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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4840
|
What are the differences between an induction stove and a regular electric stove?
What are the differences between an induction stove and a regular electric stove? They are both electrically powered, and don't look all that different, but the induction cooktops I have seen are a lot more expensive.
What difference does the type of stove - induction vs electric - make to the actual cooking process?
A regular electric oven uses a large coiled resistor as a heating element. A large electric current is passed through this element which generates heat, similar to the tungsten filament of an incandescent light bulb.
An induction stove doesn't actually generate heat itself, but rather induces it the pot or pan. It does this using a rapidly oscillating magnetic field. This field induces an electric current in a ferromagnetic pan which generates heat, thus heating the food.
Induction stoves are faster, safer, and more energy efficient than traditional electric stoves. It requires significantly less electricity to create the magnetic field than it does to drive enough current through a resistor to make it heat up. They are safer because they don't actually generate heat themselves. After taking a pot off the "burner" (glass surface) it quickly begins to cool.
With regards to differences in the cooking process, there's not much. You just need to be aware that it heats up much more quickly and cools down much more quickly than a traditional electric stove. It does affect your choice of pans however. All aluminum pans will not work, nor will some lower quality stainless steel ones. If a magnet sticks to the pan then it will work just fine. The pan must also have a flat bottom to make full contact with the surface.
Voting up this answer for the technical info, which is spot on. It is very popular in Europe. And clearly superior to electric elements. There is quite a bit of debate over whether induction is preferable to gas. A little googling will take you to veritable rafts of opinion in both directions.
one other thing that is worth noting is that induction produces much less residual heat as the heat is generated in the pan, so the kitchen does not get so hot when cooking with them.
Induction stoves were reported to be safe for children, in the commercials made in Italy. The induction element can transmit heat only to a metallic element (induction is the transmission of heat inside a metal, or between two metallic elements); if you put your hand over an induction element, you should not feel any heat. I don't actually have an induction stove, and I cannot report it's what really happens; there is difference between a physics principle, and how it is applied (theoretically, there are superconductors, but none of them is pratically usable).
@kiamlaluno: That's correct. In fact, you can put a paper towel between the glass and the pan and cook on low to medium heat with an induction cooktop! That's pretty handy if you've got an old, rough pan that would scratch the surface if you just plopped it down.
I just want to clarify: Induction stoves are "safer" than a regular stove because they don't have a heating element, but if you remove a very hot pot and immediately put your hand directly on the induction zone where it was, you will burn yourself. The area will have been heated by the pot.
@hobodave, really? but I thought induction was magic? Next you'll be telling me that the whole 'you can't burn food with induction' isn't true either.
Don't you need special pans for the induction stove?
@txwikinger: Read the last paragraph...
you also cannot use glass cookware (a la Visions or Pyrex)
I had a question a few weeks ago regarding induction vs gas. Since that time, I have spoken with a few people who have switched to an induction range from either gas or electric.
A couple of aspects not mentioned above, regarding differences between resistive electric and induction, are control and response. According to my sources, the temperature in a pan can be dialed in very accurately with an induction range. Also, changing a setting happens very quickly as there is no resistive element to heat up or cool down.
One of my sources is a 'chef on wheels' who uses countertop induction units, and another who owns a culinary supply shop and gets to experiment with lots of cooking toys.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.556722
| 2010-08-11T00:15:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4840",
"authors": [
"Detariael",
"Googlebot",
"Hack-R",
"Harlan",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sam Holder",
"Terry",
"avpaderno",
"bloodzomboid",
"grimus",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9315",
"nkha",
"tracie",
"txwikinger",
"warren"
],
"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
}
|
15125
|
What ingredient adds the sweetness on Croissants in Europe?
I'm travelling in Europe right now, and in France, Spain, and Italy I've had croissants and similar pastries. Unlike the ones I've had in America, these have a bit of sweetness to them - my intuition is that something like honey or agave nectar has been drizzled on top, either before or after baking. Does anyone know for sure? I'd love to try baking pastries more often when I get back home.
In Rome I was informed that I was eating a croissant with honey on top (after informing my host that I had a honey allergy). It had the sweetness that I suspect you're experiencing. To help you determine if we were trying the same thing: the croissant I had was shiny and slightly sticky on top, and it seemed more like it was brushed on top rather than drizzled. That would support @Carmi's answer that it was brushed on with the egg. It was definitely honey, though, not sugar syrup.
Sometimes, in the less refined areas, you'll get pastries with sugar syrup brushed on top with the egg. It gives a shine to the pastry that lasts for a long time, protects it from losing moisture and makes it sweeter.
This is why all the industrial pastries are usually so sweet.
I don't think that any traditional European patisseries have ever used Agave for anything, and I hesitate to think what their reaction would be if you suggested it.
agave nectar? honey? just plain syrup indeed!
The only usual topping on a croissant is a brush of egg to give it a golden finish. I suspect the sweetness you are detecting may be due to sweeter-tasting, European butter.
I doubt it - it seemed sticky and inconsistent, not like it was an integral part. Hmm...
It could be an apricot glaze: apricot conserve/jam watered down and brushed on top. That gives a slightly tangy, sweet finish.
It really isn't a usual topping :)
There are places in Italy where the croissants they serve are definitely sweetened.
Anyway this is how it is in France
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.557405
| 2011-05-29T19:57:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15125",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Izzydorio",
"Mien",
"Nikko",
"Peter Shor ",
"Philip Tinney",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12136
|
How do I keep long grain brown rice moist?
I'm starting to cook long grain brown rice at night, and I usually make enough to last about 4 days or so. The issue is that it gets REALLY dry when I put it in the fridge. I also usually don't warm it up before eating since I'm always on the go.
How can I keep brown rice moist? Should I not put it in the fridge? I don't have a rice cooker, so I cook it in a pot.
When you cook the rice are you adding butter?
According to Alton Brown, talking about why a short-grain rice salad won't get hard when cold:
But it won't be hard, the way, say,
refrigerated Chinese take-out
restaurant rice would be. Why is that?
Well, long-grain rice, which is
usually what's inside one of these,
contains a very, very high percentage
of amylose. [holds up the model]
Remember this guy? When this cools,
the amylose and water come together to
make a structure that's kind of like,
well, kind of like a crystal, which is
why it's hard as a rock. The process
is called "retrogradation", and it's
reversed when the rice is reheated.
Now since medium-grain rices have more
amylopectin in them, this never
happens in the first place, which is
why I use medium, and sometimes
short-grain rices for all
refrigerated-bound applications.
If you can't heat up the rice, have you tried making some sort of short-grain variety?
I would suggest simply putting it in the fridge in small containers, which are also airtight.
An airtight container means you're not losing moisture to the fridge. A small container means that there is less free space to contain moisture from the rice, so it will lose less.
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do to prevent moisture loss, just minimize it.
Aside form that, you may find it useful to cook the rice with a little more water than usual. I do this with wholegrain basmati and it works well.
The best way to reheat brown rice from the fridge and for it not go hard or dry is to cover with 1 sheet of very wet kitchen roll (paper), tuck in the sides and zap for 2 mins.... It really works I have been doing this for months now. You can also do the same with pasta.
I would try freezing your rice instead.
Maki on Just Bento recommends pre-portioning it, wrapping it, and freezing it while it's still warm to retain moisture. She also recommends using short grain if you find that even freezing causes your rice to become hard and dry.
I usually just portion out the rice in serving sizes (say, with a measuring cup) onto a baking sheet and freeze it. I then store the frozen rice in a plastic storage container. I haven't had trouble with doing this to long grain brown rice. It's usually eaten within a week.
I have never tried with long grain brown rice, but I have put basmati rice in the fridge many times. I try to use the most air-tight container I can find, and not keep it for too many days. To eat, I sprinkle a few drops of water on the rice and micro-wave it with the lid of the container on. That helps to make it soft and fluffy again..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.557619
| 2011-02-14T18:13:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12136",
"authors": [
"Adobe",
"Daze",
"Krokop",
"R M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67836",
"mfg",
"nklauza",
"user266926",
"user57405"
],
"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
}
|
32304
|
Can I replace treacle with molasses in my fruit cake?
I would like to know if replacing treacle with molasses in my fruit cakes will change the texture of the cake and how much molasses can I use in a 2.5 kg. of baked cake?
You might want to post your recipe (or a link to it) to get good answers - the substitution might involve changing another ingredient or two.
It will probably color your fruitcake much darker brown than other options....
@SAJ14SAJ says, it gives rich brown color and i love that color so i use molasses but if you provide the recipe then it will easy to suggest how much molasses you should use for 2.5 kg. baked cake
In my experience, any "liquid sugar" (warning: colloquial, not very accurate term) can be substituted well without texture problems. Mollasses, treacle, sugarbeet syrup, liquid glucose, golden syrup, and even agave syrup all seem to work well as substitutes. I suppose corn syrup or sorghum will work well too, but haven't tried them.
You get differences in taste, but in most recipes, the taste of the substitute is a good fit. Most of these tastes rely on caramelization anyway, so you should try to use something of the same darkness because roughly, two "liquid sugars" of the same darkness have the same taste intensity. Using a lighter substitute is mostly OK too, although you will lose a little bit of aroma. Using a dark substitute in a recipe which calls for a light one can result in the taste of the sweetener overwhelming all other tastes. For example, pliable ganache is made by adding liquid glucose to the ganache; I would never use sugar cane syrup as a substitute there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.557887
| 2013-03-01T02:49:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32304",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89476
|
Deep frying corn kernels starts busting/exploding in oil
I tried to prepare a recipe of crispy fried corn. I coated the corn kernels with corn starch, but the starch didn't stick to the corn kernels properly, so when I deep-fried them in hot oil they started popping, bursting.
What type of corn did you use? I'm wondering if specific varieties of corn are meant for this application.
Can you share the recipe?
I used sweet corn cob and removed kernels from it.
recipe I used https://yourvegrecipe.com/recipe/crispy-corn-1484121510418x945700000407224300
It sounds to me like you are accidentally making popcorn, which is a result of hot gasses building up inside the hull of the kernel. Fresh kernels typically have a tougher hull than frozen or canned, both of which use methods that weaken the hull. Freezing the corn causes growing ice crystals to damage cells. Canned corn is boiled, which both seals the can and cooks the corn, softening it.
Here's some things you can do to fix your problems:
Boil the corn
Boiling would solve your popping problem, as the pre-cooked corn's hull would be soft, enough to release the moisture from inside, or only just split rather than have the entire kernel pop. It would also fix the issue with the cornstarch not adhering to the kernels, as the softer (and now wet) corn would be more prone to releasing it's inner moisture.
Boil the fresh corn for 3 - 4 minutes or until soft
Transfer corn into a colander or a sieve to remove excess water. Excess water might cause the cornstarch to clump together.
Freeze the corn
Freezing the corn beforehand would also soften it, just make sure to fully defrost and drain the corn (see above).
Fry the corn on a lower temperature
Your oil might just be too hot, causing the higher moisture inside to cook and expand faster than the husk, which could cause popping.
I worked with sweet corn only but will try your suggestion. Thanks
My assumption is that you simply started with ripe kernels off the cob. This will give you popcorn.
If you want them to not pop, you need some other form - "milk" (unripe) kernels, or maybe canned kernels. They should not pop as readily. Also pay attention to the time they spend in the hot oil, it shouldn't be overly long.
Also see this question for doing roughly the same thing in an oven.
Recipe doesn't suggested to use canned kernels and I want to use fresh one
Recipe for reference https://yourvegrecipe.com/recipe/crispy-corn-1484121510418x945700000407224300
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.558042
| 2018-04-29T04:49:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89476",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66854",
"mroll",
"user1575601"
],
"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
}
|
90271
|
Can I clean cast iron with a steel pad
I used a Brillo pad on my cast iron skillet. It is seasoned, not enameled. I want to know if this could damage my cast iron skillet. Also can it be fixed?
@rumtscho Is this an exact dupe? The question you linked is about enameled cast iron. I do use steel wool on my cast iron. (I don't season it.) But I wouldn't use it on enameled cast iron or a seasoned cast iron pan.
@Cindy you're right, I overlooked that one question is about enameled and the other doesn't say. I'm reopening and editing it to say that it is not enameled - if the OP has an enameled one, she should use the answers to the other question.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6868/can-i-clean-enameled-cast-iron-with-steel-wool?rq=1
Hi Sandy Rambo and welcome! Can you please give us more information? Is you cast iron skillet enameled? is it seasoned or not? Does it look damaged in any way? A picture may be useful also.
@rumtscho I think the other one is about cleaning seasoned cast iron. I edited the title to specify that.
I'm not finding an exact duplicate of this question, but you should read these related questions:
Cleaning Cast Iron
Scouring pads vs. Chainmail
So, the answer to the first part of your question is yes, a Brillo pad can damage your cast iron skillet. If you scrub it for a short time, then it can remove the seasoning from the pan. If you scrub it really hard, it can also scratch the iron underneath, since cast iron is softer than the steel and abrasives in the Brillo pad.
In response to the second part of your question, yes, you can recover it. How difficult this is depends on how much scouring you did. If you just removed seasoning, you'll need to do either a light seasoning or completely reseason the pan. If you scrubbed through the seasoning and scratched the iron itself, then you'd need to sand the bottom of the pan before completely reseasoning it.
I recommend watching Kent Rollins' video series on caring for cast iron to avoid problems in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.558263
| 2018-06-10T17:16:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90271",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92113
|
Can you use mascarpone in place of ricotta?
Can you substitute mascarpone for ricotta cheese?
In general, or for a recipe or type of recipe?
Welcome! You absolutely can substitute mascarpone for ricotta. I do it all the time with lasagna, pizza, etc. as many people don't like the texture of ricotta. I do add a pinch of salt to the mascarpone.
another thing that you can try if your guests don't like the texture of ricotta is pass it through a sieve, twice if necessary, as it removes a lot of the grittiness
In a pinch, yes. They're both soft cheeses with a delicate flavour and an Italian name, but they have significant differences you should be aware of before attempting a substitution:
Ricotta contains a lot more water than mascarpone (feels lighter)
Mascarpone contains a lot more fat than ricotta (feels heavier, richer)
Ricotta has more carbohydrates (feels sweeter)
The composition of the protein and carbohydrate part is very different, though this will be less noticeable
I would be especially wary of this substitution where ricotta is presented "by itself" - in recipes such as cannoli, cassata, pastiera the substitution will not work well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.558534
| 2018-09-06T12:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92113",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"mech"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120591
|
Exploding leaf lard
The title says it all...almost.
I was preparing a warm (90-100F) mixture of tap water, EV olive oil, and leaf lard (each about 50-60g). At first, the oil and water were added and brought to said temperature. Then, I added the leaf lard from a bag, squeezed out the end - similar to past from a tube/bottle. Perhaps that's too much detail there but just mentioning it JIC. Upon the lard reaching the somewhat warmed water-oil solution, it started popping in basically the same way that high-temperature oils do when water is added at frying temperatures.
What chemical/physical process is facilitating this phenomenon?
I find the whole description very puzzling. If you happen to replicate the whole thing, maybe you can post a video of it?
Indeed. I agree, @rumtscho. I'll find some time this week to replicate this scenario again, record, and then post a (youtube) link here. Apologies for not supplying that context with this post.
Oil heats up faster than water. Water being more dense sinks. When it reaches the boiling point, steam has no where else to go. That's the typical experience, but also consider that water can evaporate at a temperature lower than the boiling point. So, as your initial mixture was heating, the layer of oil on top was protecting steam from escaping. When you dumped in the leaf lard, you broke the surface and added more moisture (which is likely contained in the leaf lard). The escaping steam caused the popping. The physics here is the difference in heat capacity of oils and water, the density of the materials, and the temperature at which liquids evaporate.
This was my first thought too, but on a second look, the whole seems more mysterious. 1. The lard was colder than the watery mixture and the "explosions" started immediately when the lard touched the water - so it was not a case of water being heated rapidly by fat hotter than itself. 2. The OP said "90-100F", not celsius - this is body-warm, at that temperature the water is nowhere near becoming steam.
@rumtscho for now, I am sticking with my theory. The water/oil mixture was warmer than the OP assumed, and the leaf lard contained additional moisture. I'll amend my answer a bit.
Yeah OP does not state that they were stirring the mixture, while being rather specific in their description as a whole. This makes the most sense. Especially if the temperature probe was only applied to the oil (If that even happened)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.558641
| 2022-05-14T20:01:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120591",
"authors": [
"SirHawrk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94777",
"moscafj",
"nate",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120092
|
What are the effects of resting (or not) carnitas meat after the initial braise
I just read a pork carnitas recipe and part of the workflow/steps went like this:
braise meat (e.g. pork shoulder, pork butt) for 8+ hours
remove meat, keep braising liquid available
shred meat
return shredded meat to braising liquid for another 30+ minutes
remove meat
broil meat for 5-7 minutes
In between steps 2-3, there was no mention of resting the meat. Perhaps that was implicit. Even if it was, it got me thinking. If you are returning the meat (post-shred) back to the braising liquid without ever having rested the meat, are you very likely compromising flavor and/or texture of the final product? If so, is that also a function of the animal and cut? Assume that any bled liquids from the shredding step are passed back to the braising mixture.
Where are you asking about resting? If you shred then leave it out, it steams and gets kinda dry and a little tough. If you let it rest before shredding, it cools down and is more difficult to shred. I might break it into a few large chunks so they cook off a bit, then shred and immediately move back into the liquid
Slow-cooked meats that get shreddable (pork butt, beef chuck, etc) are a little different than other cuts, like steaks and rare roast beef.
As a pork butt (or similar cut) cooks and breaks down, it loses the structure that holds juices in. Instead, the braising liquid contains much of that "juice"--including gelatin & melted fat. This is essentially why the meat is even shreddable. The act of shredding/pulling the meat just separates the meat in the spots where the connective tissue has already released the muscle fibers from each other, compared to slicing where you are cutting the muscle fibers apart where they would not naturally separate.
As a general rule, shredded or pulled meats are shredded while still warm/hot, then dressed with the braising liquid, sauce, or gravy to keep the meat juicy. If a recipe calls for letting the meat sit a short period before shredding, it us usually related to allowing it to cool to prevent burning yourself, rather than allowing it to rest, the way we do for a steak.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.558857
| 2022-03-16T16:59:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120092",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73054
|
Ideal temperature and stabilizer for chewy ice cream?
I've been a huge fan of homemade ice cream ever since I went to Herrell's ice cream in Northampton Massachusetts: http://www.herrells.com
The owner, Steve Herrell, is known as the godfather of chewy ice cream in America, and I've been trying to come up with ice cream just as good as his and, after a lot of experimentation, here is my recipe (some measurements might be wrong because I can't find my recipe book right now):
Base:
1 cup of heavy cream
1 1/4 cup of milk
1/3 cup + 1 tbsp of milk powder
3 tbsp of light corn syrup
1/2 cup of sugar
1/8 tsp of salt
Other:
4 tsp of cornstarch
1/4 cup of milk
3 tbsp of cream cheese
Extract of your choice to taste
Mix all the base ingredients together, bring to a boil, reduce to gentle simmer, simmer for 4 minutes. Mix cornstarch and milk together, put in simmering base, bring back to simmer for 2 minutes or until thick. In a small bowl with the cream cheese, mix some of the mixture, then mix cream cheese with base. Rest overnight in the fridge. Put in extract of your choice to taste (this prevents flavor from evaporating if you put it in while hot). Make with your ice cream maker of choice, but make sure to cover holes in your ice cream maker so that air won't get in, and the ice cream is dense.
My ice cream, while it tastes as good as if not better than Herrell's, just does not have the same texture. Herrell's is much softer and creamier. It might be because my freezer is too strong (at someone else's house where the freezer is much warmer, I've noticed that Talenti ice cream has a much better texture) and also because the stabilizer I'm using, which is cornstarch.
Thoughts? What stabilizer is best for ice cream (egg yolk, gum, starch, flour etc.) and what temperature is ideal for the ice cream's texture? I hope I can adjust my freezer's temperature at the apartment I rented.
Welcome! Can you be a little clearer about the texture you're looking for? It seems you want it softer and creamier, but you also mention wanting to make chewy ice cream. (It's pretty important to be specific to avoid getting answers that produce someone else's "ideal" ice cream but not yours.)
related, maybe even a duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70492/how-to-achieve-a-flexible-consistency-on-ice-cream-photos-attached
There is an article on Serious Eats that is pretty much entirely about replicating Herrell's style ice cream at home. The differences I can see between your recipe and the one discussed in that article are the addition of egg yolks, the addition of arrowroot powder, using evaporated milk (rather than milk and milk powder), and they stop their machine early (as most overrun happens in the last few minutes usually).
If I remember all the way back to Home Ec correctly, Arrowroot is supposed to stand up to freezing better than cornstarch - in "other things" you might pick it over cornstarch when you intend to freeze (and later thaw) the thing you are thickening - so that makes sense. The Serious Eats article engages in hyperbole - I definitely had to stay on top of licking my Herrell's small in a sugarcone to keep from having a mess everywhere, and some certainly dripped on my fingers and made me go hunt down a napkin. It was not a gelatinous mass of un-melting goo. I would not want it to be.
My personal secret ingredient (not that secret, I stole it from Haggen-Daz sorbet, large as life in the ingredient list) is pectin. I put a little in to help sorbets (particularly) along. You can use jelly if it fits the flavor profile as an easy source, or mix up the dry powder.
On the other hand, you may be going for some entirely different thing, texture-wise; though I don't recall Herrel's (which I have had, within the last month) as being noticeably "chewy", as you call it.
In general I don't think home-made that's eaten in a reasonable time period should need much in the way of gels, gums, thickeners, stabilizers and other stuff that seem to be considered essential for long-traveling commercial ice cream (somehow Bryers USED to do fine without them, before they got bought out and ruined. I suspect they were more careful about keeping it cold, but it's lost in the past now, since even the few remaining "natural" flavors now have "natural" gums added in the small print. There didn't used to BE small print, it wasn't needed.)
As for temperature, if the product is too cold in the freezer, but not so much so that you can't scoop it, it's as easy as waiting a minute or 3 or 5 after you scoop it. If it's too hard to scoop you might need to adjust things. Since you have had ice cream from your friends freezer, the obvious answer to that question is to politely bring over some of your ice cream to try it from their freezer, and see if that makes it more like you are seeking. Bring a freezer thermometer, too.
For clarity's sake, do you also use pectin in non-sorbet ice creams?
Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. I'm more consistent about using it in sorbets, though I made perfectly acceptable sorbets before I started using it.
xanthan gum is also fantastic in sorbets -- you can get away with putting frozen fruit in a food processor, pulsing it 'til it's in small bits, a bit of xanthan gum (about 1/8 tsp per cup of fruit), pulse a couple more times, then add fruit juice while the food processor is running 'til it's the consistency you like. You might need to add some heavy syrup or other sweetener with the juice if it's not a particularly sweet fruit.
The Serious Eats article doesn't really get it right. Here's what goes into New England style ice cream:
1) pretty high milk fat (16%+)
2) very high total solids (44%+). Get this by adding quite a bit of skim milk powder.
3) usually a custard base, but it doesn't have to have a lot of egg.
4) higher than usual quantity of stabilizers, with an emphasis on guar. Guar gum adds body and is responsible for the chew.
Avoid arrowroot in ice cream. It's great in sauces; it makes slimy textures in dairy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.559061
| 2016-08-10T23:38:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73054",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43175
|
What happened to my macarons?
I baked macarons earlier and this happened. You can see that they're pretty tall (which I don't want) but mostly importantly, what happened to the shell? I baked at 290F for about 20 minutes (they're about 1.5 inches). I can't tell whether the middle is underdone or whether the ridges are well done. It seems that interior is most full in the center.
I'm thinking I might not have deflated this properly during macaronage and it needs to be cooked at a lower temperature.
Thanks!
Edit 1: I used a new recipe via Chef Nini and it solved them problems I was having. This time, I paid close attention to the temperature of the oven and overbaked them a little. I'll let the maturing to take care of softening them again. I made chocolate shells and most turned out well. The ones that were piped last were a little overmixed in the bag and turned out a little funky (top collapsed, wrinkled). I'll wait around to vote for best answer though.
Edit 2: Some of them still collapsed in the middle, but it's by an acceptable amount. However, some are still a little hollow, which is disappointing. Onto more trials!
I work at a charcuterie but we are partnered with a professional baker who provides us with macarons to sell in our store. From your picture, it looks like the tops of your macarons have deflated.
I wouldn't decrease your temperature, but instead increase it. Our most common problem was deflation and often times our temperature wasn't high enough in the oven. Also, it is of prime importance that you do not take your macarons out until they are done, or they will deflate and never rise again. Make sure they are cooked through before you remove them.
Also, if your ridges are cooking faster than the middle, check the position of your oven. Every oven is different and may have inconsistencies in heat dispersal. My own oven is hotter on the right side, and I have to be careful to rotate things accordingly. I heat macarons, biscuits, and souffles with this in mind.
Thanks for your answer! I'll try to keep the oven at 300 this time and not beat the egg whites as much to keep the air in the batter in a reasonable range. I'll get back with the change.
Invest in an oven thermometer as well. The dial might say 300, but unless you have a damn good oven it almost certainly won't be that temperature inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.559519
| 2014-03-31T01:46:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43175",
"authors": [
"Ansara Kubasek",
"Eleanor Fudge",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Lucas Pestana",
"Mark Adams",
"Matt kusmierek",
"hiphop tune",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"minzeycat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9904
|
What can replace milk in crepes?
I want to make crepes, but I am out of milk. Can I still make crepes? What can replace milk in this application?
I do have yogurt, beer, eggs, cream, butter, flour, salt, and sugar.
I don't know whether it would work but if I was desperate I would experiment a bit and would try either using water or diluting the yoghurt with water to make a runnier but creamy liquid.
Step 1: Drink all the beer. Step 2: Now you don't care about crepes.
Try watered down cream, as you'll still get some of the milkfat, but you don't want quite as much.
Water would probably also work for your crepes, although it would change the taste.
Watering down the cream heavily will get approximately the same amount of fat, but not of protein. I might do this if I were desperate, but really the only thing you can water down to get milk is evaporated milk.
Crepes are very forgiving, though... Watered-down cream or cream mixed with yogurt (PLAIN yogurt) might work just fine.
I ended up going with everything: cream, beer, and yogurt. They were very light (from all the beer?) but otherwise tasted pretty good.
This might sound nutty, but do you have cashew or almonds? I typically have a stash (though unroasted, unsalted isn't often in the house). You can search around for a recipe for making milk from nuts though:
Put 1/2 cup raw pecans, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, etc., into a blender
container. Process until ground. Add 1/2 cup water and process at low speed
for a few seconds, then turn blender to high. Blend for a couple of
minutes, then add 1 1/2 cups water. Blend well.(from here)
Pun intended? Seriously though, nut milk might make a dessert crepe extremely tasty.
@Mrs. Nutty indeed, as far as /planning/ around using nut milk you could definitely do some really rich ones; but nut milk could also be used for savory crepes as well, ie spinach and cashew?
Out of
yogurt
beer
eggs
cream
butter
flour
salt
sugar
I would say cream is a perfect milk replacement (given you have enough). The crepes will probably taste even better a well.
Will they contain more fat?
YES.
Should you care (this one time when you are out of milk)?
Well, since some are saying to use non fat or almond milk, I am going to experiment with rice milk, which I find quite tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.559742
| 2010-12-09T07:50:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9904",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrej",
"Billyhole",
"Bluebelle",
"Brian",
"Kate",
"Kenneth Mattingly",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Neil G",
"Oldcat",
"Spammer",
"diynevala",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98132",
"kevins",
"mfg",
"t0x1n"
],
"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
}
|
8022
|
Does using a larger slow cooker than called for by the recipe make a difference?
I have a recipe that specifically calls for a 4-quart slow cooker, however the slow cooker that I own is a 6-quart. Will using a 6-quart slow cooker make a difference, or does it not matter?
The obvious solution is to scale your recipe up.
