of variety here, from region to region, and in Western variations; you could search around online for chai recipes that appeal to you. I'm not an expert (I'm from Texas!) but from what I know, here are some common spices, with the most standard ones toward the top:
cardamom
cinnamon
fresh ginger
black pepper
fennel
cloves
Cardamom is pretty much required, and that'll help give you a flavor very different from your usual spice blend. I'd mix/grind up the spices separately from the rest, smell them to see if they're what you're looking for, and adjust as needed before mixing into the rest. Aiming for a similar total volume of spices to that of the original recipe should work fairly well. It might be a bit spicier, since you'll also have the tea, but that's probably fine. (Fresh ginger obviously won't go with the dry spices, if you use it - maybe a teaspoon or two minced?)
what's wrong with opening the tea bag and pouring the spices into the batter?
Tea bags include tea leaves, which you wouldn't want to eat.
@Catija Unless it's a kind of tea with big pieces of stems or something, seems unlikely to be a problem. It'll basically steep as it bakes, and you'll end up with some little bits of tea leaves that won't do you any harm. I've swallowed tons of leaves drinking tea (especially Chinese tea).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.555910
| 2011-11-09T01:49:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18847",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"James Dion",
"Kakuhiro Kazama",
"Patricia Bedard",
"Steve L.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"mentortchr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13528
|
Non-shellfish Shrimp Substitutes?
When I was young, I loved shrimp, crab and lobster. Sometime in my twenties, I started to develop a mild allergic reaction to them (i.e. tingling in the throat), so I have for the past years been avoiding them. Once in a while I will steal a spoonful of my wife's seafood bisque, but that's about as far as I will push it.
Last week I read a recipe for Shrimp Scampi, and that got me thinking about how I could make it without shrimp. My first thought was to use imitation crab, which I can eat with no problem.
Does anyone have any suggestions for substitutions for shrimp for those with shellfish allergies?
Also useful for kosher substitution -- interesting question!
Use a vegetarian alternative! I just ran across these recently myself, and I am finding the idea really intriguing. Not sure how they compare in flavor or texture, so your mileage may vary... http://www.vegecyber.com/cgi-bin/vege_item.cgi?detail=10416
(photo by Rainer Zenz, source)
Asian cultures have figured out how to make vegetarian and mock meats of all kind, since buddhism and vegetarianism in general is so common in their parts of the world. I love the diversity of it all.
I hadn't thought of going the vegetarian route. Thanks.
Yeah, be careful with that. Just as secular "vegetarians" have different levels of strictness (and reasons), so do religious ones. Plenty of (Asian) people consider themselves 'vegetarian' even if they eat fish (like elsewhere); even among those who won't eat fish, many would eat fish sauce (or oyster sauce).
Surimi, sold as imitation crab and sometimes shaped to look like chunks of lobster or even whole shrimp, can be a great substitute for shellfish in a number of recipes, but be aware that, if choosing it for reasons of allergy, many brands actually contain some crabmeat. There is a kosher surimi available, marketed under the dyna-sea brand, that is absolutely shellfish free in order to comply with Jewish dietary laws that forbid the use of shellfish.
Fake crabmeat is easy to find in most US grocery stores, next to frozen fish.
I would substite king oyster mushrooms or even shitake mushrooms. It doesn't have to be fake meat, right? Try bite sized chicken breast pieces or Japanese eggplant.
You can also buy a shrimp version of the imitation crab--both are examples of what the Japanese call surimi. If you google "kosher imitation shrimp" you will find sources.
Just boil some eggs take out the yokes and drop them in the gumbo just before it's finished. Instant heart healthy shrimp.
Many people on here mention product sold in stores that resemble crab or shrimp. These items are generally made with pollock. That in itself is fine, HOWEVER, if you read the package they still use some small amount of the item they resemble to flavor it. If you are allergic to shellfish, this is not a good substitute!
I personally use a firm fish of some kind (pollock, cod, haddock, halibut). While they won't taste like shrimp, they are delicious.
I am also allergic, and have been searching for alternatives. So far I have found seafood extender which I believe is white bait based. It's been 30+ years since I've had shrimp/lobster, so I can't guarantee how much it tastes like shrimp, but doesn't cause a reaction for my allergy.
I called an imitation crab company to ask if there was crab meat in the product and they said there was. Perhaps you should call the manufacturer on the package and you will find out.
Hi Bunny and welcome to the site! Your answer doesn't help the person who asked the question, so I'm afraid I have to give you a downvote (because the answer is not helpful). But don't feel discouraged though! If you edit it in a good way, I might turn that downvote into an upvote.
@Mien This might've been better as a comment and/or with a link/details, but I disagree that it's "not helpful" - folks trying to avoid shellfish (like the OP) might find this to be a very pertinent warning. ... Typed that before I looked at the edit history. I see your point. // Bunny, if you can provide verification of what you're saying (and stick to an SE-appropriate style of writing), this could be useful. Not strictly relevant to the Question, but a worthwhile tangent, at least.
If you are only allergic to shell fish but not all fish, you could try Swai... It's not fishy at all and has a shrimpy taste. My son is allergic to shellfish but loves shrimp and I use it as an alternative to his favorite shrimp dishes.
Good for scallop substitute also.
My husband has a shellfish allergy (particularly crustaceans) and I enjoy substituting scallops where I might otherwise have shrimp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.556179
| 2011-03-28T17:18:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13528",
"authors": [
"Claire Brownlee",
"DylansMom",
"Erica",
"Kuo David",
"LNiederha",
"Mien",
"Sandiegoskipper",
"Scott Harris",
"Vanessa Tiscareno",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"William Hegwood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70413",
"hunter2",
"jwernerny",
"ninarie87",
"user70412"
],
"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
}
|
6508
|
How should eggplant be stored?
I don't know if I should put it in the refrigerator or the pantry. Does it go in the crisper?
Eggplant should be wrapped in plastic and refrigerated. It will last 5-7 days this way.
It can also be frozen 6-8 months with the following process:
Wash eggplant, peel and cut into 1/3 inch slices;
Blanch (plunge into boiling water) for four minutes in 1 gallon of boiling water to which 1/2 cup lemon juice has been added (to prevent discoloration) and chill quickly in ice cold water;
Drain off excess moisture, package in airtight containers or freezer bags and freeze immediately.
Source: StillTasty
Gah! I should have refreshed new answers first! +1 for being faster than me :)
Fast like ninja!
You should store your eggplant in a cool part of your fridge, in a plastic bag or (preferably) wrapped in plastic wrap. It should last for a good week like this.
Alternately you can blanch and freeze it to store for 6-8 months however the texture will be different when you thaw it because the cell walls will have broken down some. If you go this route, I recommend this method (from stilltasty.com)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.556585
| 2010-09-01T17:20:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6508",
"authors": [
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67597",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user138303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.