Size does matter in a slow cooker. In order for it to cook effectively a slow cooker has to be at least 2/3 full, other wise it cooks hot and will generally dry out faster. If you are cooking at less than 2/3 full you need to adjust your heat settings and/or depending on the recipe adjust the amount of liquid. Cooking meats becomes especially troublesome when underfilling because they tend to dry out and end up a lot tougher than expected. If you are cooking stews or chilis then simply adding more liquid to your recipe will generally work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.559964
| 2010-10-11T02:56:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8022",
"authors": [
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160"
],
"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
}
|
2652
|
How to brownies from a box/mix with a flaky top?
I buy and make box brownies all the time, but the top crust always ends up looking more like the topping of a cake, rather than the flaky top shown in the picture on the box. It's pretty easy to follow the 4 steps on the box; is there something I am missing?
To get a shiny, flaky, crackly, light-colored crust on the top of your brownies, there are two effective changes you can make:
Beat the brownie batter for longer after adding the eggs. Doing this increases the crust, which is actually meringue. This is what you should try with your box mix, since the sugar is already included in box.
Use white sugar (granulated sugar) with a from-scratch brownie recipe. Brown sugar and corn syrup contain more moisture than white sugar, which will reduce the shiny crackly crust.
Also, try using butter instead of oil. Using butter, as in flaky pastries, will help promote pockets of fat and stream that will create those flaky and moist brownies you're looking for.
You might want to add more leavening power. This will help the brownies rise more and will help separate the layers of brownie.
As a side note, if using butter consider creaming the butter to get air in (harder with a box since you won't be doing the classic creaming of butter and sugar, but you should be able to at least whip the butter).
Most boxed brownies call for oil. Would you substitute the oil 1 for 1 for the butter? Would you melt or cream the butter (I think creaming would be a bit difficult with a brownie mix)?
Leaving the pan in the oven a few extra minutes will help with the flaky top. Also, try combining the ingredients less vigorously. Less gluten means a flakier consistency overall.
reduce the amount of egg to 1 works everytime... more egg you have cake!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.560066
| 2010-07-21T18:12:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2652",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"Mathilda",
"Ryan Theraviam",
"Sha",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8941",
"justkt",
"todd",
"user36254",
"waywardone"
],
"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
}
|
2079
|
How to avoid ridiculously salty results when brining?
Last time I brined, the ribs came out ridiculously salty. Can someone provide me with a good brining method?
Add less salt.
And in general, this site isn't supposed to be a recipe exchange.
Really? Why not? Doesn't seem to say that in the FAQs...
See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/255/why-is-recipe-swapping-a-bad-thing
Providing the recipe that you used would also be helpful, Abe.
A typical brine is 5% salt by weight. You are then left with the question of how long to leave the meat in the brine. In the case of pork ribs, they're little and need less time than say a whole chicken or a turkey. I'd suggest you go short, like 4 to 6 hours to start.
Did you rinse the ribs well enough before cooking? Brined food should be rinsed several times to remove brining solids from the surface of the food before cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.560262
| 2010-07-19T17:37:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2079",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Bert Lamb",
"Brh",
"JLo",
"John Salvatier",
"Matt",
"Vincent Yu",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"nibot",
"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
}
|
4041
|
How do I cut a blooming onion?
A blooming onion is a deep fried onion which opens up during frying to resemble a flower.
Obviously, I start with a giant onion. How do I cut it?
Recipe requests are off-topic, so I adjusted your title to reflect the technique.
Slice off 1/2" of the top of the onion (opposite the root)
Place onion root side up, and make slices all the way through, staying at least 1/2" away from the root
Flip it over and spread apart the leaves
This is best described with images.
Alternatively, if you're willing to drop a few hundred dollars, you can buy a bloomin' onion cutter. This is what restaurants use. There are cheaper alternatives, but I can't vouch for their quality or ease of use.
great link. You're right, the pictures make your instructions much more clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.560387
| 2010-08-03T00:22:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4041",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Dinah",
"InquilineKea",
"Jacob",
"MattSmith",
"TropicalDan",
"eduardo",
"gij100",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7712",
"mcandril"
],
"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
}
|
4652
|
Can any harm come of eating watermelon seeds?
Is there any harm in swallowing watermelon seeds? Or will they simply pass from one end to the other?
I hope you aren't worried about a watermelon growing in your tummy.
But... I don't wanna watermelon bursting out of my tummy like an Alien! ...Actually I was thinking more along the lines of cyanide in apple seed coatings.
There is no cyanide in an apple seed coating. I'll update my answer with some more info.
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp
@Daniel, I posted a meta question regarding this question http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/540/is-it-ok-to-change-a-question-because-of-a-great-answer, just soliciting your feedback
@hobodave: I swallowed an orange seed when I was young and was afraid it would grow out of my mouth. My dad assured me that's not how it works ...it'd grow out of my butt. Thanks dad.
@Dinah: Haha! I'm going to use that one one day.
@Dinah & @Hobodave, it is possible to have a pea plant grow inside you http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/192647/Man-grows-pea-plant-in-his-lung
@Nathan Koop: true, but the fact that this was a news-worthy story tells me that's it's not overly likely.
@Dinah, agreed, but it's pretty cool though ;-)
Um, no.
You can even buy them.
The only common potentially dangerous seeds I know of belong to almonds, apples, apricots, peaches, plums, cherries, and other stone fruits. These contain a cyanide and sugar compound known as amygdalin. When metabolized it breaks down into hydrogen cyanide (HCN). In all cases the toxin is inside the seeds and will not be exposed to the body unless the seeds are chewed. Of these, the only seed commonly consumed would be the apple seed, usually inadvertently, or by daring children. It would take a large amount (can't find a reliable reference - one source said 1 cup) of well chewed seeds to poison you. Regarding almonds, only the bitter almonds have cyanide levels to be concerned about (we eat sweet almonds).
So, besides the apple, these all belong to the Prunus genus of plants. Cyanide is just their thing. Watermelon belongs to the Citrullus genus.
To quote Gabriel García Márquez: It was inevitable, the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love.
See http://www.gardenguides.com/90270-problems-associated-swallowing-fruit-seeds.html. Other than apples and cherries -"Peach and apricot pits contain amygdalin in more dangerous amounts, but those seeds are too large to swallow accidentally. And you'd have to pry open the pit to get at the cyanide-bearing kernel in the first place."
@nzpcmad: Thanks. I left that out because I've never known someone to actually try that. :)
FWIW, when eating apples out of hand I generally do eat the core, seeds and all - unless spoiled, they're quite tasty.
There's a fringe group of naturalists/alternative-medicine practitioners who swear that the poison Hobodave mentioned also cures cancer and has been suppressed by the FDA and pharmaceutical companies in a big conspiracy. I'll let you decide...
A better question: Aren't most of your watermelons seedless by now? I haven't eaten a "seeded" melon for a few years at least.
I hate seedless watermelons! Half the fun is spitting the seeds. (lol @ cyanide cancer cure conspiracy theories)
Theories would be funnier if people didn't believe them so blindly. Seeds make watermelon into weapons. I'm a fruit-pacifist.
And the seedless watermelons are bland. :(
I bought white watermelon seeds which were supposed to be eaten as you would pumpkin seeds. I chewed everything well. They were delicious.
However, a few hours later, I became ill; vomiting with diarrhea. I did not have a fever or aches & pains as with the flu. I do believe it was from the watermelon seeds.
Fortunately, I was fine the next day.
Sunflower and pumpkin seeds are common snacks where I live. They come toasted and salted. In order to eat them you remove the husk and then eat the inner part. I've often bitten watermelon seeds when eating that fruit, but they don't seem to have that outer husk. How did you eat them?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.560524
| 2010-08-09T16:37:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4652",
"authors": [
"Alan",
"Alienfluid",
"Arafangion",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Dinah",
"Elazar",
"GalacticCowboy",
"J.A.I.L.",
"João Fernandes",
"KevDog",
"Nathan Koop",
"Ocaasi",
"Patrick",
"Rose",
"Shog9",
"Tommy Williams",
"Zildjean",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8999",
"rbrayb",
"sblom",
"schpet",
"viktor tikka"
],
"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
}
|
89150
|
My sourdough starter stopped growing after day two
I've tried making my own sourdough starter.
On the first day I added a cup of whole rye flour with 3/4 of cool filtered water. After 24 hours it already started smelling a little sour and had a few bubbles. I took 8 table spoon of the starter and added the same ingredients in the same amounts as the day before. This was at around 21:45
By morning (around 08:00) the starter was very bubbly and over flew the jar (which, admittedly was too small) and filled everything around it. The smell was quite strong and more sour. Can't say it was nice. In the evening I fed it again in the same way (in a bigger jar)
In the morning there was no change in volume and very few bubbles. The smell is still there though...
According to the recipe I'm supposed to feed it twice a day now, but I'm not sure it's good.
Any ideas?
Possible duplicate of Issue starting a sourdough starter
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars similar, but the two askers are at somewhat different stages. But I’ll leave it to the community to decide.
The first few days when setting up a new sourdough can be quite inpredictable - but like in your case, there often is an initial burst of activity, followed by a rather quiet phase. This is because during that time, there is no stable “bacterial and yeasty community” yet and one or the other may temporarily prevail. The “not right” smell can also be an indicator of this. This is initial phase of a activity is often interpreted as “the sourdough is ready”, but it is not. And two or three days is really too short for the whole process of creating a new sourdough from scratch.
I suggest you keep feeding your starter for a few more days. Whether you feed once or twice is not crucial, but as long as there is very little activity, once a day should suffice1. There is always the risk of a new starter not working out - if the “wrong” bacteria win over the desired ones - but this will become evident pretty quickly. In this case, discard it, clean your equipment well and start over. And don’t worry, even experienced bakers had new sourdough fail.
1 Feeding cycles depend a lot on the ratio of starter : (flour & water), in other words, how quickly the yeasts and bacteria “eat up and multiply”.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.560991
| 2018-04-16T05:12:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89150",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105543
|
Was my bacon cooked?
I made hunters chicken tonight, cooked a chicken breast for 20 mins then took out , covered with bbq sauce and cheese and lay 2 rashers of bacon over the top then returned to the oven - 225 degrees Celsius in a fan oven (that had been on for 20 mins with the chicken in) for about 8-9 minutes .
I didn’t flip the bacon, it was draped over the chicken.
Was this temperature and amount of time enough to kill bacteria? I’m 38 weeks pregnant and terrified of listeria. The pink meat had gone completely opaque and the fat had begun to brown, but the actual pink meat hadn’t gone brown or crispy.
Bacon is already cured and smoked. In many cases could be eaten as is but that is not supported by food safety guidelines.
If the meat was opaque, it was cooked. That plus smoke and salt and you are fine, especially if you do not live in a germophobe lifestyle. Parents who sanitize everything incessantly wind up having children with weak immune systems.
Opaque, pink meat is OK. It is the heart and soul of all good barbeque cookery. In the future, for a similar preparation, cook the bacon on the side in a skillet first, then drizzle the fat on the rest of the dish and drape the cooked slices, then you won't have to worry a smidge!
Good luck and hope all goes well with the little one. You'll worry less when you see they are pretty durable!
Thanks so much for the response. It was regular smoked back bacon rashers if that makes any difference. I’m sure undercooked bacon would by quite noticeable to the naked eye?
Would be rubbery and floppy, but again at 225 C it was heated through pretty thoroughly. Breathe and relax...
small correction: "parents who sanitize everything incessantly wind up having kids with weak immune systems"; once the system is "calibrated", further changes have little effect.
Thank you. It was rubbery, and dry. I just want to ensure that in 8 mins at 225C that the inside temp of the bacon reached 74C to kill of listeria (which can cause stillbirth if ingested) I guess at 225C a thin slice of meat would have reached 74C within a few mins? I’m maybe overthinking and over worrying..
@WorriedMum Yes a little bit of over-worrying, but I can understand. Lysteria is not very common if the meat is raised properly and handled properly after processing. Anyway, enjoy, cook it spearately, and good luck with the nipper.
@dandavis Good call. Modified. Over-sanitizing as an adult can help make tough bugs but, yes, your immune system is pretty stabilized.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.561197
| 2020-02-26T20:26:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105543",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"WorriedMum",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43818
|
Can I get drunk by evaporating steam of alcohol?
If I boil a bit alcohol in a pot, can I get drunk by inhaling the evaporating mixture?
Does the steam of alcohol still include any alcohol?
Google "vodka sauna".
dont forget this can kill you due to alcohol poisoning because you are unaware of how much you are taking in
Yes, you can. You can definitely become intoxicated, but this is not advised. When you drink alcohol, it is absorbed through the lining of your digestive system and passes through the bloodstream to reach your brain. This means that the alcohol will be buffered by the contents of your digestive system, getting you drunk more gradually. When inhaled, the alcohol is absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, so intoxication will happen much more quickly, not giving you time to "back off" if you think you've had too much.
The other thing to mention is that alcohol vapor is very inflammable and potentially explosive, and mixing it with flame is a bad idea, especially if you are intoxicated.
Funny...flammable...inflammable....ahh, the English language.
It's worse than that. Absorption starts in the nose. The alcohol gets to the brain without having to pass through the blood-brain barrier.
@RodrigodeAzevedo I don't think so. Absorbtion into mucous into blood. Nothing carries chemicals to the brain BUT blood. It doesn't have to get slowly absorbed through stomach, but it IS carried by blood.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Of course it is carried by blood, but by blood above the blood-brain barrier.
Yes, you can become intoxicated by inhaling the vapor from heated alcohol mixtures.
They have bars set up now that do this. They put a tea candle under a round glass full of whatever you want to get completely "fire in your veins" blistered drunk.
Images of the process here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.561416
| 2014-05-01T18:18:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43818",
"authors": [
"Angie",
"Grace.Hoste",
"JAdel",
"Mallissa N",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Spammer",
"Vishwa Jani",
"edward murray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67706",
"moscafj",
"user5561"
],
"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
}
|
12321
|
Cooked chicken on bone - how to refrigerate and reheat some
I've made a cooked chicken on the bone (Coq Au Vin), however some guests couldn't attend, so two Chicken legs are left over.
I'm planning to cool then refrigerate these and then re-heat in a pan tomorrow (we have no microwave).
As long as I get it piping when I reheat it is it ok food safety-wise or should I be doing things differently?
Food safety guidelines suggest that when reheating food you should heat to 165 degrees F to kill any bacteria which might have been tempted by your food between when you cooked it and when you eat it again. As long as you do this and eat your food within 4 days, you should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.561595
| 2011-02-17T20:14:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12321",
"authors": [
"Alexey Popkov",
"d33tah",
"deed02392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25370",
"user924895"
],
"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
}
|
74640
|
Why is acidic cooking problematic for cast iron pans but not BBQ plates?
I've recently discovered cast iron cookware and I'm a little bit in love! I have a couple of questions for experienced cast iron users.
I've done lots of reading and it looks like acidic cooking isn't great for cast iron. You can do a bit in a well seasoned pan, but too much will affect the seasoning and/or affect the flavour of the food. I confirmed this the hard way when I forgot a marinade had lemon juice in it and totally destroyed the patina I'd built up.
I do lots of acidic cooking, as I love tomatoes and lemons!
So my question is, why are cast iron BBQ plates able to handle anything, including acidic marinades and being left out in the weather. What's the difference?
Please limit questions to one question at a time. Our format doesn't work well with multi-question questions where the questions aren't very related.
Hello Nomic, you had two questions, but one of them was a typical poll question, asking different people to share what they do personally. This is a type of question we don't take, and it would have been closed. Because your second question is on topic, I removed the first and changed the title to match the remaining one.
Please define cast iron BBQ plate. And are you sure it can handle anything?
Iron is a very reactive metal, responding to many different influences. Heat, acidity, moisture, even the oxygen content of its environs cause reactions. Barbecue plates are manufactured with enough other metals (zinc, aluminium, etc.) and via a tempering process that keeps the metal chemically stable in reactive environments. Cast iron is usually pure iron, and it just follows its nature when provided with a reactive environment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.561692
| 2016-10-10T12:05:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74640",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
94247
|
How much alcohol is left in this sauce?
I make Rachael Ray's beef teriyaki with green beans, although I double the amount of sauce. I usually use dry sherry (rather than mirin), 15-20% alcohol. Given that the sauce is only cooked for a couple minutes, how much of the alcohol will burn off?
There are a lot of factors that go into answer. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/659/67 . I'd say 'not a lot' as it's added with other liquid and not cooked for long (although, it's a wide vessel over high heat)
You ask two subtly different questions. Your title: how much is left?; your question body: how much will boil off? We could assume the latter is zero and divide the total amount added by the number of servings to answer the former, which may or may not address the underlying issue (which I presume is to minimise the amount you're serving). At the moment this question is very close to a duplicate of the one Joe linked, but it could be more specific and more interesting with a little more detail
@ChrisH added a bit about the real underlying question
I had to revert the edit, because that would be "primary opinion based", it is your parenting choice if X amount of alcohol is OK for your children. We can at most give you a range for X, which is already served by the original wording. But I also find that the question Joe linked is a potential duplicate target, so I made a Meta question on our policy for this kind of question earlier today. Opinions welcome at https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3515
I've had a look at the edit, and apart from the issues rumtscho points out, it still says nothing about how much sherry you put in, so still leaves the question unanswerable. Say you're making enough to feed 3 (you+2 kids). A teaspoonful would be fine, a whole bottle wouldn't. I'm sure you use something in between. If you want the resulting sauce to have <0.5% ABV, which is often accepted as effectively alcohol-free (more detail we can help you run the numbers if you give the numbers.
@ChrisH I assume the OP used 6 tablespoons for the double batch of sauce, as the linked recipe requires 3 tbsp per batch. That would correspond to 13-18 g of ethanol (for the whole dish) before cooking. I guess you could calculate the total amount of sauce to arrive at some percentage, I just don't know how useful it is to use criteria for beer and apply them to food.
@rumtscho, the beer (and wine etc.) criteria are just a handy point of reference that some non-drinkers adopt. The OP may or may not like that approach. Assuming the OP measures 6tbsp, we still don't know how much the kids are given. I've run the numbers on a similar issue myself (tomato and red wine sauce) to my own satisfaction, and was just about happy even assuming none boiled off, but reduced the wine before adding it anyway. But while I'd like to have an answerable question, and address it, I can't see it happening at the moment.
It is impossible to calculate. Alcohol is more volatile (in a chemistry sense volatility is a measurement of a substances tendency to vaporize) than water, but it doesn't disappear anywhere near as fast as many people think, especially when it's mixed in with water.
You are adding the alcohol to a wide pan on high heat and stirring a lot, which is certainly a good combination for alcohol loss, but the finished dish will still have some alcohol in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.561851
| 2018-11-26T12:47:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94247",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mmathis",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35501
|
Bacon Buns: How to make them softer
Recently I tried using this recipe to make bacon buns:
Bacon Buns Recipe - Lithuanian Lasineciai
The buns flavor turned out fantastic, however they were too hard and dry. How would you go about making these buns look more like the picture in the link? i.e., how would you get the bread to become very fluffy?
A few ideas I had in mind, and I could be wrong:
Add more bacon/fat?
Mix the dough longer/shorter?
I mixed mine long enough to combine ingredients, however the dough was very wet and was barely workable after the second time the dough was mixed after rising.
Also as a general rule of thumb, before putting dough in the oven, is it safe to assume that hard dough will create hard buns and soft dough will create soft fluffy buns, or is there a different way to measure/assume this?
That recipe is highly enriched with sugar, milk, butter, and eggs. I am surprised you are getting a dry result. Can you describe in more detail the outcome you are getting, versus the one you are hoping for? How are you testing when they are done--I wonder if they are over baked....
The recipe has 8 oz of milk, and 3 large eggs (which is 6 oz, about 4 oz of which is water) for about 12 ounces of liquid; and 3 cups of flour, which is about 13.5 - 15 oz of flour. This seems like a reasonable hydration overall, even fairly high.
Could the baking temperature be an issue?
Are an experienced bread maker, having problems specifically with this recipe? Or are you a newcomer to breadmaking. Asking because it affects what answers are appropriate.
@Mat very good suggestion. I have experienced highly enriched bread turning dry when I baked it at a rather low temperature (about 150 C) and it took ages to bake. Looked right as it should, dark crust and all, but was unpleasantly dry.
I have baked bread before however i would not say that i am an expert. I created the milk butter sugar mixture and added it to the flour. The dough itself was very sticky and not workable. I let the dough rise for about 15 minutes. Mixed the dough to remove the puffyness. Let it rise again for 15 minutes. kneaded the dough, added bacon into the buns and put it in the oven. Could it be that i put the buns in the oven too early? I also baked for 30 minutes, possibly too long? How would i test the bread to see if it is ready? Is the toothpick a reasonable test method?
I would suggest to maybe try first kneading until the dough starts coming of the bowl, then a longer rising time (an hour or so), not kneading them too much after adding the bacon and mostly letting the buns rise again before you bake them. I put buns in an cold oven set to 160C and bake for about 30mins (my grandmas heirloom procedure) ... always get super soft and fluffy buns.
I tend to agree with SAJ14SAJ here. Enriched doughs such as this quickly overcook. The size of your buns, which unfortunately are not in the recipe, will vary your cooking time greatly. Try a higher temp oven for a shorter period of time or try larger rolls. Use a thermometer and shoot for no more than 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
An enriched dough like this should be very soft. If they are hard and you followed the instructions exactly, I would suggest checking your oven. It's quite possible that your oven thermostat is inaccurate (and home ovens can be VERY inaccurate).
Not directly related to keeping the buns soft, but to something else in your question: Doughs with a lot of butter are frequently sticky and difficult to work. A good way to get around this is to keep the dough (and other ingredients) chilled. It will slow down how fast it rises, but keeping the butter in a more solid state while you're working makes the dough a lot easier to handle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.562125
| 2013-07-23T01:36:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35501",
"authors": [
"BobbyZ",
"Bortix",
"Brooke A Lautz",
"Diane Bolden Hodge",
"Juan Calleja",
"Mary White",
"Mat",
"R.S.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87366",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"yeahyongying"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64355
|
Quattro Stagioni pizza comes out unbalanced
I like to make my own pizzas from scratch, including kneading the dough myself etc, and they usually work out pretty fine.
But there is one problem with Quattro Stagioni pizzas, where you're supposed to put different ingredients in different segments of the pizza.
For instance ham, bell peppers, mushrooms and artichokes. If I do that, the parts containing ham and bell pepper turn out great, but the problem is, that half is much more flavourful than the parts with artichokes and mushrooms.
(With pizzas where you can spread out all ingredients all over, this is no problem, since all the flavours will blend together very nicely.)
So, how to avoid half of the pizza being very bland in comparison to the savoury other half?
Can I pour extra salt on those parts? The problem is, none of the recipes I consulted mention anything about adding salt.
So, does anyone have any advice?
Yes, I believe you mean "bell pepper", but paprika could very well be a part of your perfect pizza (see my answer).
@Jolenealaska Yes, a bit of Wikipediaing convinced me that the correct term is indeed bell pepper. I edited. Thanks!
Spread tomato (salted to taste and mozzarella all over ) than go with artichokes ham mushroom and small black olives sectors. It should turn out ok. Balance and not exceeding with topping is the secret . Unless you are stuck with americae style (over topping) ;)
Seasoning is definitely a big part of your solution. Look at this recipe from Wolfgang Puck.
saute the mushrooms in the olive oil until done. Season with salt and pepper
and
Sprinkle basil over tomato section and grated Parmesan over the mushroom section
Taste your mushrooms and artichokes with different cheeses, herbs, spices, whatever. Certainly use additional salt if it seems warranted. Most importantly, taste your toppings with various complimentary flavors, always keeping in mind that you want the pizza to be a harmonious whole. Experiment!
If that half of the pizza is really lacking salt and/or umami, herbs and spices alone could make it taste harsh, bitter or medicinal... cheeses will help because they are usually salty and umami.
@rackandboneman I stressed tasting and experimentation with different cheeses, herbs, spices, salt, whatever to avoid unpleasantness like bitterness or medicinal flavor.
Ham is salty and bleeds out brine that will also salt the bell peppers so yes, salt balance is upset ... and why should you not add salt to a part of your pizza that evidently needs salt? If you are worried about the salt staying on the pizza as grains, grind it to fine dust (dose carefully, very fine salt is very potent :). Mind that the mushrooms/artichokes might cook a bit quicker - salt will draw water from them and work against the heat-limiting effect of that water. Having some oil on them will help against them drying out TOO much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.562448
| 2015-12-13T13:03:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64355",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Bob Bob",
"Caroline Hughes",
"Donna Wassell",
"John Kellett",
"Jolenealaska",
"Latifa",
"Marie Cooke",
"Mr Lister",
"Nae Tan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"rackandboneman",
"yvette smirk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23732
|
What is the best method/product for cleaning pasta's starch residue from colander and cooking pot?
After cooking pasta, I typically drain it in a colander. I have found the starch residue in both the cooking pot and particularly the colander is difficult to clean without hand scrubbing it. I am curious if anyone knows a solution - either a method or product that makes clean-up quicker and easier. Thanks for any ideas you may have!
Melanie, if you have to actually scrub it ... rather than just giving it a little rubbing with as sponge and soap ... then you're doing something else unusual. Perhaps you could add the steps you go through?
@FuzzyChef I think it's just semantics - what I call scrubbing, you refer to as a little rubbing. My primary issue is that the colander seems to look hazy after washing - and often there are simple solutions / "secrets" people have for making things much easier. I think it may also be the quality of the pasta as well that contributes. Thanks.
I realize this is an old question, but just for kicks....What about avoiding the use of a colander? Use a spider or tongs to remove pasta from boiling water directly to pan containing the condiment. This assumes a traditional Italian approach, but is applicable with other cuisines.
Soaking in water works for me. Put the colander in the pot, fill it with water - preferably before it dries out in the first place - and then leave it alone until you are ready to do the dishes, whether that's after dinner or (gasp!) in the morning. Either way the starch will slip off easily.
Thanks Kate. That is generally the way I do it now, but after soaking I still have to scrub considerably. Glad that works well for you though! I appreciate the input!
In my opinion, the most important part is to rinse immediately after use.
If you use the collander, then let it sit for a few hours (through dinner) or 'til the morning, you're going to have to soak and/or scrub.
A quick spray-down immediately after using will save you a ton of work later:
pour pasta into collander.
spray down the pot (I have a pull-out sprayer, and I spray around the edge where the ring formed at the water level; you can give it a quick swipe with a scrub sponge, but you have to be careful about soap near the sink if there's a collander of pasta sitting in there))
dump out the pot (not over the collander)
pour the stuff in the collander back into the pot or whatever serving vessel.
spray down the collander (both sides) & move to the dish drain for full cleaning later
If there is some build-up then a soak in mild borax solution will get colander shiny new again. However, starch will then again want to stick even more easily... Prevent it with a wee spray of non-stick. I justify my use in that I spare a good deal of hot water in the clean up.
I am aware that I address the question indirectly.
What I have observed is that starch is a problem only if the concentration of starch in the water is high.
What I do, is to make sure that I cook the pasta in way more water than most people do. I try to use at least 1-2 L of water for every 50g of dry pasta.
The main reason why I prefer to use that much water is because the quality of the pasta turn out considerably better that way. The easier washing is just a side effect :)
Yes, bringing all that water to a boil does take a bit more time.
I doubt the quality is actually better: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3965/1672
I've only found that hand-scrubbing works. I use a soap and Bon Ami (no-scratch cleanser), at least for the colander. Regular soap and a no-scratch scrubbing sponge works on the pot for me, too.
Here's a trick I just discovered.
What I used:
Non-Stick dishwasher-safe pot that's starch-encrusted after 2 years of use, a couple times a week every week. (Shush, I like spaghetti..) I've put it through the dishwasher before and tried to scrub it off, but never had any success; it's always looked just as bad after drying of as before I started trying to clean it.
Dawn ultra-concentrated dishwashing liquid (The only dishwashing liquid I've used on pots/pans; I use it because my parents did. Others will probably work as well)
Disposable scrubbing sponge (Very cheap; I found them at Walgreens)
Dishwasher
Cascade detergent pacs (powered by Dawn), for the dishwasher
Steps I took:
Put a few drops of Dawn in the pot, turn on the faucet at high blast so the agitation makes it foam up. Fill it to the brim.
I only let it soak for about 2 hours, more might work better.
Use the scrub-sponge over the whole internal surface to get off the loose starch. You shouldn't need to actually scrub hard; I lightly brushed it for a short time, like 2 or 3 minutes, and so much residue was coming off that had I to rinse the sponge often.
Put it in the dishwasher.
Come tonight, about 80% of the inside of the pot was completely clean of residue, no evidence it was ever there in the first place. The remaining residue has streaks in it as though the scrubber just didn't get all the surface-starch off. I'm pretty confident that doing this only one or two more times will have it looking as good as new.
I looked up how to do it and it seems there is no easy answer.
I decided to try baking soda and vinegar. It worked pretty well!
I put vinegar in a bowl, got the colander wet with the vinegar, poured baking soda into the colander and scrubbed it a bit. The abrasive soda helps loosen the starch and the vinegar starts to bubble up. I left the colander in the bowl of vinegar for a while, scrubbed again and rinsed. It was a lot better, but needed another round. I poured more baking soda into the colander, scrubbed and left it in the vinegar again. It looks so much better. I might try heating the vinegar the next time to see if it speeds up the process!
Interesting. Is this a plastic, bare metal, or enamalized metal colander?
I've always used the Lagostina stainless steel pot cleaner to remove starch stains and it works great! :)
I was always told to rinse the colander or pot with cold water as soon as the food is removed to prevent the starch from setting up on the utensil.
Rinse with cold water immediately, then wash in warm. Hot water makes the starch turn gluier; cold water releases it.
Make a bath of lye and soak items fully submerged.
Lye will dissolve anything organic, including mothers-in-law.
WARNING
Lye is very caustic and will burn skin and damage eyes.
Wear gloves and eye protection.
It's also not very good for septic systems.
In addition to being dangerous to skin, lye will corrode or violently react with many metals. This is fantastically bad advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.562736
| 2012-05-12T23:06:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23732",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin Noden",
"Ed Gonzalez",
"Felice Young",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Maximo Dominguez",
"Melanie",
"Monte Zak",
"Neha",
"Ross Tunnicliffe",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"Treecie",
"Vennie B",
"Warin Koohamaneechote",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97216",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
40010
|
Cooking potatoes - baking covered in salt for mashing
I was wondering about a detail of a recipe I recently read in a magazine.
The recipe is for Gnocchi, so basically it's about making a potato mash dough.
Instead of just boiling the potatoes, the recipe was roughly like:
Put the whole, unpeeled potatoes into a large casserole, cover them
wholly with ample stone salt, and slowly bake them for 2 hours. (...
then peel cooked potatoes and put them through a ricer ... ...)
What gives? I'd just put them into a steamer and cook them, what's the point of putting them into the oven for 2 hrs covered with salt?
(Note: It was a recipe from a posh restaurant, so it may well be more complicated than necessary :-)
Here is the original (german) recipe for reference.
Roasting in salt is supposed to give great skin, but if the potatoes are destined to be used in gnocci, that doesn't make much sense.
@SAJ14SAJ - And if they're covered in salt, there won't be must "roasting" going on, or will there?
Actually, they will. Salt is a pretty good heat conductor. But I don't see why it is used in this application. You could just as easily bake them in the oven right on the rack.
Could the salt be drawing off water while baking ?
The salt certainly would draw off water, but that doesn't explain it since a hot, dry oven would do the same thing. I'm inclined to think this recipe is gussied up for show, as the OP suggested.
The only answer that makes any sense (other than the "just for show" hypothesis) is that baking in salt does create a fluffier potato. That assertion is backed up by Cook's Illustrated and the Idaho Potato Commission [citation]. So, for the lightest possible gnocchi, start with the fluffiest possible potato.
I've got to say though, roasting potatoes in salt for gnocchi would be too fussy even for me.
EDIT: One other possibility just occurred to me, and the more I think of it, the more I think it's the key. Maybe the restaurant always bakes potatoes that way and it's just as easy to add extra for the gnocchi or to use leftovers. So, they wrote the recipe the way they actually do it.
Hmm ... wrt. your second theory ... I think it's rather unlikely this restaurant ever serves oven-baked potatoes. It's neither a common dish in Italy, nor is it a high-cuisine dish, afaik.
My bad because I somehow didn't realize that the link you posted was the actual recipe from the actual place, I thought it was some kind of historical treatise on Gnocchi. After some Google translate action, I've got to agree that the "we do oven baked potatoes anyway" hypothesis is probably not correct. Not so much because baked potatoes wouldn't have a place on the menu (the restaurant bills itself as Italian and International, and a stellar baked potato can certainly play a role in International high-cuisine) but (oddly) because the potatoes in question are waxy.
The fact that the potatoes are waxy (which wouldn't be the choice for a fluffy baked potato) actually kind of supports the pre-edit answer. If waxy yet fluffy potatoes are the goal for the gnocci, then the salt trick actually makes more sense. Some quality in the waxy potatoes is desirable, but so is fluffiness. Enter salt. At any rate, considering your concern about the answer, perhaps you were a bit fast to "accept"?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.563412
| 2013-12-05T21:42:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40010",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122314
|
Why would HTST/UHT milk be "unsafe, but not taste bad"?
User @rumtscho notes in another question's answer:
If you are trying to keep the milk for multiple days in the fridge
It will become unsafe after 3-5 days, there is no way around that. If
you switch to UHT milk, it will still be unsafe 3-5 days after opening
the container, but it won't taste bad, so ...
What does this mean for the milk and the decision of whether to discard it?
(Traditionally I would discard milk if it tastes off to me.)
Specifically, a trajectory explanation of which microorganisms are killed of in the milk via UHT, so that it might not go "bad" taste wise, would be helpful.
I'll leave @rumtscho to write a definitive answer but I think it will boil down to: in your life, 'safe' is a personal judgement; on this website, 'safe' means 'in accordance with government food safety regulations'. The two are not generally identical and in some cases will diverge dramatically, which is constantly confusing to new users, but it is the only reasonable approach from StackExchange's position.
In response to your update. All microorganisms are eliminated in the processing of UTH milk. That is the point of the process, to make it shelf stable.
@moscafj Presumably the difference is that fresh milk generally has some (lactic acid?) bacteria, so it's those that will usually multiply first and cause spoilage. Heat-treated milk won't come with those bacteria, and so it'll get spoiled only after some ambient bacteria have colonised it and grown: not only does that take longer, but (depending what type(s) of bacteria grow) it's less likely to become noticeably spoiled when they do, and so lack of spoilage is no longer any guide to safety.
@gidds yes, the food safety risk for opened UHT occurs from the potential of pathogens introduced from the environment.
@dbmag9 We can't go by personal opinion of safety because it's not referencable. I can cite regulations, but anecdotes of "I ate this once and was fine" are not real evidence. In the rare cases where there's a study showing that something is safer than regulated, we can cite those, but that doesn't often happen.
@dbmag9 which brings the question: which government?
@FuzzyChef Your comment seems like you think I'm advocating we use a personal opinion standard here. I'm not, I'm explaining that we don't ("it is the only reasonable approach from StackExchange's position").
@njzk2 On the whole I don't think different food safety authorities vary substantially, as they all work off the same evidence base (science is international and largely public) and have the same goal of promoting public safety. In practice because of the demographics here answers tend to refer to US guidelines (e.g. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2642/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-temperature-and-food-safety) but I've seen other countries' guidance used (for example regarding eggs, which are treated differently outside the US). A good answer would explain what standard it uses.
sorry, didn't intend to imply that
Most food borne pathogens are colorless, odorless, and flavorless, and will not always impact the taste of food. Smell and taste is not an indicator of food safety. There is a difference between spoilage (which would impact flavor and odor, but not always make something unsafe) and pathogen growth (which would make a food unsafe). For example, sour milk is generally unpleasant for most of us, but generally not unsafe. The response to your quoted answer is reasonable in terms of how food safety works. I would quibble with the 3 - 5 days. What I see on the internet is that UHT milk is shelf stable for months until opened. Then it should be refrigerated and used within 7 days-10 days if continually refrigerated.
I'd love to see some citations added to this answer. It's already good, but EG to support "Most food borne pathogens are colorless, odorless, and flavorless, and will not always impact the taste of food."
@MattMorgan many hits come up when you google this...here is the first one that came up for me: https://extension.wsu.edu/asotin/health-wellness/consumer-food-safety/ To quote, "
Food that contains a foodborne pathogen will look, smell and taste normal for the most part. Generally speaking, most bacteria and viruses that cause foodborne illness are odorless, colorless and tasteless."
There is also a difference between "most" (we probably don't know many of them at all) and "most common". I'd venture the guess that we have developed the ability to detect many common cases with our senses, specifically by smell. For example, rotten meat, a major and, without refrigeration, common health hazard, smells terrible. Of course, what risk was acceptable in the paleolithic and what's acceptable in an industrial nation differs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.563963
| 2022-11-11T07:53:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122314",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Matt Morgan",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"dbmag9",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4674
|
Why would a portable barbecue warn against using pots on the grill?
My wife just bought a Coleman Road Trip portable propane barbecue, which we plan to use for camp cooking/grilling.
I was thinking of using it as a camp stove as well - to heat water, make coffee, etc. However the grills have a warning not to place pots on the grill.
Is the concern just scratching the non-stick coating? I know they sell another set of grills for it, but I'd rather not have to tote two sets.
Personal experience: I have used pots and pans on this and similar grills with no problems. My guess would be, if it says not to use them, it's probably as you said - for the non-stick coating. There is a specific grill grate you can buy for the larger models, and perhaps you're not going to get the most efficient heat transfer by putting it directly on the attached - but that doesn't mean it won't work at all. Personally, I'd rather have something slightly less efficient than have to carry two grills.
Not sure which model you have (since you said the portable, I assume this red table-top), but the LX can handle pots and pans according to this site: "Grill lid detaches to make room for large pots or pans." As far as I can tell, they're essentially the same grill as far as how they function, just different sizes and features.
Just to be safe, I would probably fire it up in your yard before the trip and try cooking something that you would cook on the trip, like a pot of coffee or a can of beans. That way you won't have any surprises when you're deep in the woods and don't have a backup!
If you aren't comfortable using it after your test, or for any reason, there are other solutions available that are pretty easy to carry. You can get a propane burner, they're very small and light and easy to pack. There are some that sit directly on top of the propane bottle, but I don't recommend them - they are very easy to tip, especially if you have children at the campsite.
Unrelated to your specific question, but related to camping, I always recommend taking a small cast iron pot or dutch oven of some kind on any camping trip. In a jam (let's say you run out of propane), you can use that on any fire that you build, even directly on the wood/coals/whatever, and a pot is more versatile than a pan because it can be used for things you said, such as boiling water and making coffee as well as your typical browning, etc.
it might have to do with the weight-baring capacity or stability? Maybe Coleman assumes the smaller version won't be able to safely hold a larger pot/pan. Usually when companies say this kind of thing, they really just want to upsell...
ah, weight bearing is a very good point, i didn't consider that when i used mine. luckily, i also didn't go crazy with what i cooked in the pot (i was mostly using it for boiling small amounts of water and cooking a can or two of beans). he should be safe stability wise as long as it's the table-top version (i would guess - i'm not a structural engineer by any means). i'd lean towards the upsell as well though, seeing as how they sell a specific grill grate for pots and pans, depending on the model :)
Actually its the bigger LXe with the stand and wheels. I'm thinking its a upselling tactic and to protect the anti-stick. The Grill that it comes with looks heavier than the cooking grid that they sell for use with pots/pans, so I don't think its a weight issue.
Maybe it's just a stability issue? It won't have anything to do with non-stick coatings - most camp cookware doesn't have it.
The grill will melt if you put a pot or pan on top. The pot/pan often retains heat and then heats up the grill to a temperature above what it can support. You see a lot of people complain about grills that melt all of the sudden - it is because they put a pot/pan on top.
I for one have never seen anyone complain about a melting grill. Could you back up your answer?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.564340
| 2010-08-09T20:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4674",
"authors": [
"Adam Matan",
"BillN",
"Bushra Shahid",
"Christina",
"LSchoon",
"Ocaasi",
"gtrefry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8966",
"loscuropresagio",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
}
|
5737
|
How to combine chocolate and garlic in the same dish?
I hosted a potluck dinner some years ago, and I set the theme as "chocolate or garlic" -- guests were to bring one or the other. One person was a wiseacre and bought chocolate covered garlic. (It was hideously unpalatable.)
I've since wondered if there's any way to combine chocolate and garlic in the same dish where you taste both, or if the two flavors are simply incompatible.
Sure you can put them in the same dish, just put something else between them.
Roasted garlic will get a slightly sweet flavor, dipped in a chocolate fondue can be wonderful and I have seen a recipe for garlic chocolate chip cookies.
http://www.food.com/recipe/garlic-chocolate-chip-cookies-28771
Definitely have to roast it. Roasted garlic is sweet and easily palatable all by itself. With a rich chocolate, it could be great.
Should work also with caramelized garlic, what do you think?
Sure! Most recipes for the darker Oaxacan moles will include both cocoa powder and garlic.
I'm going to call this cheating, since there are few ingredients which aren't in a good mole. But true.
+1 for enlightening me on the existence of Oaxacan mole, now I've just got to taste some!
Chocolate-Covered Garlic: http://www.sugoodsweets.com/blog/2007/10/chocolate-garlic/
What about chocolate-garlic-cheesecake truffles? Four months later.. :-)
http://daydreamerdesserts.com/2011/01/chocolate-garlic-cheesecake-truffles.html/
Garlic is timeless.
In addition to chocolate-covered roasted or blanched garlic, I've had good reviews from garlic lovers for my:
Garlic Brownies -- replace one egg with 4 oz. crushed garlic in oil
Garlic Swirl Brownies -- divide batter, 2/3 gets cocoa powder, 1/3 gets garlic
White Chocolate Garlic Frosting -- melt white chocolate with minced garlic
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.564704
| 2010-08-22T01:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5737",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Duncan Macleod",
"Eric LaForce",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"James",
"John Robertson",
"Nick Ribal",
"Ocaasi",
"Pete Houston",
"Rashad",
"cederlof",
"chad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
7224
|
Why does dough break when kneading, and how to prevent/ameliorate it?
I'm very new to bread-making in general; don't assume I'm necessarily doing anything right.
During my last attempt at making quick (baking-powder-based) flatbread, I was attempting to flatten and knead the dough after having let it rest. What happened was that rather than bending or spreading as one would expect, the dough kept cracking/breaking into pieces here and there.
I have several questions related to this, feel free to answer any/all of them:
(a) What mistakes might have been made ahead of this point, in the recipe or the technique of preparing the dough, to cause this?
(b) On the other hand, what can be done to prevent it from happening in the future?
(c) Given a hunk of dough with this tendency on the table, what can be done to salvage and/or rectify matters? This can be in terms of kneading technique, or adding anything to the dough to make it more cohesive.
You don't typically kneed a quickbread (although, I admit, I've never done a flatbread as a quickbread) -- they're typically more cake-like, and kneeding will create gluten which can make them tough.
This was an odd variant of a naan recipe that I found in a cheap curry cookbook, and I wanted to try it before I start experimenting with yeast; I've yet to make any kind of yeast bread, and from what I've read it seems to be trickier. More temperature regulation and time in particular, and more needing to know what one is doing in general.
Yeast bread does take longer, but it really isn't trickier. Any normal room temperature will work fine; a lot of the trickier stuff you've seen is to get from good bread to great bread. And there is nothing wrong with good yeast bread, especially if you're used to quickbreads.
It sounds like it didn't have enough liquid in it. Assuming we are talking about a normal wheat-flour bread dough, I can't think of anything else that would lead to cracking and breaking. Properly hydrated bread dough should be quite moist and elastic, and the only way you can "break" it is to stretch it hard and fast with a pulling motion.
Fixing this situation is hard. You can try to knead more water into it, but it has a tendency to just slip off the surface. Try spreading it out as thin as possible, spraying or rubbing on a little water, folding and kneading and repeating the process.
That's more or less what I ended up doing. I took a bowl of hot water, and coated the surface of the dough with it, particularly the areas that had broken. After kneading a bit the process had to be repeated; a few cycles of this were enough to make the dough workable.
@Michael- I agree it's hard to add water if you are kneading by hand. If you are using a mixer it is much easier it just takes a little bit of time to work in the water and you should have a splash guard for the bowl.
I've found the easiest way to re-hydrate your dough is to simply keep dipping your hands in warm water as you're kneading until you reach the desired texture. If you hydrate too much and your dough becomes sticky, add more flour again.
I had that problem and found a adding both oil (just a little and working that in) and water (same) and repeating the process as needed with water only until the dough became more elastic and less resistant. I worked quickly because yeast has a timing issue (as do I!) and it is a challenge for me to get it just right. I managed to do this without overshooting and having to add more flour which I don't like to do. It seemed to do the trick and bread still rose beautifully.
Cracking is caused by insufficient elasticity, which is usually caused by insufficient moisture.
Adding more moisture into the recipe would almost certainly help you out there.
You can go with a 70% dough hydration for example, utilizing the stretch and fold technique to achieve stability. This would give you bread with large uneven holes in your crumb, like a rustic bread or a ciabatta.
I heartily recommend checking out a book called Flour Water Salt Yeast, by Ken Forkish. He also has a very good book on Pizza, if that's of any interest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.564895
| 2010-09-13T05:09:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7224",
"authors": [
"Asmita",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"Walter Mundt",
"atevans",
"bertha maxwell",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roxy"
],
"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
}
|
2661
|
What are the benefits of using natural casing when making sausages?
I'm about to make some sausages and need a casing. What are the benefits of using natural casing when making sausages?
If you're planning to smoke your sausages, natural casings will allow for greater smoke penetration than many non-natural casings, and they won't impart any odd flavors of their own to the meat. That said, when you first open a container of natural casings, they may have a strong smell because of gas build-up; let them air out (in the fridge!) and they'll be fine.
Note that if you have to do some cleaning, a "gentle" scrape with a large spoon works wonders - we did this as a kid when we preserved our own meat and made a LOT of sausages - smoking them all. You can easily turn them inside-out to get both sides if you use a bit (cup full?) of water as a "pusher".
I personally think the natural casing has a better texture more of a "snap" so to speak.
I definitely find that non natural casings tend to produce a more rubbery sausage.
Natural casings also make dried sausages breathe easier and let the water come out (which eliminates bacteria growth inside). It would also be tough to eat if you're making fresh sausage; it would be like eating a bologna without removing the skin.
Natural casings tend to "thin" as you smoke them more than artificial ones which seems to allow better/more even smoke flavor permiation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.565255
| 2010-07-21T18:55:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2661",
"authors": [
"Animesh D",
"Bradley",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"Mike",
"NBenatar",
"S.Hoekstra",
"daviddiviny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4824",
"ilonavg",
"kpozin",
"schneeschmelze"
],
"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
}
|
5456
|
Bean selection for a chili recipe
I am planning on making a new chili using grilled venison, Great Lakes Black Out Stout, and roasted corn (I'm in Ohio and sweet corn is getting good right now). My least favorite part of making and eating chili is the beans; I hate selecting them and pick around them in my bowl. (I will probably also be using chiles en adobo, serranos, and roasted jalapenos/tien tsin as my pepper trinity.)
The only ones I do actually like are black beans. What would your recommendations be for a good bean, both in choice and preparation to pair with the ingredients above? (Please include other ingredients or flavors to incorporate in the comments.) I want it to be dark and mysterious; typically I name things first and then build them up from there and this one I'm calling Bear's Den Chili (hopefully that will be a note to start you off with).
i should add a comment from the outset for anyone not familiar with venison, it is a tougher meat, and so it SEEMS (i could be wrong) the bean would need to be less imposing (ie be smaller, less chewy) to not overwhelm the texture of the chili.
I thought I hated chili growing up because my mother made it with straight kidney beans. I was pleasantly surprised to marry into a family where the family chili recipe uses chili beans - kidney beans in a spicy sauce. This family chili recipe has won an office chili cook-off, and I think it is in large part due to the can of chili beans. I know it's a classic, but I think it would work well with your chili.
I'd also suggest cumin and a generous amount of chili powder. Your chili will be even better if the chili powder is homemade.
yeah spices are the steering wheel. sorry i didnt include those, but i did it to kind of limit the discussion to the beans. are the chili beans you're referring to just a version canned in sauce, but still of the size and texture and variety of regular kidney beans?
@mfg - those are the ones. The canning in sauce makes an absolutely huge taste and even texture difference. In my experience kidney beans stand out (and not in a way I enjoy), while chili beans blend in.
OK. I am calling it for @justkt 's answer because the flavors are going to be different enough as it is. I think the call to the traditional chili beans might be a good one. I am a bit concerned about the flavor of the beans' sauce. But instead of going with black beans (which i think would be too coarse in terms of size compared to how i plan to prep the venison), i think it will be a good point from which to calibrate the chili for future iterations.
A follow up, for anyone using chili beans: be wary of the flavor of the sauce the beans are canned in. I found the flavor of the one I chose to be too distracting to the flavors i was already trying to balance.
@mfg - bummer! I guess part of why I like them so much is that they go perfectly with the cumin/chili powder/onion flavor we have for our favorite chili. Maybe you can make your own chili beans out of kidney beans and a good sauce next time?
@justkt man, im really starting to think about getting into canning and this is yet another possible reason
We make vegetarian chili every few months, and use a combination of many kinds of beans. You can use kidney, cannelini (white kidney beans), pinto, small red, small white, roman, etc. We like Goya's beans. If the meat is tough, you may want mushier beans to add textural difference, so you might want to avoid black beans or black-eyed peas. (Unless they're your favorite, of course!)
cannelini sound great, and fun color contrast!
are the cannelini more tender than kidney? ive seen them before, just never used. and would they pair well with roasted corn and stout beer?
...thanks for the reminder about Romans, they have a pretty savory flavor so they may do very well in a three can blend
This vegetarian white bean chili recipe discovered many years back is great. Fairly quick and simple as far as chili goes - with a very unique flavor.
The beans are always my favorite part of chili and I usually use several varieties. My favorites are black as they stay chewy longer, small red because of the smooth texture without being as big as kidney, and black eyed peas because they look interesting. I'm not a big fan of pinto.
You might try the blackeyed peas or half blackeyed and black beans. The color may fit your theme. It sounds like you won't be featuring them as much as I do in my chili so the flavor of the bean is irrelevant it won't be noticeable. It's the texture and color you want.
how do blackeyed varieties stew up? ive eaten them straight and theyre not a bad bean. im curious though as the texture of venison is very chewy and the corn is going to be a very giving element; so i think a less chewy bean would be ideal to put in there.
definite +1 for black-eyed peas. ain't just for the south. they're not too chewy, though i don't have experience stewing them for a very long time, only about a half-hour
Nthing blackeye peas for this chili, but suggest adding them later in the simmering process so they don't turn to mush. Could also use mayocoba beans; they're also tender and would need to be added later than a heartier bean.
One of my new favorite beans to use in chili is a relative of the cranberry bean, called Tongues of Fire. A slightly meaty bean, they are terrific but I have only seen them dried in specialty grocers. Beware! They seem to take a long time to soak before using.
I have used and do love pinto, kidney, black, and great northern and navy beans in my chili, not necessarily all at once.
you totally anticipated my follow up post which is about taming the heat of the peppers with the sweet of a fruit... maybe i will have to reconsider my whole approach. not necessarily this time, but will need to experiment some
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.565533
| 2010-08-18T13:56:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5456",
"authors": [
"Dylansq",
"Erin",
"Jan",
"Nyx",
"Ocaasi",
"Steffen Roller",
"aepurniet",
"brasofilo",
"eipi10",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67151",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"nelsonda",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4739
|
Bubble Tea - Instant or Traditional Pearls
Is there any evidence that instant or traditional tapioca pearls - for bubble tea - are a better choice if I'm looking for a pearl that is very soft with just a little bit of chew? I've tried traditional pearls and always have okay results - but I've had better from some (not all) bubble tea stores. I haven't tried quick/instant pearls yet, but I'm tempted to. However, I still have a lot of traditional pearls that I don't want to go to waste if they're no better or worse than quick cooking ones.
Also, is there some way to keep the bubbles from getting harder when you add the cold drink to it (be it a smoothie, blended coffee, etc...)?
I prefer traditional, how are you cooking the traditional ones? Are you using the dry ones or moist ones?
I'm using dry ones - I didn't even know there were moist ones??? I boil a large pot of water with a ratio of 7 parts water to 1 part tapioca. I add them when the water boils, cover them and cook, boiling, for 30 minutes. Then, I turn off the heat and leave them to cool in the pot for 25 minutes. While these 25 minutes are going on, I make my syrup of 4 parts water, 4 parts sugar, 4 parts brown sugar and 1 part honey. After the 25 minutes, I drain the tapioca and put them in a container with the syrup.
@wil - Any thoughts on my method? What are moist tapioca pearls?
After a whole lot of research, I think that I have achieved an answer, but I couldn't get my hands on any pearls so I don't have any experimental evidence. Most of it is based on messing around with tapioca flour, but I think it should carry over.
Anyway, the difference between traditional and instant pearls is merely the amount of processing they receive before they hit your hands, much like the difference between oats and quick oats. Instant pearls are cooked much farther than traditional pearls so I don't think you really need to invest in them.
Tapioca is a high starch, low protein ingredient so to make it softer we just need to cook it longer. Be careful though, as overcooking is going to result in a terrible mushy mess. Also, just like high starch sushi rice, rinsing will probably be a good idea, although I think it should be done after the initial boil and soak. The rinse should knock off the excess starch from the pearls, which I think is what is creating that tough skin when placed in cold liquid. You should rinse after cooking, in warm water, till the water runs clear.
The recipes I found on the internet were mostly split on the subject of stirring, but I think it's a bad idea (except to prevent the pearls from sticking to each other) as all it could serve to do is break starch off the pearls which is not what we are trying to do (save the stirring for when you want to use them as a thickening agent).
Anyway, I have some on order but they aren't getting here for a bit. I'll update once I get to play around with them.
Thanks, Sarge! I hadn't thought of washing them, but that is a great idea. Yeah, my biggest quip with them is how much firmer they get after I add the cold drink, so that should help. I would think that soaking them in the syrup would also help form a barrier, but I guess that gets washed off when I add the drink. Wow, I can't believe you're getting bubbles - what flavors are you going to get? I prefer Taro or Taro+Coconut, but the possibilities are endless. Have fun and thanks again. PS - I'll accept your answer if nothing else comes down the pipe. You've clearly done some great research.
I just bought the unflavored ones, because what I read about them was that the flavored just had the inclusion of a fruit juice. Do the flavored cook different than the non flavored? Can't I just use the juice I want to make them flavored however they want?
oh and no problem, I have been opening up my world a lot based on the questions on this site.
Strange, I haven't even seen already flavored tapioca balls! In any case, you can create the liquid drink any way you want. Some people make a smoothie while others use coffee/tea with cream. To make the smoothie type ones, most people use prepackaged powders. For instance, I use http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AN1YFC to make a cold, taro smoothie. It's okay, but I've had better taro bubble teas - that's just my bad for not picking a better powder/mix. It's pretty cool that you've been incorporating a lot from this site into your life! Enjoy the bounty :-)
The moist ones are the semi cooked ones
Dry is something like this (really quick Google)
Dry Pearls
Semi moist is something like this (again, really quick Google search) - I think we might be talking about the same thing with the instant ones you are talking about
Moist Pearls
From dry, have you experimented with the times and ratios? I find that depending on which versions you buy, the cooking times and ratios change. (I have no idea if it's from the composition of pearls or what) Not sure where your current pearls are falling short, but try going to 8-1 ratio of water-pearls. Other techniques to try is to before turning the heat off for your post boil time, let it simmer instead for another 20-30 mins and then cool off in the water afterwords. The problem I find is that there is no hard and fast techniques that work on all pearls!
The way I do it is
8-1 ratio boil
40 min simmer
20 min cooldown
Wil, thanks again for the clarification. You're right that we're talking about the same thing: 'moist'=='instant' :-) Thanks so for checking that out. I have tried both 7:1 and 8:1 for the water, with pretty much the same results...I think other variables are affected them more. Is the extra water basically to help keep the starch off the pearls? As in, what Sarge is getting at with washing the pearls off with hot water when they're done? I usually do 30 and 25 for my times, I'll have to try 40 and 20. Do you have any tips for keeping the pearls soft once you add the cool liquid? Thanks.
I made boba, following the directions; they were perfect. I rinsed them, put them in the syrup, and put them in the fridge overnight. In the morning, the pearls were tough. To solve this, I put the pearls into a Pyrex measuring cup, and microwaved in the syrup for about 2 1/2 minutes. They got warm and soft, just as they were when first made. I put those in my cup, and proceeded to make my Thai iced tea. The result was the same as what I get at my favorite boba tea shop.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.566021
| 2010-08-10T05:10:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4739",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Clark",
"Diego",
"Edward",
"Samoth",
"Simon",
"Wil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9889",
"sarge_smith"
],
"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
}
|
2836
|
How do I impart "extra" flavor with Sous Vide cooking?
I've been cooking Sous Vide 2-3 times a week for about 10 months now, and I absolutely love it. The control of temperature and time makes for some really interesting possibilities. But, one of the touted benefits of the method is better imparting of flavors during the cooking process, and I'm not getting this at all.
I'm not using a vacuum sealer in my process, instead I'm submerging an open bag in water and letting the partial pressure get all the air out before closing it up. Is this the reason I'm not noticing the additional flavor? Do the muscles in the meat need to be stretched by the vacuum? If that is the case, is a home vacuum sealer sufficient for that? I somehow doubt that a vacuum sealer gets much more negative pressure on the meat than my method. Do I need a chamber vacuum to get the effect?
Or am I just not using the right ingredients in my recipes?
What am I doing wrong? I love my Sous Vide Supreme, but I feel like I'm missing out on a piece of the experience.
Edit:
I tried looking for some of the recipes that I haven't had luck with last night, but because everything is mostly google searches, I couldn't really come up with anything concrete. However some things that haven't really added that extra flavor are: Olive oil, butter, bacon fat, rosemary, thyme, and garlic. Not all at the same time, but in different combinations. A lot of my initial reading was careful to point out that you shouldn't use too much seasoning as the tastes would be much stronger than you were used to. I'm not getting that at all.
Can you give an example of a recipe that didn't work out as you hoped?
I'm new to stack exchange. Is the appropriate way to do that to edit my initial question? That's what I've done.
Are you adding fats and flavourings together or just the flavourings? The fats are need to 'carry' the flavourings.
I've done both together.
One way to think about this isn't that the flavors are concentrated (i.e. reducing a stock concentrates the flavor by reducing the water content) but it makes more flavor available to the meat as it cooks since it's in constant contact (preferably under pressure) in the bag while it cooks at a precise temp.
I posed this question to Dave Arnold over at Cooking Issues, as mentioned by Peter V, and he had an answer for me.
Typically, the vacuum will give more flavor penetration than a ziploc. The ziploc, however, will help flavor in the sense that it prevents the loss of volatiles. A home vacuum can help with infusion in the sense of accelerating the penetration of marinades, but isn’t so good at infusion in the sense of rapid pickling and the like –that requires the real machine.
Sounds like a chamber sealer > home vacuum sealer > ziploc bag. I guess I need to invest in another gadget to get the effect (I'll add it to the already rather long gadget list).
Sous vide not only keeps the proteins (main component) at a lower temperature, but also the spices/oils/flavorings. Heat helps release the taste and aroma of all the ingredients, and the sous vide might not be hot enough to do that.
So, while it kind of kills the simplicity, you could always sautee the seasonings in oil before adding them to the sous vide bag (not until cooler though). Or just keep them separate and recombine for serving. Sous vide itself (not the vacuum part) is mainly for maintaining/achieving a controlled internal temperature, and skilled cooks don't only sous vide a dish; they might sous vide and then finish under a broiler for texture, or with a torch. If the sauce isn't working inside the bag, make it work outside the bag.
Alternately, put the ingredients in the bag the day before, and let them marinate overnight in the fridge. The vacuum action is essentially just a speeded up marinade, so this should do the same.
Also, make sure you're using enough (but not too much) SALT.
Finally, call the Sous Vide Supreme company. They know their product's capabilities and limitations and might have some good recommendations.
Just my guesses.
It doesn't take too high a temperature, though. I pre-cooked some sweet potatoes at 150F to develop sugar, along with some crushed/ground spices, and they were incredibly fragrant just from that, even before roasting the potatoes.
I would recommend adding the savory back to your dishes that sous vide cannot impart upon your food. Depending on the course, you could broil, braise, torch, add MSG, etc.
Don't forget that salt = flavor, too!
The method you use to bag your meats bears little difference in the amount of flavor added (see other FoodSaver vs zip-lock arguments). The home vaccuum sealer will not impose a significant "negative" pressure on the food inside the bag, as the contents retain the atmospheric pressure applied on the surfaces of the bag regardless of how much gas volume is removed. Dipping your ziplock in water works the same way, but under an insignificantly higher pressure (by a few inch-lbs, depending on how deep in water bag is) while removing the gas contents of the bag. The FoodSaver is easier to use and with less mess when using oils in my opinion; I have used both methods.
A commercial food service vaccuum sealer is a different beast altogether, but not something available to the average consumer due to cost (>$1000), but has the potential to draw out a significant amount of the oxygen from the bag compared to a home sealer thereby preventing the oxidation of volatile organics, i.e. flavor, and will imbue more flavor for the same amount of seasoning with less time than what the home cook is capable.
Keep in mind the company Zip-Lock does not recommend sous vide in their bags since they do not have documentation of preventative leaching above 50C (extra cost to the company to test, not necessarily a real fear to have). FoodSaver has performed these tests on their bags, but are more expensive to buy.
The French Culinary Institute Blog has a great (unfinished) primer on Sous Vide cooking. I would recommend it, including this link: http://www.cookingissues.com/primers/sous-vide/part-ii-low-temperature-cooking-without-a-vacuum/ which is on sous vide cooking using ziploc bags and no vacuum seal.
Upshot: Go for it, the author does most of his sous vide minus vacuum cooking at this point.
Regarding flavor: I don't have enough information or experience to help you solve your problem. I'd suggest you update with a sample recipe you're making and what you want out of it -- then some more experienced sous vide folks can comment on what you've got going on.
Thanks, I read through that a while ago, but had kind of forgotten about it. I've asked the question there too.
I am a serious steak eater and always on the lookout for better ways to get the ultimate steak. To this end I just purchased a sous vide machine and after a few attempts with quality prime cuts I sadly have to agree, the results lack taste when compared to properly skilleted / broiled steak with butter. Sous vide steak simply taste bland and I also find the sear achieved is far to thin when compared. I was plesantly suprised though at the consistancy atained with regards to the solid color of rare or medium rare top to bottom but the loss of taste is just to much to give up.
If you choose this method for steaks alone you may be quite disappointed. Lesson learned, its back to pan frying and broiling for me!
Your post does not answer the question. Rather it is a commentary on why you are disappointed in the flavor you achieve when using a sous vide process.
I was also expecting more flavor concentration from sous-vide than what I'm experiencing. Not a problem per say, just that I had to readjust my expectations.
Maybe part of the claims are inflated by positive thinking? I'd be curious to have see scientific measurements done...
PS: I am using a cheap vacuum sealer (FoodSaver)
Are you using any type of vacuum or are you using the water displacement method? Maybe if it's the former, you could try the two side by side and see what you think.
Oh, I should have mentioned that. Answer updated.
I think you may be misled in the idea of the flavor being concentrated, you are losing less flavor, moisture, volatiles but in order for flavors to be concentrated you need to reduce the amount of water available (think of reducing a stock). SV doesn't do that obviously.
Yes, if you're used to the browned flavors of high-heat cooking, sous vide will be strangely bland. You can get those flavors back two ways. Either you can sear the meat first, then seal it and finish cooking sous vide, or you can cook sous vide then let it rest long enough to cool by 30 degrees or so (or all the way to fridge temperature), then finish by high-heat cooking.
I have been browning meat (but not fish), so that's not really what I'm getting at. Although, I agree, it's essential for beef / pork. Rather my issue is that additional ingredients do not impart strong flavors to the meat as is suggested in the literature.
I will talk only about beef only. I too see the results of loss of flavor in cooking beef sous vide. I also I know longer but into the advertised fact that vacuum sealing beef "sucks" in flavor. I think it sucks flavor out and when cook under pressure it prevents flavor penetration all together and once the protien is cooked it will not suck anything back in when the pressure of the bag is released. I have tried chamber tumblers and they dont work as advertised either. Tumbling the meat in a rock tumbler will produce better results in my experience as vacuum chamber tumblers. I consistently have more success at marinating beef in a glass dish or ziplock. I have been cooking sous vide for about 3 years. I find that cooking quality steaks on a grill has better flavor then a sous vide one. Use the sous vide cooker for tough cuts of beef and plan to add some kinda sauce when served. I have had success at marinating beef and then using the Archimedes principal to sous vide cook but I won't say it's better than a grilled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.566532
| 2010-07-22T18:09:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2836",
"authors": [
"Adrian",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"David Norman",
"Erika",
"Ian Turner",
"Jack Parkinson",
"Marc-André Lafortune",
"NearEDGE",
"NoxArt",
"Spammer",
"Uriah Carpenter",
"Vam Monaco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98744",
"johan",
"macskuz",
"stephbu",
"tim_hutton",
"user1211",
"user5974",
"yossarian",
"Іван Коломейко"
],
"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
}
|
5869
|
What is the butter for in a jam recipe?
I made plum jam at the weekend. The recipe I had (from my Good Housekeeping cookbook) wanted me to simmer the plums in water, add sugar and a knob of butter, then boil until a set was reached.
I realised too late that I was out of butter, so I quickly looked up another jam recipe online and discovered what seemed like a 50/50 split between recipes with and without the knob of butter.
I made it without and it came out beautifully - clear, well-textured, lovely flavour. So what was the knob of butter meant to add?
How much is a "knob"?
@KatieK About the size of your thumb-tip.
The usual explanation given is that adding butter to the fruit and sugar before you cook it will reduce (or even eliminate) the foaming.
My guess is that the small amount of proteins in the fruits create the foam. As you heat the fruit, the proteins open up into strands that get tangled up and help stabilize the bubbles into a foam. Adding the butter (a fat) helps prevent this tangling.
I suspect it is a surface tension issue-the fat will float to the surface and disrupt the foam that forms there, but this is just speculation. I agree that it does reduce foaming.
We need to develop some experiments to test these guesses. Surface tension sounds right to me too.
There's another way of looking at this. The butter fats would rise to the top of the jar and form a thin layer across the top of the preserve. In days of yore, a dollop of butter or lard was melted over the surface of a preserve to "keep the air out". Might just be to improve the keeping qualities of the preserve.
@klypos - yeah, but I think you'd need a dollop per jar, and added to the end, to achieve that barrier. A knob per pot (which may have several jar's worth), and well mixed in, I would not expect to separate into a useful barrier before cooling. Could be the butter was originally added for this purpose, and is still used in lesser quantities for anti-foaming or taste, texture reasons.
Butter def helps reduce foaming; the instructions in the older recipes state this. (And why I keep a copy of the older recipe pectin box insert.)
Butter reduces the foam. Skip the butter. After cooking jam but before placing in jars, take off heat and stir for 5 minutes. This reduces the foam and also helps the fruit pieces to disperse evenly into the jam. Win Win. Then place in jars and continue canning as usual.
I read it in an canning book years ago sorry don’t know the name.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.567358
| 2010-08-24T12:00:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5869",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"KatieK",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"klypos",
"papin",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
}
|
10201
|
How to get cheap cookie cutters?
With the cookie baking season upon us I broke out the cookie cutters for sugar cookies, however almost all of them are pretty deformed or broken (from moving houses). I haven't bought any cutters in a long time and didn't realize how expensive they've gotten. Are there any cheap ones out there that are worth buying or should I just wait until after Christmas, when they all go on sale? Or should i just use an empty tuna can and make a bunch of circles?
Well, you see what happens with cheap ones. I look at cookie cutters as a very rare purchase, so don't mind if they're more expensive than seems reasonable, and I don't skimp on quality. Amortized over the life of the cutter, the prices aren't so bad.
You could make your own to get you through this holiday baking season - google will give you plenty of tutorials. Something cheap and easy to bend would probably be good enough for the short-term, or you could get some decent sheet metal from a hobby store (or hardware store) for more durability.
If you're going to make circles, you could just roll the dough into a tube shape and slice off some circles.
I think using an empty can is a brilliant, frugal idea...but if you want something a bit more exciting, chain stores like Bed Bath & Beyond sell decent tubs of cookie cutters. If you have one of those mailer coupons, you can get a ridiculous amount (like a pack of 100) for less than $20.
Empty tuna cans (cleaned and de-burred of course) also make pretty good round-fried-egg-makers for egg-on-a-bun type things!
From a price for utility perspective, I prefer plastic cookie cutters. Metal ones rust and get bent out of shape so very easily. (If you can wait just over a week, Christmas themed cookie cutters should be should be pretty cheap.)
You can get bags of cheap plastic cutters from toy shops, they are normally used for PlayDoh, but work fine for cookies too!
I got a set of Ateco cutters this year, and since my daughter, now 5, loves to bake with me they get a lot of use. The set I got nestles, it is a set of concentric circles, and stores back in the can. It was about $15 and my daughter loves the smaller ones, she uses them to make cookies for her animal friends and dolls.
FWIW - I find using tuna cans easy - or just roll your (refrigerated) cookie dough into a log, and cut it in slices for consistent sizes.
Here is something I recently picked up from Amazon - custom cookie cutters - so for under $20 you can make custom shapes without having to buy several different sets to get the shapes you need!
http://www.amazon.com/International-Design-Your-Cookie-Cutter/dp/B002WC8Y3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292618629&sr=8-1
I know it's been a while since this was posted but I thought I would add an answer relevant to 2015:
These days you can custom print your own cookie cutters using a 3D printer. While initially the cost is steep (like $1000 or so for a decent one) - You can make so many cool things with these things for pennies once you're up and running. But of course, we don't all bathe in riches. It's like a yacht, it's better to know someone with one than to own it yourself.
I recently bought a 3D printed birthday cookie cutter set from things4thinkers.com for $14.99 and made some awesome cookies for my daughters. Considering it was a custom order I feel $14.99 was cheap. Plus they have a bunch of other pre-made but uncommon cutters which range from like $5 to $15. I asked how much a custom cutter would be looking like a cartoon of my daughter and they said about $25. I think I'm going to do it.
So anyhow, a bag of basic shapes from Toys R Us is about $10 or so. For the common shapes, you'll always find deals in the big box stores and no custom solution will be able to beat their prices. But if you really want to surprise people, see if someone like things4thinkers can make something special for you. It's cheaper than I thought it would be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.567641
| 2010-12-16T14:53:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10201",
"authors": [
"Anitra Randall",
"Arlene Sarappo",
"Cascabel",
"Dalbir Singh",
"Juha Palomäki",
"Mojo",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"Sujith PS",
"Vinayak",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sdg"
],
"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
}
|
19340
|
How long does parmesan sprinkle cheese last in the refrigerator?
My boyfriend says parmesan sprinkle cheese is bad because it has been in the refrigerator for a long time. But I still use it long past it's date and don't seem to have any problems with it. What do you think?
Use-by dates are set as the very minimum time that the product in question will be good for, provided that it is stored properly.
In addition, and as a general rule, because Parmesan is a dry, hard cheese, with very low water content, the use-by date is almost always far shorter than the actual time that the cheese will be good for, again, provided proper storage.
By "parmesan sprinkle cheese", I assume you are referring to the ones that come in a parmesan-wheel shaped box, such as this:
Their shelf life is far longer than their expiry date, and I would not be worried about using it beyond that date. However, for those boxes, most manufacturers tend to use the youngest cheese possible (for Parmesan this means 12 months), meaning it has not had as much time to age (some parmesan is aged for as long as 36 months, and some manufacturers age it for even longer than that), meaning that there isn't much flavor in it.
Personally, I stopped using the boxes a few years back, when I realized that I used far more than I would if I simply used a grater and a piece of parmesan, meaning that it I spend less (if memory serves, I calculated the annual savings to something like 300 Norwegian Kroner/50 US Dollar) on parmesan, getting more, and I think better, flavor from it.
It should be noted that my family uses a LOT of parmesan (depending on how often we have guests, we go through anywhere from 1/4 kg to 1 kg per month), so the savings argument may not hold true for you.
I assumed OP was talking about: http://media.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news_impact/photo/kraft-parmesan-cheese-targeted-by-european-union-5e2bf1136e9d0c0e.jpg
It lasts a long while as long as it's stored properly. I use mine up too fast to have a problem. You may want to freeze half so you don't end up wasting it. It freezes very well.
Hard cheeses naturally contain a lot of salt. I buy the store brand and it contains no preservatives, just cheese and cellulose as a non-caking agent.
Cans of cheese sprinkles are made to be shelf-stable for a longer time than fresh or block cheese (often, this is because the sprinkles are not made with real cheese -- or, if they are, then they also contain a lot of preservatives). The sprinkles should be safe to eat at least through their expiration date if stored properly. That said, any fat in the sprinkles can go rancid and mold can take hold well before the expiration date. If the contents of the can smell bad or the color of the sprinkle changes, don't take any chances; the cost of replacing the can is far lower than the cost of sickness.
Kraft's website says they pasteurize or heat treat all their cheeses to kill bacteria and they are confident they are safe to eat. That includes their Kraft Parmesan grated cheese in the shaker container sold in the unrefrigerated aisle. Some brands I've seen don't say on the bottle "refrigerate after opening." Kraft does for legal protection, just to be safe from lawsuits because if you live in a very hot and humid climate (like Florida where I am), the opened container will absorb more moisture from the air and will begin to degrade sooner, also because of the heat. Hard Parmesan cheese was first mentioned in the literature in the fourteenth century, obviousy long before refrigerators were invented. So, as far as Kraft pre-grated cheese is concerned, any bacteria would have to come from an external source to begin to cause a problem, as the company claims it is sold bacteria free. The cooler temperature helps keep the flavor fresh.
James, welcome! Could you include a link to the website you mention? That would be really helpful. And as for all new members, let me suggest you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more about the site. Looking forward to more contributions from you!
The rule with hard cheeses is you don't want to eat the moldy bits. This is easy to avoid when the cheese is in a block because you can just cut the moldy part off. With already ground cheese, the whole can is suspect the second you see any mold at all. That said, the agreed upon time is 3 months past the date on the package. I've used the cheese for longer than that myself but I can't recommend doing so.
I've also used the cheese for longer and although it still seems to be safe (assuming it's the Kraft cheese, with a ton of preservatives), but develops a very distinctive off-flavour after a long enough time. I don't think it's rancidity, or even mold, it just tastes like cardboard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.568088
| 2011-12-03T06:27:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19340",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"CCMorales",
"Chris T.R.",
"Jeremiah Summers",
"John",
"Julian",
"Kelly",
"Preston",
"Stephie",
"clemp6r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87148"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4638
|
Lobster, steamed Saturday afternoon, eaten Monday night?
Pretty much what it sounds like. 1.25 pound whole Maine lobster cooked mid-day on Saturday and refrigerated until Monday evening. Still in the shell, claws, tail, and all. Still good?
I normally assume proteins will hold for 3-4 days, but I'm not as trusting with fish as meats, and I'm even more suspicious of shellfish. Is that hunch justified?
why the lag between cooking and eating?
Actually, it was for someone else, who wasn't around, and i wanted to know, if I should eat it, if they wouldn't be back in time.
According to stilltasty.com two days is the max, so you'll be fine as long as you refrigerated it within two hours of cooking.
Other sources claim durations of 4-5 days. As sarge suggests, use your nose.
Other sources:
http://www.lobsterhelp.com/lobster-facts.html
http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tan/x5887e/x5887e01.htm
@roux: Thanks! I generally trust stilltasty, though they tend to be a bit conservative. Updated my answer.
When in doubt, use your nose. If your shellfish develops a different smell after cooking you should be leery of eating it. That actually applies to all proteins that are cooked by themselves. Also any changes to texture and any visible changes to the surface should also be cause for alarm. Fridged food has very different spoilage rates depending on how constant the temp in your fridge remains, so you should always use those internet guidelines as maximums in stead of guarantees. (The website writer isn't going to be the one hugging the toilet if their wrong after all)
totally true... I was more saying that you need to use more than a generic "use by this" to test your food for freshness or you're still running the risk of eating something thats going to make you regret it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.568485
| 2010-08-09T14:08:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4638",
"authors": [
"Dr. Hilarius",
"Ocaasi",
"Shams Shafiq",
"chipcullen",
"dahbearz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8938",
"jwan",
"sarge_smith",
"turbonerd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6781
|
Should you "rest" a roast?
I recently made roast beef that cooked for ~ 8 hours. I took it out of the crockpot and let it sit for about 10 minutes. Then I sliced it into pieces and we ate it. It was pretty good. The leftovers were packed away. The odd thing was the next day at lunch, the meat, which seemed uniformly brown the day before, was now a nice pinkish color in the middle (keep in mind I had cut the entire thing, so the slice I'm eating is brown on the outside and pink on the inside, maybe 1/2 thick). It also seemed much more tender.
What happened here? The leftover roast seemed much better than the meat from the night before. I am discounting the probability that the roast beef fairy came by and swapped out our leftovers with better ones. Should I have let the roast rest longer? What is the procedure for letting something cooked at such low temperatures rest anyways? It's not like a steak that was cooked at high temperature on a grill.
The roast beef fairy does exist, well maybe... I just find that when you're cooking food you become slightly desensitised to the flavours and aromas and that when you tried the dish from cold or reheating it will be a quicker process and the taste will be fresher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.568668
| 2010-09-05T18:50:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6781",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"tonylo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41497
|
If I have large calamari tentacles, can I achieve the same taste and texture as with small ones?
I've tried cooking large calamari tentacles (about 2in at their thickest) with little success. The first time I tried the classic fast-grilling method, but, obviously, they came out raw in the middle. Then I cut 0.4in rondelles out of it and tried it again, ending up with rubber food.
My third attempt was to try the octopus cooking method, so I simmered the cuts for about half an hour and then grilled them for a few minutes. This had the best result as far as tenderness goes, but the taste was nowhere near what I wanted.
Can these be used to get the same taste as in regular-sized, fast-grilled calamari or should I try a different recipe?
possible duplicate of how do you cook calamari/squid and avoid making it tough
I think this is not a duplicate. At least, the question body shows a much more specific problem: the OP obviously already has a method for small tentacles and wants similar results with the large ones, as shown by the part about the slow boil not producing the expected result. So I edited the title to be more in line with the body and less similar to the old question.
Calamari or squid is of course famous for being difficult to cook, because it gets tough or rubbery.
As Harold McGee explains in On Food and Cooking, octopus and squid meat are very rich in collagen:
They are chewy when lightly cooked, tough when cooked to the
denaturing temperatures of their collagen, around 120 - 130 F / 50 -
55 C, and become tender with long, slow cooking.
The trick then is to either:
Cook them minimally, so they do not begin to toughen. This Serious Eats recipe for fried calamari recommends no more than one minute.
My own interpretation of this is that it will keep the temperature of the squid below the 120 F threshold, at the risk of being below the pathogen kill point, so it should be done only with squid from a trustworthy purveyor.
Cook them for a long time, slowly, as in a braise, so they move through the tough phase to tender again. This Food Network recipe for stuffed squid by Ann Burrell is an example. The total squid cooking time is 20 to 25 minutes.
Trying to make a large squid taste the same a small squid would with fast cooking methods like frying is going to be very challenging.
The key obstacle to overcome is that the larger squid are going to have more connective tissue (collagen) in the meat, and will be fundamentally a tougher piece of seafood. They simply are more suitable for slow cooking methods, which can be delicious in their own right, but are a different outcome.
If you do wish to experiment, your best bet would be to slice the tentacles very thinly, maybe only 1/8 of an inch, and flash fry them quickly. You may have better success with the bodies, which are not as tough as the tentacles.
This is my answer from the proposed duplicate question, which applies 100% to this question as well, the only difference being the size of the squid, which makes braising techniques more likely to be the right ones. The other question mentioned baby squid in the body, but not the question heading, and that really isn't germane to the nature of the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.568797
| 2014-01-27T09:52:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41497",
"authors": [
"Aresverde",
"David Kelley",
"Enoch Antwi",
"Liam Kim",
"Ray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96740",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71847
|
How to choose a vinegar substitute if I only keep balsamic and rice vinegar?
Sometimes it happens to me that in a recipe a certain vinegar is required and I don't have the right one at hand, but a variety of other ones to choose from. So my question is, in terms of taste, which vinegars are closest to each other?
I usually have balsamic and rice vinegar in stock and usually need to replace or like to replace: white vinegar, white wine vinegar, malt vinegar
That's pretty broad - perhaps you should concentrate on a specific substitute? Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
@Stephie thanks! see edit (v2), is that any better?
http://www.foodsubs.com/Vinegars.html
Ferment honey to a juice made from honey and then from that you can get honey vinegar, which is similar to a white wine vinegar.
Within the range of acidity, most vinegars will be reasonably able to substitute for each other, in terms of the foods' chemistry. That means substituting vinegars with similar levels of acid (given as percentages) for each other, or calculating the equivalent amount if the percentages differ. They will differ in terms of the the flavors they give to the dish, but the difference is unlikely to be severe unless the dish is leaning heavily on those flavors, as in, it is a primary flavoring ingredient.
First, there's white vinegar or distilled vinegar - that contains the acidic component of vinegar (acetic acid), but is very neutral in flavor. It can be substituted for any other vinegar for the dish's chemistry... although the percentage of acid is higher, I think, so less will be needed for the same effect. Substituting for this vinegar might be trickier, if the recipe depends on the neutral flavor not competing with other flavors in the dish. Probably white wine or rice vinegar would be closest.
(white) Rice vinegar is described as mild, clean, delicately flavored. It will probably substitute fairly well for white vinegar or white wine vinegar - although it has less acid, and more will be needed for the same effect. The red and black varieties are very different, and I'm not quite sure how they would substitute - perhaps red would be close to apple cider vinegar, while black - no clue, possibly balsamic if its the same as "chinese black" vinegar.
There are a number of, hm, alcoholic named vinegars. Red wine vinegar and white wine vinegar, sherry vinegar, champagne vinegar, and so on. These are generally equivalent to each other - well, they taste different from each other, but a similar range of tastes, I think. They are a little less acidic, and add some fruit flavors to the mix, a little more dry rather than sweet. The alcohol they're made of determines what other flavors get added - not just the broad types (red, white, sherry), but also the quality of wine initially used. Lighter colored (like white) should tend to be milder flavored and more acidic, I think, and darker (like red) should be sweeter and more strongly flavored as a general trend.
Malt vinegar is nutty and toasty, mild and a bit sweet. probably the best substitute would be apple cider vinegar, which is also a little bit sweeter with a fruity taste. By sweeter I mean a little bit sweeter than the wine vinegars, but much less so than balsamic. I would guess red wine vinegar is in roughly the same category of fairly strongly flavored, and a bit sweeter.
Balsamic vinegar has a very distinct taste - it is much sweeter than other vinegars, enough that it is usually substituted with the equivalent amount of other vinegar and a third as much sweetener. It is really not able to substitute for other vinegars unless that extra sweetness can be dealt with somehow. I recently saw a comment that chinese black vinegar might be a reasonable substitute for balsamic, though I have no experience in this.
So, your (white) rice vinegar will probably substitute for white or white wine vinegar just fine, and not need a lot of adjustment - if any at all. The recipes will come out a little different, but not necessarily badly. Your balsamic won't substitute at all, sorry - it's too strongly flavored. You might pick up one of the apple cider/malt/red wine/red rice (and/or black rice?) group of vinegar to stand for something flavored but less sweet, if you have a lot of recipes needing that kind of vinegar - or just use your rice vinegar, and plan to make up the loss of flavor in other ways.
rice vinegar has a lower % acid than other vinegars, which can really screw up a recipe that involves pickling or chemical leavening.
@Joe - I did mention the range of acidity needs to be similar for the recipes to work chemically, but looking back I should be clearer. Thanks for reminding me, I'll edit it accordingly.
Rice vinegar is always around 4% while most other vinegars (not sure about balsamic) are near 6%, so it's rarely a straight substitution. It's easier to swap white wine / red wine / white / cider / malt, even though they taste different.
Actually, all (natural) vinegars are “alcoholic”: Acetobacter needs ethanol to produce acetic acid.
@leftaroundabout - fair enough. I know vinegar production starts with alcoholic fermentation, and needs a second process to make vinegar. I was mainly referring to the names. That cluster is the ones whose names sound alcoholic (wine, sherry, champagne), and which I usually end up treating as interchangeable - the rest have names that don't have that connotation to my ear (rice, malt, balsamic, cider), and I can pick out the individual characteristics better, for whatever reason.
Rice vinegar is similar to white and white wine vinegar. Balsamic vinegar has such a distinctive taste I would be careful about using it as a substitute. I have cider vinegar and red wine vinegar on hand at all times. These are so inexpensive there's really no reason not to have them. Cider could be substituted for malt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.569104
| 2016-08-03T14:15:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71847",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Stephie",
"Wolpertinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leftaroundabout",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73300
|
milk chocolate brownie turned out hard and very chewy
I made milk chocolate brownie today, intended for a 9x9 inch pan, but in a 8x8 inch pan. Although I have made these brownies before and they were perfect but did not know what went wrong today. The recipe requires melting milk chocolate and butter together in double pan. Maybe I mixed hot chocolate mixture in the rest of the ingredients. Dont know what went wrong. Can you tell why the brownie texture was hard and chewy like candy?
The recipe calls for melting 1/2 cup butter and 4oz chocolate indirectly. Mixing up 3/4 cup sugar 2 eggs, vanilla and then pour in chocolate mixture when it cools down. One thing I did different was that I did not let the milk chocolate and butter to cool down properly. Then blending in dry ingredients. And remaining 4oz milk chocolate in the mixture. Secondly this time I didn't put the batter immediately in the oven. I had some work so it took me ten or more minutes. The cake was very crunchy. I usually use 8 by 8 circular pan but this time I used a larger square pan
We are going to need the full recipe and process if we're going to help you. Since you've had success in the past, can you think a bit more about anything that could have been different?
What pan did you use?
Hello Zukhraf, our site has a strict one question - many answers format, and each new post has to be an answer, not something else. When you wish to clarify your question, you can use the small grey "edit" link on the left side under the text. I edited the information which you posted as an answer into the body of your question. Self-answering is preserved for when you find out the solution to your problem yourself and want to share it with others. I also did not quite understand if you used a 9x9 inch or 8x8 inch pan, you can edit that if I got it wrong.
It is likely that skipping the cooling step is the problem. The more you cook sugar, the harder and more candy-like it gets. There is a good possibility that the sugar in the chocolate ended up being over-cooked because it was not allowed to cool before you proceeded with the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.569524
| 2016-08-21T17:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73300",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42976
|
Is there a downside to tenderizing meat?
I'm specifically asking about manual or mechanical tenderization prior to cooking, as with a meat tenderizer (also called a mallet). Wikipedia says
Tenderizing meat with the mallet softens the fibers, making the meat easier to chew, and easier to digest. It is useful when preparing particularly tough cuts of steak, and works well when broiling or frying the meat.
This makes pounding or mashing meat sound like a magic bullet that can never go wrong. I've learned the hard way that there is no such thing in a kitchen: a sufficiently inventive cook (such as yours truly) can find a way to ruin any recipe.
I recently purchased a steak from a meat counter, and the butcher offered to run it through their tenderizer. I imagined a machine equivalent to a robotic hammer array and agreed. However, I was surprised to find when I opened the package at home that the machine had actually cut a large number of closely spaced striations part way through the steak.
How does this differ from a pounding tenderization process? Is there a guide to which types of meat work better with which types of tenderization? Are there some cuts or species of meat that don't respond well to tenderizing? What are the pitfalls when using either process? Can you over-pound or over-slice a cut of meat and damage it or cause it to toughen? Does manual tenderizing conflict with other types of tenderization (e.g. brasing, enzymatic, brining, marinating etc.)?
Right now, the only downside to manual tenderizing that I can think of is the time and effort required to pound it out. I've been meaning to pick up a meat mallet and wanting to go nuts experimenting, but I'm hoping to avoid any mistakes.
As an aside, I think the site could benefit from a [tag:tenderize] tag.
Almost any cut of meat can be pounded--very thin steaks commonly called cutlets or scallopini are made from tender cuts being pounded thin. This is most often done with chicken or pork, but you will also find, for example, medallions of beef tenderloin pounded to get them into a uniform shape and size.
Obviously, this is work to do, and changes the shape (and thus the cooking properties) of the cut involved, but does not really have a negative effect.
Your butcher did not pound the meat. Instead, he ran it through a commercial version of a jacquard meat tenderizer. The home version looks like this, with many small pointy blades or needles to penetrate the meat:
Picture from Chef's Catalog
They are used to create many, many small cuts in the meat, physically severing the connective tissue and making it more tender. The most frequent home use is to make cube steakl; they are also often employed in making chicken fried steak.
The many small holes may also help the steak absorb some seasoning from a marinade.
Is there a guide to which types of meat work better with which types of tenderization?
Tender cuts like chicken breasts, beef filet, pork loin, and so on don't need any tenderization. THey may be pounded to reshape them, but there is no real requirement.
Tough cuts, typically beef, may be physically pounded or subjected to the tender mercies of the jacquard tenderizer in order to render them easier to eat and more succulent when they are being used for a rapid cooking method like chicken fried steak. If they are being used in a low and slow method, like braising or barbecuing, there is no point and the many small holes would be a detriment as they would allow more moisture to be expressed.
Can you over-pound or over-slice a cut of meat and damage it or cause it to toughen?
Yes, eventually you will reduce it to shreds, or make to thin and unattractive.
Does manual tenderizing conflict with other types of tenderization (e.g. brasing, enzymatic, brining, marinating etc.)?
Firstly, neither brining nor marinating tenderize, ever, unless there is acid or an active enzymatic ingredient in the marinade to do it.
Braising (and other low and slow methods) work by converting the connective tissue protein collagen into gelatin, thus making the cut succulent and tender, despite being very well done. IF you are going to do this, there simply is no point in mechanical tenderization.
Enzymatic tenderization works by denaturing the proteins in the meat, and if over done will turn them to mush. It also works only at the surface, unless left long enough to penetrate--but then the surface will mushy. Using a jacquard might be helpful in getting an enzymatic marindate to penetrate and act on some of the interior of the cut, but I personally do not like the outcome from enzymatic treatments, and never use them.
It's worth noting that acidic marinades can actually make meat tougher if the acid is strong enough to denature the proteins.
I think your response about tenderizing the meat that it had been done with a Jacquard was incorrect. From the description he gave when he opened the package sounds more like the butcher ran it thru a cuber.
I've tried both micro-cut jacquard-style tenderized chuck steak, and pounded chuck steak, and I am of the firm believe that the small bits of meat never get tenderized. After the first bite, your molars will experience the tough fibers anyway. Neither works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.569712
| 2014-03-24T18:50:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42976",
"authors": [
"Dacio",
"James Quaintance",
"Meat Man",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72958",
"ishika varma",
"janet semple",
"mike",
"tgm1024--Monica was mistreated"
],
"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
}
|
110892
|
Do modern ovens bake the same as the old ones? Is the new oven the reason popovers don't rise?
My popovers always popped over perfectly tall and golden using an old recipe handed down from the 40's, which called for baking at 400 °F and using old-fashioned glass custard cups. Now with my new electric oven, the popovers do not rise at all using this same method. They look like flat yellow pancakes. I've tested the oven temperature and had the oven checked professionally. Do the new modern ovens bake differently the old ones?
You say "new electric oven", do you mean that the old one wasn't electric?
The old oven was electric as well. I've also had great success with a gas oven using the same method. I've since purchased a popover pan--still no success with this recipe. I've even suspected the eggs--EB brand v. store brand. I'm going to try baking today at a much higher temperature an using the new popover pan.
Finished making the popovers. At 450 for 15 minutes, then 350 for 15 minutes. The popovers rose somewhat, but were not hollow inside, but more like a heavy dinner roll. Has anyone had this experience? Popovers always were high, golden, light, hollow and delicately crispy on the outside. I'm about to give up. I used 2 eggs, 1/2 cup milk and flour, pinch salt. Made 5 popovers that didn't exactly popover. Seriously, I had the heating element and the thermostat replaced in the new oven a week ago after trying 8 times to make popovers.
For any fellow Germans, apparently the German equivalent is *Pfitzauf.*.
I'd guess it's not the new oven that's wrong, but the old one.
Older ovens has less accurate thermometers & were maybe 20° hotter at the top than the bottom. The chances are your hand-me-down recipe was based on this phenomenon & your new one is accurate… & therefore not hot enough.
I'd never heard of popovers until 10 minutes ago, but reading through recipes online, they seem to be exactly same as Yorkshire Puddings, just served with sweet toppings instead of roast beef & gravy. [How two sides of the Atlantic arrived at that difference, I'll never know nor understand ;)
Most say to use 450°F [230°C] which is more like I'd use for Yorkies - in fact for Yorkies, the hotter the better, preheat your tins too. My rule of thumb has always been, once everything else is done [roast dinner, remember;) just turn the heat to max, add your oil & put your tins in the top half [high as you can but leaving room to rise], then give it 15 mins to come up to temperature. The oil should be smoking before you drop your batter.
Pour quickly & get that door shut. Once in, never open the door until they're ready.
After comments
I've never known anyone to drop the temperature half-way through [but then again, 'crispy' is not something I'd want from a yorkie [only supermarkets & restaurants think they should be crispy, ordinary Yorkshire folks don't]), but I still think you're not getting enough heat into them right at the start.
Maybe your oven really does slump the temperature easily; maybe you've got the door open too long or the element isn't fast enough to get back up to temperature; tins aren't hot enough to start with.
I'd try at least once with the oven simply "on full" - whatever it thinks it can go to - but watch it doesn't switch mode right at the top. if I turn mine full then back it switches to rotisserie/fan grill rather than 'oven'. That might be a little excessive ;)
Popovers are a lot like yorkies, a bit eggier and fluffier, and if they are crispy you've done it wrong.
Thank you! The recipes are the same except that Yorkshire pudding uses beef drippings for flavour. They are delicious.
tbh, I haven't used beef dripping for anything since my mum used to use it in the 70's ;-) Veggie oil these days.
@Tetsujin: In Yorkshire until recently yorkshire puddings would often be served with jam as a cheap desert - so the chef at the kitchen in Haworth where I worked as a teenager told me.
I could imagine someone perhaps doing that - but in my 60 years as a Yorkshireman, I've never actually seen it done :)
@Tetsujin I was brought up looong ago just north of the Tees where dessert was often yorkshires with milk and sugar or treacle (golden syrup), and often the yorkshire pudding was one large pudding rather than individual.
The "a Yorkshireman is like a Scot, but without the generosity" serving method was Yorkshire pudding with treacle as a starter, so you could get away with serving a smaller main course.
We were given popovers at a restaurant in Minnesota on a business trip a few years ago, served with butter instead of bread rolls. We thought it was hilarious that anyone would serve a Yorkshire pudding like that. Equally the staff had no idea that Yorkshire puddings existed, and that someone in America had renamed and repurposed them, which was even funnier. It was as incomprehensible as someone saying "Hey, I've just invented this minced-beef patty which you can grill."
@user20637 - Leeds born & bred. Yorkies were always made in loaf tins. Those tiny round ones were invented in the South, I'm certain of it ;) Aleph - Yorkies were always a starter in our house, but with gravy, never sweet. Pancakes were also never sweet. I still can't eat sweet ones; it just seems wrong to the depth of my being ;)
One thing to check is whether the new oven has "convection" baking features, and if so, if they might be turned on.
My wife and I have an oven with a convection baking mode. A fan blows the hot air around inside the oven. For roasting meats, the convection baking is great; but we have found that for anything baked that we want to rise, we get much less rising when convection is enabled.
My theory is that the convection baking slams more heat into the food more quickly, causing a crust to form, making it harder for the food to rise. This article cites an expert saying pretty much the same thing as my theory:
https://skillet.lifehacker.com/your-convection-setting-may-not-be-the-best-choice-for-1826800725
Convection AND up/down/up+down modes. Up+Down might be default in new one, while old oven might have heated only from bottom (or back).
This can be tested by placing the custard cups inside another closed pot/pan so the convection does not affect them.
Well, in my oven at least, I can see the fan in the back, and I can see if it's spinning, and on the control panel there's a fan icon that lights up with a little animation to look like it's spinning. So on my oven it's easy to tell if you check.
The new oven is quite likely the reason they won't rise, but I wouldn't say that the difference is strictly on the lines of "old" and "new".
Beside Tetsujin's great point about thermostats being inaccurate, not all ovens bake the same. Even if you are able to reach the same average temperature of the air, the rate of heating for your baked good can vary considerably depending on the physical properties of the oven even with the door closed. Also, when you open the door to place the food in, this interferes with heating, and different ovens can be affected to a different level.
Popovers need to be baked rapidly at a high temperature in order to rise. It appears that your new oven, for whatever reasons, is not heating up the popovers as quickly as the old one. You can try using a higher temperature, or use the usual tricks for increasing the heat exchange rate (preheated metal, or even cast iron molds, using a pizza stone, etc.)
If the newer oven has better insulation than the older oven, then it may have a less powerful heating element to reach the same temperatures (lower wattage). This would also mean that a (relatively) cold item in the oven would take longer to heat up.
You can mitigate this with a "thermal mass", such as a large, flat rock that has been properly cleaned just like any cookware. The large mass of the rock will store thermal energy, and you want it flat to increase the surface area so that it could dissipate that energy quickly.
Basically, you're suggesting that the OP use a pizza stone in their oven?
@nick012000: No, a pizza stone is to be cooked on, and it goes into the oven cold with the food. I am talking about a device that stores the heat energy of a hot oven, so that when the cold food is put inside the oven can return to full temperature again quickly.
That’s what a pizza stone does, though, when you put it into the oven during the preheating phase, though, right?
@nick012000 If pizza stones are used during preheating, then yes the pizza stone would add thermal mass. And being so large and flat, they should do a very good job of disappointing that energy when needed.
@dotancohen: You put the stone in cold with the food? To my knowledge, the whole point of the pizza stone is to be preheated so as to produce a crisp crust; you may as well not use one if you're putting it in cold.
@ShadowRanger: I've never used one! I looked them up, the first paragraph implies that only "sometimes" is the stone ever preheated. Maybe I'll look into getting one for the children, they've been do the cooking since lockdown began!
I use a heavy pizza stone to even out temperature cycles in my oven.
Depending on the brand and model of your oven, you may have one calibrated with a slow "bounce back" from opening the door.
A few years back, there was a surprisingly expensive Delonghi model that, after you'd opened the door of the oven and put something in, would wait for 10 minutes before it engaged the element to bring the heat back up. I found out about this specifically because friends on another cooking forum bought this model and discovered that they couldn't cook anything that required a lot of oven spring ... like popovers.
I'd suggest researching your oven model, and even calling the manufacturer's tech support line. Also, if you can get an instant-read corded thermometer, like a Thermoworks, and use that to check the temperature of the oven minute-to-minute, you can see how long it takes the oven to get back up to temperature.
Why on earth would anyone make an oven do this?!
No clue. The manufacturer refused to explain their supposed logic.
Truly amazing; whoever decided this was a good idea clearly doesn't bake much. Thanks for this answer, now I know to beware of "bounce back" before buying an oven!
One other possible difference between two given ovens, even of the same type, can be how airtight or not they are, creating difference in how moisture is kept or not kept within the oven.
Plenty of good thoughts already, but here's (hopefully) another couple.
First, the multiple temperature process. Given the good chance the oven is not "bouncing back" quickly enough, as FuzzyChef suggested, Setting the higher temp to start, so the oven is hotter when opened, dropping less while open, might help. But instead of backing off for a 15@450/15@350 approach, experiment, holding it longer at 450. I say that since you DID see some rise when beginning at 450. And dropping to 350 when the old standard was 400 throughout kind of sounds more like trying to average 400 overall than a good plan. So when dropping, perhaps shoot for 400, instead of lower.
But there is another thought here, from rackandboneman, about moisture. And that sounds really on target. After all, there is literally nothing in the recipe to make something rise in the oven EXCEPT steam produced inside the popover as it cooks. It would want to push all directions (something that might be useful in other circumstances) but cannot at all downward, and mostly not sideways, so it pushes upward, mostly. That's the rise. What would cause that to be dampened? The moisture not becoming steam. How would that be helped?
Hotter oven, yes, though crusting would limit the effect. A nice top crusting beginning to form would give it a "plate" to push up on instead of puncturing the top like a slow boil would in a tomato sauce's surface, and I wager this is how the crust came to be desired, but too much heat and the sides would begin to harden limiting any rise. The hotter their container to begin with, the sooner that'd be an issue too.
But mostly, it seems that water would "leak out", evaporating or steaming away rather than staying inside and forcing it upwards. One could limit that in a pop bottle but an oven is an open system, basically, with vents so one is limited on using something like a shallow pan, say a cookie sheet, of water that would raise the moisture in the oven's air hoping to lower the rate of water loss in the popover. It could also make the popover surface softer instead of hardening. But then, maybe that's actually the secret to the non-hard Yorkshire puddings mentioned, a higher moisture content in the air... hmmm...
So my suggestion is severalfold. First, raise the preheat to, say, the 450. Experiment with longer times at the 450 before backing it down. Only back it down toward the 400 (not only since some kind of average is not the goal here, but because the old oven was always bottoming out at 400, not lower like 350!). In addition, raise the moisture available, but slowly. Maybe try the cookie sheet thing, but mostly I mean try the regular recipe with the above heating approach and see how it goes. The next time, try adding perhaps a teaspoon of milk to the half cup. Or tablespoon at a time, but a little extra moisture goes a LONG way sometimes (think about how it affects scrambled egges). Use the same heat approach and see if they rise better. My guess is they might.
You can also monitor the temperature to see how quickly it comes back and when it hits 400. Even just a candy thermometer that you can read through the glass gives you a better idea than nothing. When it seems to not plan to go back below 400, that'd be a good time to lower the temp to 400.
Another thought would be, and I don't make these things so I cannot say myself, but to an extent, the warmer the batter can be before entering the oven, the sooner its moisture would start to evaporate or steam so the sooner it would begin rising vs. the sides hardening enough restrict the rise. You want, I believe, the moisture to all lend itself to the rising before leaving the popover, rather than slowly heating and evaporating away without enough expansion beforehand to force the popover to rise. So an non-intuitive thought akin to the old "boil in a bag" foods would be to use a water bath to raise its temp from room temp to at least body temp, or higher if it does not seem to alter the dough's other properties might help as well. Not enough to begin cooking it, but... some experimenting would be needed if you tried it.
The internet seems to think the milk itself can be 125° when added. Hotter and maybe the eggs cook so... but once it's all a batter/dough, it seems like the eggs would have tempered and the extra heating so raise the dough's entire temp might work.
Greasing can affect the idea as well. Not in the sense of arguing should it be shortening, butter, some oil or another, but rather in the sense that grease/oil contains water, with butter supposedly being 20-25% water. A lower water content in the material up against the dough would help more moisture to escape than a higher water content material. Seems a higher water content material might also help against burning the bottoms or sides so perhaps two reasons to consider that. Or it might be negligible vs. the overall problem. One other thought would be moisture is directly available to leave in oils while in greases like butter or shortening, it has to break out of the matrix which might slow its release. That might be helpful too. Lots of people like to use oil rather than "waste" shortening or especially butter.
But try the heat and see. Try extra milk or even just water directly. I bet between the two you're back in business. And then there's warming the batter, more wholly since a water bath could wrap around it like the air in the oven rather than concentrate like a pan's heat, on the bottom. No matter how calibrated controls are, its the heat you actually experience at the food that matters so think about monitoring that to see what affects its moving to a consistent state ("consistent" in that it is smooth at doing whatever it might do, rising or staying stable for a time). The steam inside thing is likely tricky and subject to a tipping point. Monitoring the temp at the product and seeing it stabalize might give you a temp to maintain, or just below. After all, if the steam is all being produced at once at the high end of it, then the slow rise will be less while backing off to a wee bit below that point might keep them steaming longer and so rising longer, and "better."
Thank you so very much for your attention, time and effort on this perplexing matter. I will give this a try. I use Crisco to grease the pans and the popovers never stick and fall right out--even when I used glass baking cups. I'll let you know what happens. Your suggestions are really interesting and make a lot of sense. Thank you again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.570549
| 2020-09-28T14:39:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110892",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Graham",
"Jordan Gray",
"PTwr",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"ShadowRanger",
"SusanMary",
"Tetsujin",
"alephzero",
"dotancohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87846",
"nick012000",
"rtaft",
"rumtscho",
"steveha",
"tellis",
"user20637"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24359
|
About Farm Chicken
For two years, I've been eating chicken grown up in farms. They don't taste like village chicken (chickens raised in villages here eating natural food). Why not? Are there any differences besides flavor?
where are you from, and where was your village? Chicken is different all around the world, just like most other foods. Tough (firm?) chicken is usually a sign of older chicken (typically egg laying hens), or badly cooked chicken
Me from India.Normally where some chickens are grown up by eating special food,care, this place is called firm.
Sorry, what is your question? If you are asking whether farm chickens are healthy, we must close the question, as healthy diet is offtopic per [faq].
I think that the OP is referring to 'battery chickens'.
I'm definitely seeing the phrase "chicken firm" on google but I'm having trouble pinning down a definition. The question definitely seems to be about differences between crate-raised chicken and free-range local chicken, however, and not about the texture of the meat.
Tahmina, I've edited your question to remove all mention of health, which is off-topic. I'm still not completely confident what you mean by "grown up in firm", so I left that alone. Please feel free to edit the question further to clarify that or anything else. (I'm happy to edit the English again, so don't worry too much about that, just try to explain clearly.)
In the food industry, animals are grown with a food supply that maximizes their weight to time ratio, so that they weight the most in the least amount of time.
These animals are young and are unlikely to have produced any real notable flavor by the time they are on market.
Going out on a limb, "village" chicken is like when someone has had this chicken for a few years, such as for laying eggs, and is retiring the bird. If so, this animal has not only probably been eating a different diet ( and thus having a different or stronger flavor ), but is also likely to be older, giving it time to build up a flavor.
here village chicken is which chicken are not grown up in firm,eat natural food
Home chicken growers indeed eat their old egglayers, but these are nowhere near sufficient for the meat needs of a family. It is normal for people living in villages to hatch many chickens specifically as meat animals and to slaughter them early, retaining only a few egg layers each year.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.571914
| 2012-06-11T09:36:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24359",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fran",
"Karen",
"Mae Matthe",
"No'am Newman",
"TFD",
"Tahmina",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"jkp1187",
"orthocresol",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102409
|
Making Eggs for 50 people
My first time, making scrambled eggs for buffet, my company brought in box of liquid eggs, to be cooked in deep stove top pan. Any suggestions of what needs to be done, how much butter, milk, how to cook without burning them, etc... All help is appreciated...
Do you have access to a steamer or do you have to use a pan on the stove?
no steamer, usually the cook uses large round deep pan, he is sick and I am the only one that back him up
Funny thing is, you can pretty much calculate how much time you need to cook. Say you have 10kg of egg, and that's 1010004.2/2000=1350 seconds (10kg of egg, roughly same heat property as water(4.2j per gram per degree), rising from 4C(fridge temp) to 70C(cooked temp), over a high heat stove with 2000W output. This is actually a long time and you will be watching and stirring all the time. Maybe you can pour all the eggs into the oven and preheat the eggs to something like 50C then finish the cooking on the stove top to 70C.
I highly recommend using a steamer if you have access to one, but if you don't have it, you don't have it. The good news is that the process for making scrambled eggs on the stove is about the same no matter how many eggs you're making - add as much beaten eggs as you're comfortable stirring in the pan, cook over low heat stirring occasionally.
The major tips/gotchas that I can think of:
Open all your egg cartons at once before you start cooking. The last thing you want to be doing is fighting with packaging material when you need eggs quickly
Low heat, be patient, stir frequently but not constantly. Once every couple minutes should be fine depending on the size of your pot - it shouldn't be hard to figure out if you need to be stirring more or less frequently. However, don't forget to stir. This is probably the biggest way for things to come out less than perfectly. If you get distracted and forget to stir the eggs for too long, the ones at the bottom of the pot can start to develop the same green off-color as overcooked hard boiled egg yolks. It's perfectly safe to eat but who wants to eat green eggs?
You mention butter but unless you're adding it for flavor it's honestly not necessary. When you're done there's going to be eggs stuck to the pan no matter what you do. Don't stress yourself out about it.
One tip - if your eggs are cooked more than you want them to be but not at the turning green stage, you have some wiggle room in whisking in uncooked beaten eggs into the overcooked eggs. The heat from the cooked eggs and further hot holding will cook the raw eggs and it will distract somewhat from the overcooked bits. It's not perfect but it's "good enough" and it can help you save a chafing dish of eggs that you'd otherwise have to throw out.
That's really all there is too it. If you have more eggs than you can comfortable fit in the pot, you'll have to do it in batches but all that means is "cook eggs, dump into chafing dish/hotel pan, start cooking more eggs."
One other tip: if you're starting with whole eggs (and the OP seems not to be) breaking over 100 eggs takes longer than you think, and the yolks tend to stay whole once you're dropping them into a pan with lots in already. Then you end up chasing them round the pan to break them up.
If you're breaking whole eggs, break all of them into a china cap over a bucket before cooking anything.
I used a small pan, tipping into the big pan every 10 or so eggs - second time I cooked bulk scrambled eggs. The first time was when I had trouble breaking them, though I didn't break them at the stove, I took the pan elsewhere
stirring is important, but you also don't want to lose your curds. If you stir too much, you'll have an egg sauce rather than scrambled eggs. You need to let the eggs setup on the heat, then stir them off the heat so new liquid egg can be cooked.
@Escoce yeah I meant just to stir frequently, not constantly. I'll clarify.
As MikeTheLiar mentioned, a steamer would help for this:
If you have more than one pan to cook them in of the same width & length by different depths, and they're not thin disposable containers, you might try making your own bain marie (double boiler) :
Place the larger one across the burner or two, and put an inch or so of water in it. (you should try for an inch (2.5cm), but you might need less if the depth of the containers is too similar, and placing the top container on forces water out of the lower container).
Put the other container on top.
Once the water is boiling, and you have steam, adjust the temperature so the water is staying hot and generating steam, but not a rolling boil.
Add your oil or butter, let it coat the pan well, then cook the eggs in the top vessel, stirring constantly 'til it's not quite to the consistency you want (as there will be a little bit of carry over-cooking)
...
I've also heard that you can do large batches of scrambled eggs in the oven (350°F/175°C), stir after 10 minutes, then every 5 minutes 'til they're done (technically, not quite done) ... most recipes claim it takes 20-25 minutes.
From personal experience, I have baked scrambled eggs for large numbers of people (100+ in some instances). I used a recipe similar to this, literally the first link that came up when googled. I have used steamers in the past but found the oven easier for consistency sake, without having to seek out new equipment.
While linking to an off-site recipe may be helpful in the short-term, off-site links tend to go dead. Thus, it's likely that at some point in the future the link here will be useless. When that happens, all readers will know is that you found using the oven easier when cooking for large numbers of people, but they won't know how to do it. So, please quote the most important portions of your off-site link.
Thank you @makyen for that illuminating comment. I will be sure to do that in the future. However, as I frequently operate off my phone (currently and at the time of writing that answer) it sometimes is difficult to do so. But, thanks for the advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.572158
| 2019-09-20T13:57:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102409",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Escoce",
"J Crosby",
"Makyen",
"Reggiem",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78616",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7067
|
How should one go about reheating pasta?
Ok, so, I know the answer, "You shouldn't, because it's easy to make it fresh."
But on occasion, I end up making too much pasta, not having enough sauce, etc. and the pasta gets stowed in a tupperware awaiting a secondcoming. Usually it just ends up being packed for lunch and eaten cold. But on those other occasions, when I may like to have it warmed up and served with a sauce of some kind, what would be the best way to go about doing so?
I haven't really experimented yet, but thought maybe putting the pasta in a steamer basket could work well? Has anybody tried this? thoughts?
I'm also curious how do you heat it up without it becoming softer. If you want to keep it al dente, is there a way to do this?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3183/220
easiest way is to mix it with the sauce and heat both up together. Usually I'd do this in a pan, but you could use a microwave.
If you have to heat the pasta up on its own, what I usually do is do it in a pan and add a little boiling water, just a couple of tablespoons, enough to stop it sticking, and keep stirring until its warmed through. If it starts to stick add a little more water.
You could do this in a microwave I'd bet, but I don't have one.
Microwaves + pasta are rarely good eats (too easy to turn it into molten mush). The only thing I do differently is to heat the sauce up on the stove first, and add the pasta back near the end. This way you heat it only as long as needed to warm it, reducing mush.
For small amounts, I have good luck reheating pasta in the microwave with a little butter or your choice of sauce. The moist heat does a good job of allowing the starch granules to soften back up.
In our previous restaurant, there was no way we could cool the pasta fresh for our lunch and supper rush hours. So here's what we did in a nutshell:
Cook the pasta in boiling water for about 5 minutes (way before aldente)
put the pasta, and enough water to cover in a container and throw the container in an ice bath for a few minutes ( rechange the ice of necessary)
put in the fridge.
When you want your lovely pasta:
- Drain as much as you need
- add 1 to 2tbsp of the pasta water to your application
How do you heat it up after you drain it?
I've steamed my pasta -- in fact, it's how I reheated pasta during my years of living without a microwave.
The important part is to not overcook the pasta in the first go through -- pull it when it's al-dente; I'd also toss in some oil or butter so the pasta wouldn't stick together, as you want the pasta loose in the steamer, not a giant glob of fused pasta.
I'd get it most of the way heated through, and then finish it in the sauce. On days I was lazy, if it wasn't a really thick pasta, I'd just heat up the sauce, and put the pasta in for a minute or less to reheat. The important part was that the pasta was oiled so it wasn't a giant lump, and the sauce could get in there to heat the pasta up.
I put it in a plastic storage bag (quart or gallon) and put it in the microwave for 30 seconds to 1 minute (depends on amount I'm heating) and do not seal the bag. This works great and you can store it in the same bag.
If it is a lot of pasta I add an inch or so water to the bottom of my pasta pan and reheat it slowly, stirring occassionally, it usually takes just a couple of minutes to heat. If it is just for me I pop it in the microwave with a little ketchup, I tried adding additional sauce and the microwave always tends to dry it out not so with ketchup.
You could also make any kind of leftover pasta dish like a gratin or a frittata.
Use a half cup of water to one cup of leftover pasta you intend to plate.
Drop desired amount of leftover pasta into appropriate amount of salted/oiled rolling-boil water for 30 seconds (use 1 tsp of EVOO). If you're reheating more than 4 cups of pasta, increase boil time to 45 seconds.
Drain immediately and serve with favorite sauce or topping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.572699
| 2010-09-10T16:42:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7067",
"authors": [
"Big D",
"Bruce Alderson",
"DotPi",
"Dr George Waxter",
"Ghasfarost",
"Joe Germuska",
"Mary Dean",
"aszekely",
"edo",
"garnerra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69406",
"kevins",
"milesmeow",
"ninten",
"pophealth",
"stefanie"
],
"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
}
|
18755
|
Does dry frying tofu really cause tofu to better soak up a marinade?
Does dry frying tofu really cause tofu to better soak up a marinade?
Source: http://melissaraydavis.hubpages.com/hub/How_to_Cook_Tofu_Like_the_Pros
The introduction to that recipe makes me cringe a bit - seems unnecessary to slam everyone else's tofu ("well meant but disastrous") in order to plug a recipe.
@Jefromi I don't know who you have cooking tofu for you, but most every time i've had family or friends try to make it for me, it's certainly been "well meant but disastrous"! It's just a tricky thing to cook if you're not used to dealing with it, but it's a stereotypical vegetarian food, so people sometimes try to have it when they know they are having a veg*n for dinner...
Marinated tofu is essentially a myth perpetrated by well-meaning people who are, in my experience, culturally pretty far removed from cuisines where tofu is heavily used. Tofu is not especially porous, because it's texturally very similar to a custard. Maybe osmotic pressure will result in a little flavor transfer to a custard, but it's not the most efficient way to do it. Marinades are pretty rarely used for tofu in Asia in my experience.
You're more likely to see pan sauces or dipping sauces, or occasionally a topping added after cooking. But people in Japan, China, and Korea will generally expect a much fresher, beanier tasting tofu than you're likely to find in a US supermarket, so there's not as much of an impulse to cover up the flavor. In the US, thanks to generous expiration dates and a fairly unpicky customer base, a lot of tofu sold in supermarkets is slightly soured and just doesn't taste very good.
The primary effect of the dry frying technique on the page that you linked to will be to create a bunch of nooks and crannies and irregularities at the surface of the tofu that will make more of the sauce stick to the surface of the tofu, and the reduced water content will make it less likely for the tofu to break apart. The higher surface area may contribute to the perception of more flavor because you'll have more of whatever salty solution you've seasoned it with on your tongue. But inside the tofu you won't really get much additional flavor.
Freeze-dried tofu removes most of the water from tofu and small holes form where water had previously been. When rehydrated and squeezed, you'll be able to get a lot of a marinade to enter the tofu because there's plenty of ways to get in there. The side effect is that the texture will be completely transformed into a sort of spongy mass, which can be pleasant on occasion but eventually gets a little tedious, so freeze-dried tofu is eaten only rarely and in small quantities in Japan and most of China. It's frequently seen in lamb hot pots in China and occasionally in rustic simmered dishes in Japan. You can come close to the texture by actually freezing your tofu and then pouring boiling water over it a few times, but I usually just buy it from my local Japanese market.
One form of marinated tofu sometimes seen in China involves very aggressively pressed/weighted tofu that's been pushed between a muslin-like cloth for an extended period to drain. It's often soaked or cooked in a soy and sugar solution with various spices, but most of the flavor and color is concentrated near the surface; only some of the salt really seems to get to the center of that, so it's often made in fairly thin blocks.
I've seen patted and pan-fried tofu used in Korea and occasionally in Japan, but it was typically not marinated; it was typically cooked in a little oil until lightly browned and served with a dipping sauce of freshly-grated ginger and soy sauce.
Deep-fried tofu also creates more surface area for sauces, especially if dusted with a starch like katakuriko or cornstarch, but it's also generally only an occasional indulgence in Japan, China, and Korea, and also mostly affects capturing flavor that touches the surface of the tofu. (I'm less knowledgable about food as served in Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand, so I can't speak as authoritatively for all countries with a long history of serving tofu).
I don't know if it works well, but a Japanese TV show suggested that you can soak tofu in salted water to reduce the tendency for soft tofu to fall apart when stir-frying or braising. I haven't seen enough of a difference to justify regularly applying this technique and I haven't done a side-by-side comparison to be sure that it actually has much of an impact. But based on the guidance from that show, I suspect that if the marinade has any effect on structural integrity of the tofu, it's due to salt and osmotic pressure.
When you say it's a myth, you mean it's not eaten that way in China, right? Because it's possible to do, and it can taste great; I'm pretty sure I wasn't imagining eating it.
The myth is that the marinade actually meaningfully permeates fresh tofu. Marinated "dry tofu" does exist in China, as I described mid-post, but it's essentially a different beast. But marinated fresh tofu (other than that variety) is pretty rare.
Pretty much anything that removes a substantial amount of water from tofu will help it soak up marinades and sauces. Both are essentially flavorful water, and if the tofu is already full of water, the flavor has to very, very slowly diffuse into the tofu, while if the tofu has been dried out somewhat, the sauce or marinade can simply soak directly in. Dry frying is one method for getting a lot of water out; baking is also pretty effective.
Pressing the tofu is also a good idea: place slices between two flat things with a decent amount of weight on top, tilt it so the water can drain, and leave it for a bit. It's an easy way to get some water out of it; it'll make any subsequent cooking step easier by reducing the amount of time the tofu boils and steams as the water escapes. And it does make some room for flavor to work its way in, though of course not nearly as much as mostly drying out the tofu by baking or dry-frying.
As for your request for empirical evidence... just try it. It's an extremely obvious difference.
It seems so.
In this recipe the tofu is dry fried slowly in order for the water to evaporate. According to the recipe, the removal of the water facilitates both browning and soaking of a liquid after frying.
But is there empirical evidence that it will actually soak the liquid better? Has anyone looked at flavor transfer scientifically?
@NatanYellin: It doesn't take much science to see that it takes up and holds liquid much more than uncooked tofu. It's not the only way to get that, though - baking also works quite well. Pressing the tofu also helps some, though not nearly as much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.573194
| 2011-11-04T09:35:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18755",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DTS",
"Daniel Valenzuela",
"Jack Wasey",
"JasonTrue",
"Natan Yellin",
"Noshad Chaudhry",
"Salina",
"Tara",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25943
|
How to prepare a ginger lime drink mixer?
I am trying to prepare a ginger lime (basil) drink mixer. It will be mixed with Whiskey the day of the event.
Is it better to prepare a limeade via steeping or a syrup via cooking? Will the acid in the limes dissolve the ginger and basil over time (i.e. would it ruin the appearance / would I be able to filter them out)?
Will either of them last two weeks until the event? I plan to keep them in a sealed jar in the fridge. Does anyone have any advice on proportions?
Just a heads up: recipe requests aren't really on topic here. Your question asks for plenty besides a recipe/proportions, so I don't want to vote to close it, but it's best to focus on the "can I make this ahead" part, rather than the proportions; there are plenty of cocktail recipe sites out there.
Not sure whether you will have a bartender or not but as a former Bartender here is how I would approach it. You'll have to experiment in advance for the flavor you are trying to achieve. Since everything you are working with is sharp I would make a ginger simple syrup. 1/2 water 1/2 household sugar and probably about a tablespoon of fresh grated ginger. Heat until all the sugar is melted and then let it steep until you are are happy with the ginger flavor. bottle it and keep it in the refrigerator.
I would start with:
1/4 oz ginger syrup
1 oz Whiskey
splash of fresh lime juice
garnish with a bruised basil leaf.
and adjust the measures until you get what you are looking for.
If you are looking for something sparkling try:
1 oz whiskey
2 oz ginger ale
1/2 oz Rose's Lime juice
with the same garnish.
How much water/sugar syrup to the tbls of ginger?
start with a cup until you have what you want then proportion up to the quantity you need
Please try to format your answers clearly. There are buttons above the text entry box to help you out with it, and you can see a preview of your answer below. I've edited this one for you; to see the difference you can click on the edit timestamp by my name above.
You also haven't really answered what may be the more important part of the question: is it possible to mix it up with the basil ahead of time?
Make a liquor; use some whiskey or vodka and add the other ingredients into a well sealed container and freeze for a few weeks. They will dissolve into the alcohol
You will probably need to use a very fine strainer to clarify it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.573710
| 2012-09-01T17:57:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25943",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"EDabM",
"Joey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66319",
"shankar upadhyay",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19616
|
How to re-melt bitter chocolate?
I melted bitter chocolate (40%) via bain-marie to make chocolate-covered strawberries. As the melted chocolate dried out before I finished dipping all the strawberries, I tried to melt the rest again with the same method but it became sort of muddy and dry. (I didn’t have any problem with milk chocolate.)
What could be done (other than repeating the process with small amounts) to "re-melt" it without losing the bitter taste?
Chocolate is a sol, consisting of solid particles suspended in cocoa butter. It is something similar to a hard emulsion. And it can separate just the way a liquid emulsion does (think mayonnaise). This happens when you melt the cocoa butter completely, so the solid particles separate from the fat. If it happens to a chocolate bar, your chocolate looks grey. If it happens to a bowl of melted chocolate, the chocolate seizes the way you describe it. This happens with both milk and dark chocolate. If you haven't experienced it with milk chocolate before, you either had luck, or your milk chocolate was of a lesser quality than the dark one and contained non-cocoa fats and/or emulsifiers, which change the behavior of the sol.
The only way to prevent seizing is to work within the correct temperature zone, which is extremely narrow (2-3°C). Even as an experienced confiseur, it is extremely hard to judge it intuitively. If you insist on trying to watch the chocolate and guess when it is OK, you will have inconsistent results, with a seizing once every few tries.
What you need is to get a candy thermometer. Keep it in the chocolate and, whenever the temperature nears the danger zone, put the inner bain marie vessel in a basin of cold water you keep near the stove for this purpose. It will cool rapidly and stay tempered. It isn't a problem if you cool it off so much it hardens again; you can remelt chocolate as often as you want as long as you never exceed the seizing temerature.
And now for the numbers. All kinds of chocolate (milk, white, bitter) harden at 27°C. Between 27°C and 30°C, they are soft, but unworkable, because they are too viscous (hold unpacked chocolate pieces in your hand for a while to see what I mean). The workable zone is 30°C to 32°C for milk (and white) chocolate, and 30°C to 33°C for dark chocolate. Above this, your cocoa fat melts and the chocolate seizes. So, keep an eye at the thermometer, as you see, the zones are narrow.
Edit: I just noticed that you call 40% "bitter". This is a very low cocoa percentage, and I wouldn't let it go up to 33°C. The numbers for "bitter" are probably safe for 70% cocoa and above.
Conversion for Americans: soft but unworkable: 27-30 C = 80.6-86 F, Workable: 30-32C = 86-89.6 F (milk, white) 30-33C = 86-91.4 F (dark)
out of curiosity, have you ever tried using an IR thermometer? I have one--but not a candy thermometer--and I wonder if it would do the job sufficiently
@EricHu I haven't tried, but my hunch is that it won't help much. There is a vertical heat gradient in your chocolate, and the top surface will be colder than the chocolate near the bottom. Still, I'll try to remember to check the actual difference next time I melt chocolate.
@EricHu I tried it, I got 4°C difference in a bowl with maybe 7-8 cm melted chocolate.
Awesome, thanks for testing and sharing this! At the very least I (and others) now know a substitute tool when there's no candy thermometer around
What I do when I want to melt chocolate that I want to stay melted and at the same consistancy is use a double boiler. I let it melt then set the stove to the very lowest so that it will still get consistant low heat to keep it melted while I do my dipping.
What is happening to your chocolate is probably that it is seizing when you melt it the second time. Either that or you are microwaving it and making it lose too much moisture.
The suggestion to keep it on the heat is a good one (if a bit too late) - I'm not sure if you realized that the OP is using a double boiler though.
Ah yes, I wasn't familiar with the term bain-marie until I just googled it right now. Thanks for point that out ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.573934
| 2011-12-13T13:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19616",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin Rowley",
"Eric Hu",
"IOWF",
"Jay",
"Tim Sparkles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"user42738"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29268
|
Soy and sesame sauce alternatives when frying fish?
What should I use as an alternative to the combination of Soy oil and Sesame oil (1 teaspoon each) when I am frying fish in a pan?
I need at least one ingredient that can replace the Soy and Sesame oils for frying the fish in the pan.
Do you mean sesame oil? Please explain more clearly what function and proportion the soy and sesame have.
@JoshCaswell Thanks Josh, I have update the question.
I don't understand what you're seeking. For instance, do you just not have any, and need a substitute? Or is it related to sodium content, taste, etc.?
The reason is that one of my relative have allergy to both oil.
You need to consider the role of the oils in the dish.
The soy oil is almost certainly used for its frying properties (to help prevent sticking, and more efficiently transmit heat from the pan to the food).
For this function, you can use any vegetable oil or shortening for frying, based on your dietary preferences and your relative's sensitivities. Grapeseed oil is an excellent choice with neutral flavor, and a high smoke point. Canola is also a good choice, as is refined peanut oil, and many others. Pick one that your relative isn't allergic to.
If animal fat is acceptable, frying in clarified butter (or ghee) is very delicious.
Sesame oil has a strong (and in my opinion, wonderfully delicious) flavor and aroma, and is used for that, not for its frying characteristics. You can leave it out, although it will change the flavor of the dish. There isn't really a substitute.
If your relative is allergic to all oils and you don't want to use butter or another animal fat, you could steam-griddle the fish, rather than frying it. Its a different technique, and will have a different texture and flavor (much less browning). Similarly, you could try en papillote, which requires no oil, or poaching--again no oil. It is very difficult to fry without oil or fat of some kind (perhaps, by definition, impossible since without the fat, you aren't frying but just dry griddling), but choosing another technique friendly to fish may avoid the problem.
I agree with @SAJ14SAJ, there's no substitute for sesame oil's aroma and flavor. If you can't find sesame oil try pounding some sesame seeds and frying them in the dish. Or add another strong nut oil like walnut.
I like this answer. I need to go saute something now.
Use any type of heat resistant fat in place of the oils. Any fat used will impart it's taste on the fish, so avoid lard and other animal fats.
Traditionally fish is fried in canola, olive or sunflower seed oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.574282
| 2012-12-19T02:10:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29268",
"authors": [
"AJFaraday",
"GdD",
"Jack",
"Lars Stoltenow",
"Leah Bendlin",
"RFox",
"Robin",
"Ronaque Rahman",
"Ryan",
"Sarah",
"Sobachatina",
"Steve",
"daisy_ann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8737",
"jscs",
"user67919"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29060
|
Substitute pig trotter for powdered gelatine in an aspic
I'm intending to make a raised game pie, which involves making aspic from the stock.
The recipe says to make 1 pint of stock from the game bones and trimmings, herbs, root vegetables, and to whisk in a 0.4oz sachet of powdered gelatine before chilling the stock.
However I'm aware that the traditional method of producing savoury jelly for pies is to use pig's trotters.
How many pig's trotters should I use to produce 1 pint of aspic for a pie? Is there anything I should know that I might not have thought of?
I like to add closure to these questions. In the event I made 600ml of stock from 1kg of pig bones and three pig's tails. The butcher had no trotters available, and assured me that tails are as good a source of gelatine. The resulting jelly is suitably solid at room temperature, and I got some good nibbling out of the meat in the tails.
glad to hear it worked out. the tails definitely contain a ton of gelatin and you could have done well with the ears and head as well.
I think the biggest problem is your not going to be able to judge how much gelatin any given pigs foot is going to produce, hence the recipe calling for extracted gelatin to sort of foolproof the recipe. But if your going to try and make it with just the pig's feet I would suggest having a look at this recipe here for "Trotter gear"
http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2011/03/recipe-for-a-healthy-jar-of-trotter-gear.html
Anything coming from Fergus Henderson is going to be awesome. It recommends 6 feet and that recipe produces a pot's worth of stock so I think that will suffice for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.574613
| 2012-12-10T10:46:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29060",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Danielle Elegeert",
"J. Mini",
"SoniaSpiers",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67367",
"shikhar",
"slim",
"user138912"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41536
|
What is the advantage of a roux over a raw flour slurry, in sauce?
My standard Bechamel sauce recipe used to be:
Stir together flour and oil into a paste
Fry for a short while
Add a small amount of milk
Heat and stir until incorporated
Repeat steps 3-4 with increasing amounts of milk, until the mixture is a thick liquid
Add rest of milk and boil until thickened
But recently I've got lazy and been doing it like this:
Whisk flour with enough cold milk to make a thin paste with no lumps.
Add to pan of cold milk and stir.
Bring to boil, stirring occasionally
Boil until thickened
The roux method requires a lot of care and attention. The second method just requires half an eye on the pan.
But roux is a mainstay of classical cooking. What is its advantage?
technically, the second sauce is not a Bechamel, it is a pudding. I guess you could add fat to it after it is cooked, and I don't have a comparison for that, but if you leave it at just flour and water, there will be a large difference in taste.
@rumtscho fair point. In practice I'm generally going to dump a big pile of grated cheese into it, which contains plenty of fat.
Roux Method
The advantages of the roux method:
It can be prepared in advance
The raw flour taste is cooked out when the roux is prepared, so the sauce is ready as soon as it is thickened; this also makes it easier to add more roux to adjust the thickness of the sauce.
It actually requires less supervision. You are actually being overly fussy with your roux based sauce. You could add all of the milk at once, although starting with one smaller batch just to dissolve the roux is a good idea.
The butter coats the flour particles, making lumping quite unlikely
Can be browned for additional flavor at the cost of thickening power
It also adds oil or butter to the recipe, which may or may not be an advantage.
Slurry Method
The advantages of the slurry method (which is what the second method is, although it is more typically done with water or stock than milk are):
It is fast and convenient, if you don't have roux prepared ahead
No oil or butter is required, so it doesn't have to be accounted for in the recipe.
Disadvantages:
It is easier to get lumping if you don't thoroughly whisk the slurry before heating
It must be brought to the boil for at least a couple of minutes to eliminate the raw flour taste, and harder to adjust thickness.
Harder to prepare ahead
Conclusion
Use whichever you are comfortable with. For fine sauces, roux based may be superior (and certainly more buttery), but you can have excellent outcomes with a slurry. For casual cooking , I tend to use a slurry, saving roux for more formal dinners and fancier dishes like Thanksgiving gravy.
Great answer. Now that I know it's called the slurry method, I've incorporated it into the title.
Isn't the fact that it's easier to get lumping a disadvantage of the slurry method, not an advantage?
@Jefromi Oops....
Aren't flour slurries also known to cause the product, upon cooling, to more or less turn into a gelatinous mass?
@Matthew no more or less than any other starch based thickening...
The advantage can be reduced to one word: taste.
A slurry based sauce is not the same thing as a roux based sauce. Milk pudding is not a Bechamel in the same way that a baguette is not a brioche, margarine is not butter, and 'cocoa-containing fat glaze' is not ganache. It has a different taste, and cooks over the generations have preferred the Bechamel with its rich taste.
Texturewise, the slurry based sauce is a good substitution for practically all uses of bechamel. If you personally find the taste good enough, then go ahead and use it. The world is full of examples where people are very happy with substitutions made for speed or economy reasons. I'd say that cooks at decent restaurants shouldn't use them, because they hurt customers' expectations and can be construed as borderline fraud ("I ordered a roast and you are giving me meatloaf?!") but in home cooking, you (and your family) decide what you like for dinner.
A small technical note: If you decide to go with slurry, it will be easier to use pure starch, not flour. It has better solubility and you don't run the risk of a raw flour-y taste.
Actually, you can make roux with any starch as well (and with any fat), per Harold McGee.
@SAJ14SAJ did I imply you can't? Because I certainly didn't intend to. But of course I assumed that we are talking about flour-and-butter rough, because it is the most common one.
No, I just thought it was an interesting point since you mentioned non-flour based slurries.
It's also possible to make an uncooked "slurry" of softened butter and flour (beurre manié). That's kind-of handy when you're finishing a sauce and need to add a little body. I've never seen a recipe start with that however.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.574824
| 2014-01-28T16:02:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41536",
"authors": [
"Aubergine",
"Cascabel",
"Jjii proyd",
"Lauloque",
"Matthew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam j W",
"Stevej",
"WolfganP",
"Woody",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96860",
"mostafawornout",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77272
|
Should enriched doughs pass the windowpane test?
I'm trying to make the nan-e qandi recipe from Hot Bread Kitchen; recipe re-printed here. It contains sugar (honey) and a fair amount of fat, with full-fat milk for hydration and over a stick of butter in ~850g dough. It is rather low hydration, and also contains sugar and baking powder.
The recipe says to knead for 5min, and that it should pass the windowpane test. I make a lot of bread, but mostly from lean doughs. I don't think I have ever attempted the windowpane test in an enriched loaf, and I would not expect it to "work" due to all the fat. Generalizing, Should heavily enriched doughs like this be expected pass the windowpane test? E.g., brioche, challah, ...?
As I expected, my first attempt at this dough did not pass the windowpane test after reasonable effort. I also attempted to let it rest for a time e.g., as suggested here, then knead again, but it still pulled apart readily. If this dough should pass the windowpane test, I'll attempt more precision next batch...
Side note: this recipe seems very much on the dry side. How did it turn out?
Yes; as I noted, it is dry; even including some contribution from the honey, it's still scarcely 50% hydration. I don't know exactly how it's supposed to turn out, so therefore I'm not sure if mine turned out correctly, but regardless I didn't really like it. My result was like a strange cross between brioche and a scone or American biscuit.
Yes it should - sort of.
Your observation is right on point, a very rich dough will tear more easily. (I did the same experiment once myself.) But it will still show some characteristics of the windowpane test: it will stretch smoothly and the "pane" should be very even, not show streaks of thicker and thinner areas. Note that the temperature of your dough and thus the consistency of your fat may have an influence as well. While warm doughs with soft fat will be very stretchy, cool doughs (made with cold ingredients and little yeast for an overnight cold raise) can be less cooperative.
If you are familiar with how a "ready" non-enriched dough looks that passes the windowpane test, you will probably recognise the same smoothness in an enriched dough anyway, without performing the test.
For this specific recipe, I guess it's the very low hydration that makes the windowpane test difficult and the dough prone to tearing, not the fat.
Interesting; perhaps my question/assumption was flawed and it's merely the hydration. Since this was the first time I was making it, I was depending on some additional clues to "readiness" in this case. I'll attempt windowpane with brioche and compare. Perhaps I just don't "get" this recipe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.575375
| 2017-01-08T20:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77272",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41874
|
"Lively simmer" vs "simmer"?
From what I understand, a "simmer" is when you start getting small air bubbles floating up, but only one air bubble breaks through the liquid's surface every 2 seconds.
So then what is a "lively simmer" as I've seen in many recipes?
If I were to guess, it would be that the ones that call for a lively simmer are sauces, soups, or other thicker liquids. The lively simmer in that case would refer something close to a light boil. For instance, tomato sauce simmers even when you have it on low, but if you were to cut the temperature up to a medium low, it would bubble much more actively and to me would be considered a lively simmer.
By bubble more actively, you mean air bubbles breaking the surface of the water?
yes, in a light simmer you will one have like one maybe two bubbles come up per second, and in a lively simmer you would probably see like 3-6 bubbles per second come up, of course this is with thicker liquids it would be more if it were a thin liquid, and the numbers i referenced would be in a tomato sauce, or similar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.575604
| 2014-02-09T10:55:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41874",
"authors": [
"Alexis Nieto",
"Bikintugas spam",
"KapparinoC",
"geofflee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97742",
"thatdude38",
"user97721"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16646
|
How do I turn on an auto ignition stove?
I've bought a new stove which is supposed to be auto ignition. If I turn on the gas and turn the knob thing, a flame flickers underneath but the stove doesn't light, I have to use a lighter to light it.
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
Is the gas you are using lighter or heavier than air? It usually has to flow through channels to reach the ignitor. If the channels are tilted the wrong way burner won't light. Check to be certain your stove is leveled..
A couple of things. First, you just bought it, it surely came with a manual, you should check there to make sure you're doing it right.
In general there are a couple of things that come to mind:
You may need to turn the burner to high to get it to ignite.
You may not be waiting long enough. It takes a few seconds (at least on mine).
There may be something wrong with your stove. For example, maybe the burners aren't installed properly. You're seeing the spark, so that part is obviously working. If giving it a few seconds on high doesn't get it to ignite, and the manual provides no help, I'd suggest calling the manufacturer or the dealer, they'd be in the best position to diagnose a defective unit.
My experience with the modern home appliance gas stoves is that all the parts that constitute the heating area disassemble easily. This includes the burners.
When I've had problems with burners not lighting, it has always been:
Note: Am including information for both electronic (spark) ignition and pilot ignition stoves.
The pilot flame is being impinged by something (usually a small chunk of carbon or food) which keeps the pilot flame too far away from the burner to light it. To fix, clean the pilot light assembly well and check the alignment an proximity to the burner.
The spark gap has changed, causing the spark to arc to something other than the burner body. To fix, bend the arc electrode to where it is arcing to the burner proper.
The burner bodies sometimes have extra perforations at a single point which bring the combustible gas closer to the arc source or pilot flame. To fix, check the alignment of the extra perforations to the ignition source and adjust as necessary.
In many cases, there are different sizes of burner bodies which fit into respectively different size receiving holes, make sure the correct burner bodies are in the receivers.
Also in many cases, the burner bodies are distinctly keyed so they only fit into the receiving holes in one position. In order to set them correctly, I set them into the receiver and turn them, using no downward force, until they drop in to position. A slightly raised burner body, due to not being keyed to the receiving gas port, would allow gas to exit from the wrong area of the burner, causing flame where it shouldn't be.
In one instance, each burner was in three pieces, the bottom skirt, the middle main burner body and the top burner cover. Each of these pieces was keyed to the size of the burner receiver, and each of the three pieces was keyed to fit well only to the correct matching part.
So, all that being said, your statement that "a flame flickers underneath but the stove doesn't light" leads me to the conclusion that the burner body(s) are slightly misaligned, allowing combustible gas to leak out at the bottom of the burner assembly - or, that the pilot light or spark electrode is misaligned.
Take one burner apart; if it is a simple matter of lifting the parts off (which it should be, as they do need to be cleaned and the spilled food dug out of the gas ports occasionally) and get to know how it fits together. If all is well there, check the ignition source for location in the proper place to ignite the combustion gas coming out of the burner in the proper place.
*Press the knob and start moving the knob(while it is kept pressed by you) towards the position where the ignition flame flickers
*but stop the knob movement for sometime(3 to 45 seconds) just before the knob reaches that position.
*The knob must still be held pressed in the interval(3 to 45 seconds) during which its movement was stopped.
*Now move the knob exactly to the position where the ignition flame flickers.The stove will certainly light as you have allowed much gas flow towards the burner before the ignition flame flickers.
*Leave the knob.
Note:The stopping/holding of the knob for 3 to 45 seconds is done for the flow of much gas towards the burner you want to light.This interval may be exceeded a little but please understand that the presence of large number of gas particles in the kitchen is dangerous when you are going to ignite.
What type of ignition switch is it? Some of these are run by a spark plug and/or a battery. Does yours have this? and have you checked to make sure those are firing correctly?
Even still you should be able to leave the gas off and look for a spark.
Well, the spark plug is probably firing, as OP says "a flame flickers underneath".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.575748
| 2011-08-04T23:12:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16646",
"authors": [
"Chuck Menges",
"Gary Barrett",
"Harley Hammen",
"Jonathan Pinlac",
"Lourdes Moreira",
"Melvin",
"Mushrit Shabnam",
"ViswaNath GummaRaju",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aij",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17596
|
Can I use the grill tray in my oven for grilling?
My oven came with 2 baking trays, and a small tray which looks like a grill (i.e, its got rows of vertical metal strips the same way as a grill does). Can I use this tray for grilling or broiling, and if so, how would I use it?
I.e If I wanted to grill a chicken breast, would I just leave the tray in the oven to heat up, marinate the breast, then put it on the tray and close the oven? Or what would I have to do?
Can you provide a picture of the tray? I'm guessing it's part of a broiler pan, and you'll want to use it with its pan as grease and liquid will drop all over the oven otherwise.
Here's what I do - it simulates the high direct heat and then lower, indirect to finish ( like on the real grill with multiple zones):
Put the 'grill' on the top rack (make sure its not coated or non-stick, that it can take high heat). (I do mean to put a pan under this to catch grease.)
Turn the oven to broil for a few minutes.
Prep your chicken.
Put it in the oven under the broiler for a few minutes (I can't really give you a time here because it depends on thickness and other things), but you're trying to promote that browning and a bit of char like the grill.*
After its been in a few minutes and browned/charred somewhat, pull it out and quickly flip it and repeat.
If your dish isn't fully cooked to your liking, move the item to the middle rack and turn the heat down some.
Pull it out when finished and Rest the meat.
Enjoy
To be honest though, for indoor grilling - I usually preheat the oven to 400, get some grill marks on a cast iron grill pan, and then finish in the oven. Its only when the volume is too much that I do the above method. Cast iron grill pan for a couple of servings has always been much less troublesome than the broiler which can bring items from tasty to ruined in record time for me.
*Some people close the oven door here, some don't - its the difference between if you just want to sear it or really start to cook it. I pretty nearly always close the door, but I'm also the guy who always puts the lid back on the grill.
I don't see any option in the oven for turning it to broil, or do I see any broiler?
@Click Oh, I assumed you had broil since you specifically mentioned it in your question. In that case, you could try your highest heat setting and the bottom rack - but it really won't be close to the same. I'd skip your grill rack then and use the cast iron method - start on the stove, finish in the oven.
Is there no way to finish it at the stovetop grill?
@Click - Depends on the particular dish. I do burgers completely on the stove in the pan (when doing them inside). Turning very often should generally allow you to cook more in the pan - but its just easier to finish in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.576214
| 2011-09-09T02:14:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17596",
"authors": [
"Click Upvote",
"Datageek",
"Esin Atalay",
"Joe",
"Tom Houy",
"hatikva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rfusca",
"sabre"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17605
|
Can extra virgin olive oil be used for stir frying, roasting, grilling?
I'd like to use extra virgin olive oil for the above mentioned cooking methods as opposed to other oils/butter. Are there any downsides to it, or can it be used safely in all those cooking methods? Is there anything that it doesn't work well with?
I don't want to disappoint you, but the sad truth is that extra virgin olive oil is unsuitable for all the cooking methods you mention. When you heat any oil past its smoking point it starts to deteriorate and can even become dangerous. Olive oil, extra virgin in particular, has a lower smoking point than most other oils. In fact, you will be better off with an olive oil of lesser quality. Such an oil will have been processed and thus purified, increasing its smoking point.
You may think that butter is unhealthy, but at high temperatures it will actually withstand the heat better than extra virgin olive oil.
Good oils for the purposes you mention are canola oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, and grapeseed oil.
You can use olive oil for high heat cooking, too ... but you want to get the refined 'extra light' olive oil, not one of the 'virgin' varieties.
For more information and evidence, see this answer (referencing Harold McGee) and the various answers to When is a cooking oil not appropriate to substitute for another?
Henrik, you're confusing "extra virgin" with "unfiltered". While sometimes these are the same thing, they are not necessarily, in the USA. There are filtered extra virgin olive oils here, which are perfectly good for all cooking methods.
Aha, ok. I did not know that. I guess I just presumed that all extra virgin oils were also unfiltered. I know better now, thank you. :)
Henrik, I think it's different in Europe. This leads to some confusion among American cooks.
Extra virgin olive oil has a smoke point of 207 C/405 F, I believe. This means it can be used for roasting.
That oils' smoke points can be generically classified solely according to their type is a myth.
Robert Wolke, a professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh and food columnist for the Washington Post, claims that the smoke point for an oil varies widely depending on origin and refinement. While the smoke point does generally increase with respect to the degree of refinement of the oil, Wolke notes that generation of the nasty tasting free fatty acids is a function of time, i.e., the longer you cook the oil the worse it tastes. Therefore, if you are going to be using the oil for a quick fry/sauté, it doesn't really matter what type of oil it is. (I'm not sure if I'd use an unrefined oil for a long roast, though.)
Alton Brown, a US cooking celebrity who specializes in the science behind cookery, agrees:
Now many charts and tables attempt to quantify smoke points, and I'm here to tell you they're all complete hooey. The truth is, there are just too many factors going into a smoke point to make such concrete claims. I will tell you this. High heat will destroy the fruity goodness of an extra virgin olive oil or the nutty goodness of a walnut oil. But you can sauté with just about any oil, as long as you work fast.[Emphasis is mine.]
I wouldn't recommend using an Extra Virgin Olive Oil for high heat applications, not because you're likely to get off flavors (if you work fast), but because it's a waste of money: You'll be losing the fruity notes for which you're paying a premium. Throughout Southern Italy and Spain, though, it is very common to use olive oil for frying (even Virgin olive oil). For example, Mario Batali (another US celebrity chef who is a widely acclaimed Italian chef) did it all the time in his old TV show.
The issue of whether all oils of a given type have exactly the same smoke point is a bit of a red herring here; all extra virgin olive oil does have a low smoke point. And though the question says "can it be used" (yes, if it's quick), the more common question is "should it be used" (no, unless it's all you have or is unusually cheap).
I always use virgin olive oil for frying (my brother in law has olive trees and produces his own olive oil)
Aside from agreeing with ESultanik, I wanted to add this additional answer:
Virgin olive oil is not appropriate for stir-frying because it would taste weird.
Unless you're doing a recipe which is specifically an Italian/Chinese fusion dish, or something which expects olive oil, you want to use a mostly flavorless vegetable oil for stir-frying. I prefer peanut oil, but canola, safflower, and sunflower also work quite well.
I have used olive oil for all of those tasks when I didn't have anything else around. It's also my preferred oil for oven-roasting vegetables. As Henrik says, though, it has a low smoke point, so it doesn't work as well as some others for cooking in a wok, or other high temperature cooking.
Referring to a series of articles written on cooking at high heat with olive oil: The answer is yes, it's perfectly fine to use olive oil to cook at high heat.
Reasons:
1. "Olive Oil is High in Monounsaturated Fats, Which Are Stable When Heated"
"Extra Virgin Olive Oil is High in Antioxidants and Vitamin E, Which Help Fight Oxidation (Olive oil contains Vitamin E and many powerful antioxidants. These substances protect the oil from damage during high heat cooking.)"
The reasons normally stated that advised against it is based on the fact of nutrition loss --> Again, nutrition is lost when you cook vegetables as well (Doesn't stop me from cooking them)
References:
https://authoritynutrition.com/is-olive-oil-good-for-cooking/
https://healthimpactnews.com/2014/myth-buster-olive-oil-is-one-of-the-safest-oils-for-frying-and-cooking/
www.seriouseats.com/2015/03/cooking-with-olive-oil-faq-safety-flavor.html
www.oliveoiltimes.com/whats-cooking-with-olive-oil/frying-with-olive-oil/30470
Mario Batali does it all the time, so it's safe to say you can use it for that. Should you? Probably not, but if the $$$ doesn't bother you...
You have to consider that extra virgin olive oil usually has a smoking point around 190 degrees celsius. For stir frying and getting the natural sugar of e.g. the vegatables to to be extracted and caramelized you need around 150 degrees celsius. I use extra virgin olive oil for fryin vegetables and it maintains it's fruity flavor plus all of it's health benefits. Make a test on your stove to figure out your extra virgin olive oil's smoking point, and make sure to keep the temperature below the oil's smoking point. I use gas so it's very consistent, and I've made a mark on the regulator, so I don't have to worry about the oil overheating every time I fry something. Once you get used to frying you immediately smell if the oil is smoking.
You cannot test oil for its smoking point on your stove. The so-called "smoking point" is actually the point at which the molecules of your oil start falling apart. This happens long before there is any visible smoke above the pan. At the point where you can see the smoke, it is already too late.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.576496
| 2011-09-09T10:53:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17605",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Arne Brasseur",
"Cascabel",
"Danny Rose",
"Efren",
"FuzzyChef",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jaime Santa Cruz",
"Joe",
"John Noble",
"Justin",
"Neci N.",
"PA.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Quails",
"Sally Cheese",
"antipattern",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78758",
"lorie",
"rumtscho",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2199
|
What is the purpose of basting a roast?
Is the purpose to add flavor, moisture, or both?
Do you really think it makes a difference?
I generally put garlic, rosemary, and thyme in the pan for a roast. As the meat juices and butter flow into the pan, they make a wonderful infusion of flavour that is well worth bathing the roast in. I'm all for it - I feel the roasts I've made and basted are better than the ones I didn't baste. That said, I haven't done any double-blind studies.
Okay, I could see there being additional flavor added. Next time I roast chicken quarters, I'll see if there's a difference between basted & non-basted.
This article claims both, as well as giving it an "attractive appearance." However, there are alternatives to basting that achieve this.
I don't ever recall my mum basting a beef roast. Instead she sears the outsides using a couple methods. Sometimes she'll toss it around in some hot oil in a dutch oven to lightly brown the outsides, then roast it (this proved to be messy, which may be why she switched to the next method). Other times she'll brown it in the oven using the broiler for 15-20 minutes and then switch to the bottom burner to roast it.
The lesson learned here:
QUICKLY cooking the outside of a piece of meat is the most effective way to lock in ("enhance") flavour and moisture. Then slow cooking for tenderness and texture to finish the job.
I don't believe basting is as effective. In essence, basting is like you're trying to put something back inside the meat. Why not keep it in there to begin with?
EDIT: My mom also occasionally uses a blow torch to sear a roast as well. She's a special lady.
I'd buy the appearance angle. Of course, it's far easier to just bake a glaze on at the end.
Searing meat doesn't lock in moisture. See http://www.cookthink.com/reference/7/Does_searing_meat_really_seal_in_moisture
The only thing I have ever found basting a roast does is increase the time it takes my food to cook because I keep opening the oven door. I don't buy that it helps with flavor or moisture.
Indeed. This is 50s food mythology.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.577314
| 2010-07-20T00:43:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2199",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Display Name",
"JustRightMenus",
"Marius Balaban",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"nocksock",
"shotwell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9223
|
How hot is a gas burner supposed to be?
My new range has a 17000 BTU burner (natural gas). It my first gas range. I have the feeling it is not that hot.
I can barely keep pasta water boiling (8 cups of water) with the broiler on high. I expected I'd have to lower the heat in order to avoir overspils.
I was not able to burn hamburgers in a cast iron pan. Not that I wanted to burn them, but I again I expected I'd have to lower the heat. I kept it on high for several minutes without any serious damage to the meat.
Q1: How can I test if the burners are as hot as what they should be?
Q2: Can something be wrong with the connection?
Maybe my expections are too high after everone told me how amazingly hot and fast gas ranges are. The flames are blue so that seems to be ok.
BTU means British Thermal Unit. So:
lbs of water x temperature rise = BTUs required for one hour (British units)
(1 lb of water x 1 degree Fahrenheit) = 1 BTU for reaching temp in 1 hour (approx)
Let's do a simple calc:
1) Suppose a 30% efficiency (you are heating air and pot too)
2) Four lbs water
3) 70 F as water initial temperature (212-70 = 142 to boil)
So:
(4 lb water x 142 F) * 3.,33 (eff) = 1900 BTUs for reaching boil in one hour
17000/1900 = 9 (your burner output / required output to boil in 1 hour)
60 mins / 9 = 7 mins
So you could expect bringing to boil your 4 lbs of water in 7 mins in a 17.000 BTU burner starting from 70 F . Normal pressure and altitude, of course.
Here is a video of a 17.500 BTU burner working to compare with yours.
Keep in mind that many approximations were done in this calc. No evaporation, medium to heavy pot, etc.
Your video link seems to be broken.
@Jefromi Worked for me. Probably a cache missbehaviour. Please test it now. Tnx!
Aha, good now, after your edit. The 5min.com video didn't work, but the dailymotion one does.
@Jefromi Tnx for testing. Just as an aside note for some weird reason both work for me in my main browser. But as you pointed out, the 5min.com does not work when I open another browser. So I suspect a cache issue.
Something is very wrong there; you need to get this serviced right away. 17,000 BTU should be enough to keep a full rolling boil going on a pot much larger than 8 cups, or sear the daylights out of your burger. I'd go so far as to say I wouldn't use it until a service tech has looked at it.
The relevant calculation here is equilibrium: once the water's all at 100C, how much can you boil per second? belisarius' answer, estimating time to reach boil, is good too, but there are more variables involved, and it's that rolling boil you're trying to watch anyway.
All you need to know here is the latent heat of vaporization for water. Assuming 100% efficiency:
17000 BTU/hour / (970 BTU/pound) = 0.0022 kg/s = 2.2 gram/s
Scale that down by the fraction of the heat that goes into the pot instead of the air (probably 30-50%? this includes heat loss out the sides of the pot); you should probably be expecting more like 1 gram/s. That's a pretty good amount of water to vaporize per second! Remember that while that's only 1 mL of water, steam is a lot less dense. A gram of saturated steam is 1.7 L at 1atm, 100C. Yikes!
Upshot: yeah, you should have a lot of boiling going on there.
Yes, 17000 BTU is a restaurant-class burner (not the bigger ones)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.577535
| 2010-11-18T04:25:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9223",
"authors": [
"Archie Jain",
"Arnold Combs",
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Jing",
"KMSTR",
"MPerry",
"Natalie D Fulford",
"SirSpice",
"The ramen rater",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"paullb",
"user18876"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29318
|
How to avoid chicken getting too tender when cooking in a crock pot?
I'd like to cook chicken in my Crockpot but just about every time it comes out so well done that it shreds when you try to cut it. How can I make it so it's not as well done; more like it comes out when cooked in an oven?
Crock pot cooking is usually essentially braising--it sounds like you are getting a good outcome for a braised chicken. The problem is that you are up against a time/temperature curve. So unless you monitor the chicken, and remove it from the crockpot when it is just done to your liking, it is eventually going to get up to the appliance's set temperature. Over time, in a moist environment, the collagen in the chicken will break down, and the chicken will shred easily.
That sounds like a pretty fine answer, @SAJ14SAJ :)
@JoeFish Thank you, I will transfer it down. I just couldn't shake the feeling I was missing something.
Funny you should ask about this as I have just been experimenting with tough old chickens.
Your chicken is falling apart because the connective tissues in the meat are being turned into gelatin.
Cooking meat in a wet environment at low temperatures causes the connective tissues (collagen) in the meat to dissolve into delicious gelatin and makes the meat more tender. Cooking at the lower temperatures means that the meat can cook for longer without over heating and maximize the gelatin conversion.
This is often a very desirable thing. Cheap, tough meat can be made delicious. Crockpots are designed to make this very easy.
Roasting in the oven is hot and dry. The meat cooks faster, not very much gelatin is converted and the meat holds together better (or is tough depending on the meat).
The solution is simple: Don't cook your chicken as long.
To taste done, your chicken needs to reach 140F. To be safe from bacteria, your chicken has to get up to 165F. (Actually, it can be safe at as low as 135F but you have to hold it at those temperatures longer to kill the bad bugs. This document has the whole time chart.)
You should use a thermometer to determine when the interior of your chicken is done and then stop cooking it. How long it will take to get your chicken to those temps will depend on your recipe, how much meat there is, what shape it is, and the properties of your crock pot.
Keep in mind that a crockpot is still wet cooking (braising) where an oven is usually dry. The outside of the chicken will never be as browned or crispy from a crockpot as from an oven.
Wow, lots of info...you guys really know you're cooking. Thanks for the info/advice. Dolores
go the extra mile and sear the whole thing before putting in a crockpot
Looks like they moved the document. I was able to track it down: TIME-TEMPERATURE TABLES FOR COOKING READY-TO-EAT
POULTRY PRODUCTS (pdf).
Crock pot cooking is usually essentially braising--it sounds like you are getting a good outcome for a braised chicken. The problem is that you are up against a time/temperature curve. So unless you monitor the chicken, and remove it from the crockpot when it is just done to your liking, it is eventually going to get up to the appliance's set temperature. Over time, in a moist environment, the collagen in the chicken will break down, and the chicken will shred easily
Okay, my answer isn't quite th wonder that Sobachatina's was, but why would anyone mark it down? It is almost exactly the same information?
FWIW- I agree with you. Great (or at least similarly deranged) minds think alike.
There seems to be a drive-by downvoter.
Besides the answers already given -- if you cool down slow cooked meat, it'll firm back up again (although, without the collagen), and can then be reheated later.
The problem is getting the chicken out of the crockpot so that it can cool down in a timely manner. I use something that's a cross between a slotted spoon and a spider; it's relatively flat, but with holes in it to drain. Move it to a plate to cool down for a bit, then transfer to the fridge. The next day, you can slice it without it completely shreding on you. (although, it'll still be really tender).
As has already been mentioned, it helps to pull it out before it's cooked too far ... but this can give you a larger time window to deal with, or to recover something that's cooked past where you'd like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.577971
| 2012-12-19T21:38:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29318",
"authors": [
"Dolores",
"DoubleD",
"Heather",
"JoeFish",
"Riley Scott Jacob",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Steve Jourdan",
"Tony R",
"Yiquanone",
"bradfox",
"dnozay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"user2840044",
"user68063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30726
|
How long will sealed chicken keep?
For example if I seal chicken in the morning by cooking it on just the outside, is it safe to cook that night all the way through if kept refrigerated during the day?
Do you mean seared chicken? And what are you actually trying to do by cooking it partially in the morning and the rest of the way later?
Chicken lives by the same rules as all perishable food. Reference the Danger Zone and FAT TOM. All other information is extraneous.
Searing chicken on the outside does not "seal" it. In fact, it is likely to bring the interior of the meat into the worst part of the danger zone (about 10-30° C above room temperature) and may actually reduce its safety factor.
If you seared it and put it directly back in the refrigerator, then it should still be under the 2-hour maximum for the temperature danger zone and safe to cook/eat. But be sure you cook it fully, up to the recommended 165° C; the previous searing doesn't count for anything, food-safety-wise.
If it sat around at room temperature after the searing for any significant length of time, throw it out.
Incidentally, if you want a good sear on any type of meat in addition to getting it properly cooked, the typical way to accomplish that is to either pop it into the oven for a bit after the initial sear, or to sear it after a slower-cooking method. I can't really see the point in searing a chicken several hours in advance.
I would also recommend searing after slow-cooking or baking on low temperature. This could be done in a pan or in the oven (turned to high heat).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.578353
| 2013-02-05T22:45:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30726",
"authors": [
"Afroja",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine ",
"Gautami",
"Marian",
"P7E",
"Sono",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71871",
"user65535",
"weets"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30533
|
Cake without baking soda
I have this delicious recipe for flourless almond cake:
1 1/2 cups whole almonds, toasted
4 large eggs, at room temperature, separated
1/2 cup honey
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
Process whole almonds in a food processor or blender until finely ground (you will have about 13/4 cups ground). Beat 4 egg yolks, 1/2
cup honey, vanilla, baking soda and salt in a large mixing bowl with
an electric mixer (or use a paddle attachment on a stand mixer) on
medium speed until well combined. Add the ground almonds and beat on
low until combined.
Beat 4 egg whites in another large bowl with the electric mixer (use clean beaters on a hand-held mixer or the whisk attachment on a
stand mixer) on medium speed until very foamy, white and doubled in
volume, but not stiff enough to hold peaks, 1 to 2 minutes (depending
on the type of mixer). Using a rubber spatula, gently fold the egg
whites into the nut mixture until just combined. Scrape the batter
into the prepared pan.
Bake the cake until golden brown and a skewer inserted into the center comes out clean, about 28 minutes.
I know a friend who is allergic to baking soda and baking powder. What will happen if this recipe is made without baking soda? Will it collapse although I had beaten the egg whites? Aren't they responsible for making the cake rise?
If the cake has soda in the recipe, I wouldn't risk making it without. Cakes are very fickle without leavening, and flourless cakes are even worse in this respect. If you want to serve cake, use another recipe especially developed to be free of baking soda or baking powder, for example a chiffon cake.
Honey is acidic with a pH of 3.9- that's more acidic than some oranges. There is also quite a lot of honey in this recipe that will give the acid the baking soda needs to react.
In this recipe, both the egg whites and the baking soda are going to provide some leavening.
Without the soda the cake will undoubtedly be a little more dense.
Additionally, even when not contributing to leavening, raising the pH will promote browning of baked goods. I think the ground almonds will give nice color but the recipe may be a little paler without the soda.
There is no soda in angel food cake and I expect this cake will also be just fine without it.
My guess is that taking out the baking soda won't do much as there is no acid in the recipe for it to react with. Baking powder is baking soda plus cream of tartar, which is an acid, so baking powder supplies its own reactant. Baking soda relies on the rest of the ingredients to supply the acid, and almonds, honey, and eggs are not going to do it. So the baking soda is probably superfluous to begin with.
I thought that too, so do you think I should give it a try without baking soda?
I'd try it without baking soda, but before you give it to your friend. If it works great, and if not....nobody will ever know.
@GdD: You can dump it into the lake at midnight.
@Cerberus- and if the cake floats then it's a witch.
Sorry, despite being accepted, this answer is incorrect on the lack of acid. Sobachatina's answer below is far more accurate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.578560
| 2013-01-30T13:20:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30533",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Chris S",
"Christian",
"Dr. Cyanide",
"GdD",
"LLPJaS4A",
"Lee",
"Ojai Mark",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Zeina",
"abdllhbyrktr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33748
|
Homemade flour tortillas without cast iron
My wife and I love making things from scratch, but we're just starting out without a lot of equipment. We don't have a cast iron pan, especially because my wife has a neuromuscular disorder, so she can't lift really heavy pans.
Can you make good homemade flour tortillas in a regular stainless steel saucepan? What should we watch out for?
If you're helping her, can you place a griddle on the stove, let her cook, then remove the griddle for her when she's done? I've got a nice little round cast iron griddle that's only about 1/2 the weight of a similar diameter skillet. Also, although they're harder to find, there do exist cast aluminum skillets, which you can season like a cast iron pan but are 1/3 to 1/2 the weight of cast iron.
@slim re:your edit suggestion, where did you read that the OP means flour tortillas? I don't see this in the question, just a sample recipe in one of the answers, but it is mixed flour-corn too.
Sure, I made hundreds of tortillas on a couple of old revere-ware saucepans before springing the big bucks ($7.50-$12.00) on a couple genuine mexican sheet-steel (not stainless) tortilla griddles. The griddles work better, because you can do 2 at a time per griddle, and flipping is easier because there are no sidewalls to get in the way of your metal spatula.
Incidentally, I prefer the wooden tortilla presses to the metal ones; less persnickety. A couple square sheets of clear flexible window plastic make a good, and nearly permanent replacement for thatendless stream of saran-wrap or waxed paper.
Usually I don't choose special containers. It is enough that it is just the right shape, and the material distributes the heat well. I prepare tortillas with any non-stick pan, making sure that tortillas are thin enough, unless they're going to be rolled up, in which case they will be a bit softer.
I find black pizza pans perfect. Equally perfect the plate, even great, but flat.
teglia for pizza
crepiere
I make this kind of tortilla:
100 g wholemeal flour
100 grams corn flour (corn)
1/2 tsp baking soda
Hot water to taste
Oil
In a bowl, mix flour and baking soda with 1 or 2 tablespoons of water. Work with your hands for 3 minutes. Put in the fridge for 30 minutes. Divide into 8 pieces. On a floured table, roll with a rolling pin into very thin rounds. Fry with oil.
I suspect there may be a language barrier here. In the context of the question, tortilla means a certain type of flat bread common to cuisines of the American south-west, Mexico and South America, very thin, made from masa or wheat flour, not the omelette like Spanish dish.
@SAJ14SAJ Why do you think that? The answer is valid
@TFD The use of a pizza pan, and the reference to the softness depending on whether they would be rolled made me unsure. Thus the use of the word "may" in my comment.
I don't think the answer really needs offers of recipes for chili, spanish tortillas, and so on. I've left the tortilla recipe, in case it's useful to clarify what kind of tortillas you're recommending these pans for.
The answer's fine. This is just the Alton Brown mentality; "the only unitasker in your kitchen should be a fire extinguisher". A pizza pan, under a diffuse-enough burner (I find even the most even-heating pans don't do well to spread a small burner on high), would make a fine griddle for any flatbread, from tortillas to pitas to pancakes.
True. Counted that the question was not the best tortilla pan, but that they need a not-heavy pan. That means something light or something on the table.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.578887
| 2013-04-25T23:33:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33748",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"KeithS",
"Maria",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78605",
"rumtscho",
"user78596",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34478
|
Uses for dry bread
Currently I have a lot of bread. It's not bad, only dry because it's a bit old. I don't want to throw it out. What can I do with it?
This is a somewhat general question more suited to a traditional forum than here. There is no one right answer to your question, and any answer would be purely subjective.
See faq: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/740/can-i-ask-about-how-to-use-a-specific-ingredient-aka-culinary-uses-guidelines This question is considered
Also, I don't ask for recipes, just for ways to use an ingredient.
possible duplicate of Uses for stale bread?
Whenever I have some very dry leftover bread I run it through the blender and make it into breadcrumbs, whose uses are legion. In particular, I find that they are a necessary component of frittata and meatballs. After blending, sift the crumbs to remove the bigger chunks and store in an airtight container. Discard if it becomes moldy, but if you store it properly it will keep for weeks.
If the bread is not very dry (let's say that you can still cut it without it turning into a cloud of crumbs), you can make bruschetta: lightly toast it, rub garlic on the cut surface with a heavy hand, add olive oil and a sprinkling of salt. Yummy, not so good for your social life.
Old bread is also the basis of the panzanella salad and of bread soups like panada, ribollita and pappa al pomodoro. Yes, the Tuscans do love their bread.
Not-too-dry bread can also be cut into little cubes that you can dry in the oven (the microwave also works, but be careful lest you set them on fire) to make croutons, the best friends of boring vegetable soups.
Oh, I realized that there is a canonical entry on the many uses of stale bread,
Panzanella doesn't look hard, so maybe I'm gonna try to make that. I know croutons too, however I don't eat soup often since I'm living in a hostel. Thank you anyway!
I don't see what living in a hostel has to do with not eating soup! Dry bread can make acceptable toast. The classic British use for stale bread is bread and butter pudding (butter the bread, cut into cubes, layer with some raisins, pour on a mixture of hot milk, sugar and eggs, bake).
Of course I'd be able to make and eat soup. I'm just too lazy to do that! =D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.579222
| 2013-06-03T13:52:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34478",
"authors": [
"Arjun Ghimire",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jesse J Belansky",
"Joe",
"Luke",
"MarkDBlackwell",
"Michael Bell",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"goldcode",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80370",
"ismartphones",
"joshden",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54942
|
How should I make jam out of coffee cherries or coffee cherry husks?
I would like to make a jam (or perhaps more like a preserve/conserve or even marmalade; see this question for distinction) out of either
the entire, whole coffee cherry (a.k.a. coffee berry; beans and all), or
the skin and pulp of coffee cherries (i.e., the flesh of the fruit -- everything except for the beans. Often discarded from "normal" coffee production, these skin, pulp, and pectin remnants seem to be called "husks", which sounds a little odd or misleading; thanks to @Jefromi for articulating this).
Edit: I tried to clarify the usage of fruit and husks; I'm trying to use the canonical terms as best as I understand them.
A bit of background for completeness: coffee beans (really seeds) grow inside a fruit that grows on the coffee tree. This fruit of the coffee tree is commonly called a coffee cherry or coffee berry, (looking a bit like a red cranberry or cherry when ripe). There are good pictures on that linked Wikipedia page, and a botanical diagram at wikia.
I found a source of dried coffee cherry husks (i.e., the dried skin and pulp of the fruit). In general, one can infuse these husks (or the whole, dried fruits), as a tisane, to make coffee cherry tea (also called cascara, or qishr -- see another Coffee.SE question for more on coffee cherry tea). I haven't (yet?) found any source of whole coffee cherries, so I intend to start with the husks (dried skin and pulp only). I could even consider gelling the brewed coffee-cherry tea as a jelly, if all else fails.
My questions are:
Has anyone (around here) made jam/preserves with coffee cherries or the pulp/husks?
Does anyone know the properties of coffee cherry fruit/husks, as pertain to jam-making? E.g., natural pectin content, if the skin/pulp is starchy or totally inedible, or other relevant factors.
Are there any traditional methods for doing this? E.g., recommended sugars to use, recommend gelling agents (pectin, agar, gelatine, ...), how to prepare the coffee fruit/husks for use, etc.
The credit for this question (and my obsession therewith) goes entirely to @EricPlaton over at Coffee.SE, by his original question about the topic, with a bit of suggestion by @Jefromi to ask about foodstuff-process-related topics here at SA. It sounds coffee cherry jam is made locally in some coffee-producing countries, so this concept isn't novel; however, prepared jam doesn't seem to be available more broadly.
As a side note, I've had coffee jelly, which is produced using (conventional, roasted, brewed) coffee and agar or gelatine, but that is not what I'm asking about. I'm also not here talking about using the roasted or un-roated beans themselves, which might be a separate, fascinating (to me) topic...
The cascara/coffee cherry tea page suggests that it's made out of dried berries. It sounds like "husk" is just a name (from Spanish cáscara), perhaps because it's the "husk" around the bean, the part everyone actually wants. And the site you found says it's the "skin and pulp of coffee cherries". It sound like "husk" might be a misleading name here - unless I'm missing something, it's actually just the (dried) fruit.
@Jefromi - and I'm not an expert on this, I'm merely obsessed. :) My read of the cascara Wikipedia page (and other pages) says that cascara is either made with just the husks or the entire berry; it seems the former is likely, because (like you said) the bean part is in highest demand. The qishr page (also linked above) explicitly says it's just the husks; "husk" to me in this sense means generically "the stuff around the beans" -- but maybe I'm wrong. Off to read more...
"Husk" is just a really unusual name for dried fruit; if effectively this is about making jam out of dried berries (with the bean/seed/pit/whatever removed) then making that clear in the question would probably make it a lot easier for people to answer.
Toss a few of your husks into water overnight, and see if they rehydrate. If not, try a boil then soak. That later may destroy any pectin that's left. If you can get the stuff soft, chop it into jam sized chunks, and try making jam as usual. If it won't thicken, add pectin, or a grated orange peel, for its pectin. -If hydration turns out to be a big problem, you could probably powder the intial, dry husks in a spice or coffee grinder
@WayfaringStranger I think maybe you should write an answer!
We have a coffee tree we have been growing in our sun-room for 10 years. This year after we harvested the coffee cherries and hulled the beans, I decided to try making coffee cherry jelly. I didn't find any good recipes on the internet, so I decided to "wing it" and it turned out fantastic. This is what I did:
I had about 2 cups of coffee cherries. I put them in a pan and covered them with about 3 cups of water. I brought them to a boil and let them simmer for about 30 minutes, then let them cool in the water. I put a strainer over a bowl and strained off the liquid from the coffee cherries and then squeezed the cherries to get all the juice out. Throw away the squeezed out coffee cherries and keep the liquid. The liquid will be a reddish-brown and be a bit cloudy, but don't worry, it will clear up as you make the jelly. Next, I measured the liquid and had about 2-3/4 cups. I added 1/4 cup of organic lemon juice to the liquid, stirred in 1/3 cup of powdered pectin. Stir to dissolve the pectin then bring it to a full boil. Use a really large pot for this because it will rise up when at a full boil. When at a full boil stir in 5 cups of sugar, all at once. Bring back to a full, rolling boil that can not be stirred down and boil like this for one minute. Take pot off the heat and spoon the jelly into clean jelly jars. It will make about 5 small jars of jelly. Once the sugar goes in, the jelly should turn clear. Skim off any foam that might form on top before pouring into jars. Allow to cool and set. The color will be a beautiful, chestnut red and the flavor is mild, almost like honey. Enjoy!
I know this is an old post, but yesterday I made Coffee Cherry Jelly and this recipe worked quite well. I took inspiration from the Yemeni recipe for Qishr and I used fresh coffee cherry skins that I had frozen after each harvesting batch of coffee.
The recipe was:
Put all the coffee cherry skins in a pot
Fill the pot with filtered water to just cover the skins
Add 1 cinnamon quill
Add 1 small finger of ginger, grated (about 2 tablespoons worth)
Boil/simmer for 1 hour
Strain the liquid with a jelly cloth into a fresh bowl
Put the liquid into a clean pot, measuring how many cups of liquid you have
For each cup of liquid, also add 1 cup of white sugar and 1 tablespoon of lemon juice
Bring the liquid to a boil, boil vigorously for at least 20 minutes
Test the jelly on a cold plate to see if it has set
If it has not set, add pectin / Jam Setter, and follow instructions until the jelly sets
Once you meet setting temperature, take the jelly off the heat and pour into sterilized jars.
Let it cool, and enjoy :)
In India, there are typical traditional ways of Making Jam, Sauce, Candies of Fruits like Pickling, Drying, etc. In your case with Coffee Cherries, you can always try Preserving. Try the following method, Step 1: Make a 3/4 Inch Layer of Powdered Sugar in a Transparent Glass Jar Step 2: Follow it with a Layer of Coffee Cherry (Note: Coffee Cherries must be spread horizontally & not Stacked Vertically) Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 & 2 (Last Layer should always be of Sugar) Step 4: Take a Cotton Cloth & tie it on Mouth of Jar, covering Until Neck. Step 5: Expose the Jar in Sun for Few Days.
Though, the process is not Instant & very Tedious. But this slow cooking process will help to Lock the Freshness, Taste & Essentials in any Fruit in best Man-Made Way.
Sugar is a Great Preservative, but White Sugar is a Silent Killer, so as an alternative one can always try Brown-Yellowish Sugar which not only is free from Chemicals, but is also a great Flavor Enhancer.
I Usually do this with Seasonal Fruits. I also add a Pinch of Salt with the Total Sugar, as this acts as a Catalyst to the whole process & also is Taste-Bud Enhancer.
How is this pickling? You're just adding sugar. Also the OP's fruit is already dried, I think - not sure this method will work.
@Jefromi: Traditionally Indians use the word 'Aathaanu' which has many meanings from Fermentation to Pickling. I found the word pickling appropriate because it is a process and in Indian Context it is not restricted to Oil & Vinegar, but is exclusive. So it also has Salt, Sugar and other such things. For Indians Pickling is Preserving.
I see. In American English (and I think UK English) pickling refers very specifically to things using vinegar. Perhaps what you wrote makes sense to people in India, but I think most of the world would find it confusing. It sounds like a better translation of "aathaanu" would be simply "preserving".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.579461
| 2015-02-19T19:12:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54942",
"authors": [
"Adam Smith",
"Cascabel",
"Cherelle Kenny",
"Heather Driscoll",
"Mr Nobody",
"Seconds",
"Sheela Gandhi",
"Terrance Jones",
"Vikram S. Parikh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"pamela Wareing"
],
"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
}
|
44738
|
Beef discoloration on parts not in contact with air
I have bought a pack of sliced beef and opened it up as soon as I got home. Judging by the date on a package, it was packed on the same day I bought it. It was red on the outside, but dark and brown-ish where individual peaces touched each other.
Having read
these
two
questions, I would guess it should be safe to eat it, but I'm not sure what happened in the first place.
When meat is first cut, it is purplish in color. If it is exposed to enough oxygen, it can turn a bright red. Eventually it will turn brown.
If the meat is cut and exposed to air, but then deprived of enough oxygen to turn red, the color will go from purplish directly to brownish. (See this USDA FAQ, which was also quoted in the answer to a similar question here on ground beef.)
Also, many meat packers make use of small amounts of carbon monoxide during the packaging process. Exposing fresh meat to carbon monoxide will retain the bright red color on the exterior for a longer period.
In the past, the interior browning with exterior redness was mostly visible in heavily processed meat (like ground beef), where the grinding exposes a lot of meat surface to air, but then deprives it of oxygen. I assume that the carbon monoxide processing now makes it possible to see meats with less cutting involved (like sliced meats or steaks) where the exterior stays red for much longer, even as the cuts that are stacked or overlap may sometimes turn brown on the surface.
It's fairly common for beef to turn a little brown in places due to oxidation - myoglobin, which is what makes meat red (and is what people often mistake for blood in a rare steak) oxidises to form metmyoglobin, which is brown.
If you followed good storage practices (it hasn't been out at room temperature for more than 2 hours), and it has no odd odour or sliminess, you should be fine. Exercise your own judgement though - if in doubt, throw it out!
I understand that. My question is why the meat changed color only in places NOT in direct contact to air.
Probably some other reaction that caused the same effect, I would think - it usually takes some time for meat to turn brown in air.
@Slartibartfast It could be the meat was packed using carbon monoxide and that kept the portions exposed to the gas bright red.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.580238
| 2014-06-09T07:41:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44738",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Carol",
"Cathrine Myers",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Jim Davis",
"Kim",
"Slartibartfast",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45564
|
Is it OK to reheat hash browns the next morning?
Hash browns are delicious and delectable, but I do not have time to cook them every morning. I was wondering if it was OK to cook hash browns tonight and them eat them cold or reheat them in the microwave for 10 seconds the next morning? Will I have to keep them in the fridge, or just covered for the night? These are the hash browns that I will be using:
Frozen hash browns like that are already pretty much cooked. When you bake them, you're really just heating them up and crisping the outside.
If you cook some then save them, they're going to lose a lot of that crispiness no matter what you do. If you eat them cold they'll be, well, cold. If you heat them in the microwave, they'll soften even more. If you still like them, go for it.
Safety-wise, it's fine. You do need to keep them in the fridge, as with pretty much any other leftover food.
Have you tried them in the toaster?
Instead of microwaving them, maybe you would have enough time to throw them under the broiler on a cookie sheet lined with parchment paper. It wouldn't take long and would be crispy and hot.
You'd probably want to microwave them some first. If they're refrigerated, they're going to brown on the outside before they heat through properly.
Given the size of the pictured hashbrowns - I disagree.
The size is hard to tell from the picture. What I do know is that they take, according to the instructions, 15-20 minutes in a preheated 230C/450F oven. If it takes that long to get them properly cooked with full heat all around, high heat from the top is unlikely to heat them all the way through in a few minutes, and it will overbrown them quickly if they're already cooked. (It also says 7 minutes with frequent turning under the broiler. Same point there.)
I just reheated some leftover hash-browns in a skillet and they were great. They were from a restaurant, crispy on the outside but still soft on the inside. I broke them up and first warmed them in the microwave (good suggestion above) for 30 seconds. On high heat, with a little butter, I put the potatoes in the skillet and let them sit for a couple minutes then turned them with a spatula. I did this a few times then cracked two eggs on top, and put a lid on it for a couple of minutes until the yolks looked pink. Slid it on a plate, added S&P and dug in. Delish, fast and easy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.580466
| 2014-07-14T19:24:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45564",
"authors": [
"BrownRedHawk",
"Cascabel",
"Cory Mcgee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"witchmarta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73479
|
Crust separating from crumb in white bread. What gives?
The last couple of loaves I have made have had large air-bubbles which form at the top of the loaf, separating the crust in places from the crumb.
Before shaping, I have been degassing my dough using the King Arthur Flour recommended technique of folding the dough over itself a few times. To shape, I form a rough rectangle, then fold the lower side to the middle and seal it shut with my fingers. I do this a couple more times until I have a nice loaf shape.
Is it possible that I am over-proofing the dough before putting it in the oven? Or is it my shaping technique?
It sounds like the gas from the yeast is getting trapped just under the surface of the loaf. The surface layer may have gotten a little dryer and stiff while rising, and definitely sets first in the oven, that might explain why the gas can get through the rest of the loaf to collect there.
If you're otherwise pleased with your loaf's raising and crumb, you might, just before baking, lightly prick the top of your loaf, or add a light slash, to hopefully pierce that top pocket and deflate it before your bread bakes. If you pierce too deeply you might affect the rest of your loaf's rising, since it will let the gas out instead of using it to rise the loaf with. But if you're careful to keep it to the surface, you might pull it off.
Otherwise, if you want a fluffier loaf, you might want to double check your kneading - better developed gluten will trap the bubbles of gas better, so you might not have as much gas collect just under the top crust to form the pocket. If this works, your loaf should be more consistent in crumb - I noticed the bread seemed to be denser towards the bottom (little pockets) and fluffier towards the top in your pictures. This may still happen, depending on causes, but it would be less of a gradient.
Ii also might be that the difference in airiness from the bottom to the top of your loaf is affected by shaping. In your description, you mention folding the bottom of the dough rectangle over - so if your folding is directional (say, top to bottom) instead of even, that might mean the "lower" part of the loaf has been a touch more compressed or worked than the top. In this case, you might try baking the dough "upside down" in your loaf pan - that is, whichever side was down, ends up on top. It might not look quite so nice, if there's a seam (or you might edge the seam to one side), but it might tell you if the shaping method is contributing to the uneven rising.
Great! Thanks for all the tips. It may take a couple loaves to figure it out which of these problems I'm experiencing. I will probably start by trying the upside down method you mentioned
@nbren12 - I'm glad you found it helpful. I find its easier for me to try simple tricks first, usually mechanical, it might at least tell me where the process might be going wrong. Maybe someone with more knowledge than I can tell you if there's something you can do to fix proofing or shaping (if they are the problem), because that I don't know - but these might help anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.580676
| 2016-08-26T21:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73479",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48298",
"nbren12"
],
"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
}
|
36854
|
What makes a moist steak (or roast)?
When cooking steak on my grill it seems that even at a steady temp of 350 Degrees F and for 20 minutes the steak seems to change in the way of texture. I get my meat from the same Hanaford and I always get the 1 Inch cut. So what makes a moist steak. Does it have to do with the weather outside when I'm grilling?
I won't try to compete with SAJ14SAJ's excellent answer, but I will say that cooking a steak for 20 minutes at 350F is pretty much guaranteed to produce a dry end result. A steak is not a roast, and yet you're cooking it as if it were. Try a much higher heat and much shorter cooking time.
It sounds like your problem here is that you're overcooking your steaks. I've had similar problems with dry steaks until I decided to make them medium instead of well done. SAJ14SAJ's answer is accurate - but I'd like to highlight that temperature of the steak made most of the difference in my own steak's moisture.
There is no single answer to this question. Instead, a number of factors (not including the weather) affect the perceived tenderness or moistness of a steak or other cut of meat.
Overview
There are two major factors that effect the perceived moistness of a steak or other cut of meat:
The amount of connective tissue. The more connective tissue the meat has, the tougher and chewier it will be, at least until the collagen that composes the connective tissue is converted to gelatin
The temperature to which the cut is cooked. The higher the temperature, up to about 165 F, the more different types of proteins are denatured and coagulated, squeezing out moisture, leading to a dryer, tougher mouth feel.
Additionally, some minor factors contribute to or enhance perceived tenderness or moistness:
Cutting the meat against the grain enhances the perception of tenderness.
Marinating in an acid or enzymatically active marinade may enhance tenderness
Mechanically processing, cutting, or pounding the meat (as in a cube steak) to disrupt its fibers can enhance tenderness.
Connective Tissue
The more an animal uses a muscle, the more connective tissue that muscle will contain. For example, the shoulder of the animal is usually worked very hard (it has to keep the animal standing up) for pigs and cows, so it has a lot of connective tissue.
Other muscles are used rarely, such as the tenderloin, and don't develop very much connective tissue.
The connective tissue is composed of a protein called collagen, which is tough and rubbery, and makes cuts high in it seem much tougher than those which are not.
However, with certain types of cooking, collagen can be converted to gelatin, and convert from being tough to being unctuous and soft.
Temperature
As the temperature in the steak rises, more and more proteins tighten and denature, squeezing out moisture, resulting in a drier, tougher mouth feel.
Various groups of proteins denature at different temperatures, so the higher the internal temperature, the more moistness will be squeezed out, and the drier and tougher the steak will seem.
By the time the cut reaches about 165 F, all of the proteins are denatured, and it is fully well done, and as tough as it will be.
According to Amazing Ribs:
122°F - Myosin protein in mammal meat begins to denature.
130-135°F - Target temp for medium rare lamb chops and beef steaks,
the temperature at which they are at optimum tenderness, flavor, and
juiciness.
130-140°F - Fats begin to melt and render (liquefy). This is a slow
process and can take hours.
140°F - Collagens begin to contract and squeeze juice from within
muscle fibers into the spaces between the fibers and out to the
surface.
140°F - Myoglobin denatures rapidly and red or pink juices begin to
turn clear or tan and bead up on the surface.
150°F - Actin protein begins to denature making meat tougher and
drier.
155°F - Well done for most meats. Most (but not all) bacteria killed
in less than 30 seconds but spores can survive to much higher temps.
High Connective Tissue Cuts
When cuts are high in connective tissue, the same toughening and drying that occurs in low connective cuts happens as the internal temperature rises to about 165 F.
However, starting at about 170-180 F, a new process begins to engage: the collagen (the very protein that made these cuts tougher to start with) begins to transform in the presense of water into gelatin, a different protein.
The gelatin lubricates the meat, and gives it a newly unctuous and moist mouth-feel, despite being very well done.
It takes time for gelatin conversion to occur: it is not enough to simply bring the internal temperature to 180 F. It has to stay there for several hours for the conversion to have enough time to take place.
This gelatin conversion is what makes slow cooking methods like braising and barbecuing so effective for tough cuts of meat. They are cooked until quite well done (when they would be extremely tough), but then the conversion of the collagen to gelatin makes them much softer, and unctuous, so that they are again perceived as moist and tender.
Sadly, it will not work on cuts that were fairly tender to begin with, as there is little collagen to convert to gelatin.
Slicing Against the Grain
Additionally, while a minor factor, the way the meat is cut into bite sized portions also effects the perception of toughness.
Muscles are bundles of cells that are aligned in the same direction, like a bundle of straws. They are very, very strong in the direction that the fibers align (along the straws), but not as strong against that direction (across the straws).
If sliced against the direction of the grain of the meat, so that the straws are cut in half, the the impression is that the meat is more tender.
For example, in fajitas, the traditional flank steak or skirt steak is cooked to no more than medium rare to medium (to minimize the toughness from cooking), and then sliced across the grain to make it seem more tender.
Marinades
Some marinades, if they have strong acids and are used long enough, or if they have active enzymes that can break down proteins (such as from pineapples or papaya or kiwi) can soften meat.
If over done, this can leave them mushy and unpalatable.
Mechanical Processing
Using a meat mallet or jacquard to help break down connective tissue and the structure of the muscle (as in a cube steak, or as is often done for chicken fried steak) can help make some tough cuts more tender.
Resting
For many years, common and accepted wisdom was that after cooking, you needed to let a steak rest for several minutes before cutting into it, so that its juices would be retained.
There is some evidence that this may not be completely true.
For the argument that resting is not required, and considerable details regarding the arguments for and against resting, see the article at Amazing Ribs.
Weather
Not a factor.
+1 for the excellent answer but especially for the Meathead links. I hadn't seen his debunking of the resting argument before, but it's persuasive and fits what I've always thought intuitively.
So a cool wind over the grill won't affect the meat?
@YoungGuilo Not in any important way, no. If you are doing doneness tests, rather than trying to cook to some arbitrary time marker, it shouldn't matter at all. grilling in the deep of winter might take longer, but the targets for doneness are the same.
@YoungGuilo a grill cooks through radiant energy, not hot air. That's why if you approach the grill with you hand, it's the part that faces the coals that gets so hot so fast, while the top of your hand barely feels any warmth
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.580936
| 2013-09-16T16:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36854",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Escoce",
"Karl Mugele",
"Linda Zaricki",
"Muz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Young Guilo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37218
|
Baking flour and sour cream -US /UK terms
What is the UK equivalent of US 'baking flour' and does the term 'sour cream' describe the same product in both countries?
I'm not familiar with "baking flour" in the US - could it be "cake flour"?
Typically referred to as "soured cream" in the UK, it is the same as "sour cream" in the US.
While there are many different types of flour, Baking flour is the same in the UK as it is in the US.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.581539
| 2013-09-29T19:30:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37218",
"authors": [
"Amora Parmazano",
"Caitlin W",
"KatieK",
"Marta",
"Spammer",
"Sus",
"Winda Pratiwi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89657"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57174
|
Can I refreeze sauce made from frozen tomatoes
Hi I have some frozen tomatoes and I would like to blend them in my Vita mix and make sauce. My question is can I re-freeze the sauce once it's been cooked.
Hello Andrea, and welcome! Your title could have meant many things about tomatoes, so I changed it to better describe what you are asking. It's a nice first question, +1.
Probably. Depends on your sauce; some sauces do not tolerate freezing (e.g., they "break"). The fact that your tomatoes were frozen at one point doesn't matter.
Mostly warnings about not re-freezing foods are due to quality loss. For example, each time you freeze a vegetable, it will turn closer to mush.
Safety warnings are primarily about quick thawing (e.g., in the microwave) where the food may get into the danger zone (between 4°C–60°C/40°F–140°F); the recommendation is to cook it before freezing (if you thaw in the fridge, this is avoided). You've already got a cook step between the thaw/freeze, so even with a quick thaw method, there aren't any extra safety concerns.
I frequently freeze for up to 6 months various homemade tomato based pasta sauces, bbq sauces and hot sauces and have not had any trouble. Just thaw and make sure you mix well.
The fact that any raw ingredients were frozen is irrelevant for the sauce you intend to freeze. It is 100% safe to freeze a cooked sauce, though the quality of taste may be affected.
You can test it first if you like, put part in the freezer and keep the rest refrigerated. Thaw the frozen sample the next day and if it is still acceptable add the rest to the freezer. If not you may consider different options for storing the sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.581634
| 2015-05-04T19:36:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57174",
"authors": [
"David Curtis",
"Kitchen Cabinets Makeover",
"Mehr",
"Paul",
"Rosalind Bryce",
"Sarah B",
"Thomas touchette",
"Zibtek - Software Development",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"maddogyp",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57944
|
Sauerkraut soaks up too much liquid while fermenting
I've been fermenting sauerkraut in a quart jar and for some reason forgot to keep an outer piece of cabbage to help keep the kraut submerged. For day 1-2 it was fine, there was plenty of brine to keep it submerged. Now though on day 3 and 4 the brine has all been reabsorbed into the kraut and no matter how much I push it down, in a few hours it's exposed again. Do I still need to worry about mold at this stage or has 2 or 3 days fermentation been enough to preserve it? Or should I top off with a brine solution or would this just add unnecessary salt to what should be now a pickled flavour?
It will likely mold on top, where the cabbage is exposed. You can simply remove that layer, the kraut below will be fine. Alternately, you can top it off with brine...or use a container, smaller than the opening of your jar, filled with water, to weigh it down.
@Zippy84 Keeping the cabbage fully submerged is a very consistent aspect of ANY kraut recipe, IME. You need more brine, possibly a bigger container, and the weight on top that should have been there from the start. As the ferment produces gasses the cabbage wants to float - the job of the top weight is to prevent that. Be sure it's scrupulously clean.
I do not know. But if it has bubbled some or a lot I would think that the air over the weights inside the container is actually mostly CO2. Mold must have oxygen to grow so if there is no oxygen it will be ok I think. I would leave it. But the next time I would add extra brine of 1.5% salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.581830
| 2015-06-02T09:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57944",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jason Moralez",
"Jude Martin",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"kristina blackwell",
"netta169"
],
"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
}
|
54439
|
can someone tell me what exactly is msg used for?
What exactly is msg? What is it used for and why do some restaurants have signs saying "contains no MSG"?
Hi, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. We are a strictly cooking site, and nutrition is off topic here. So, "good or bad" is not a topic we can discuss, and I had to edit it out. "Why is it used" is indeed a culinary question, so that part is fine.
Mono sodium glutamate. Think of it as somewhere between salt and sugar. It's flavour is called Umami. Msg is present in many natural products mostly from fish like anchovies.
The reason many restaurants have "no msg" sign is because of the bad press and stigma it has received for health reason such as hyper activity and weight gain. Chinese restaurants have especially received a lot of flack for over using it in their take away food.
For a more informative read I highly suggest checking this out It’s the Umami, Stupid. Why the Truth About MSG is So Easy to Swallow
MSG is just the sodium salt of Glutamic Acid(Glutamate). So, technically MSG isn't found in many natural products, but a variety of glutamate compunds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.582028
| 2015-02-06T03:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54439",
"authors": [
"Darrell",
"MUGA Pitch Ltd",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nazreen Roslan",
"Private Jet Charter Flights",
"Spammer",
"Steve Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"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
}
|
7668
|
How do I make homemade Salsa thicker?
I have been playing with homemade salsa for a few weeks now and I can't seem to figure out how to get that thicker tomato texture that a lot of southern Mexican restaurants have.
Right now I play with these ingredients:
Tomatoes
Onion
Jalapeño
Cilantro
Lime Juice
Garlic Salt/Cumin
This seems pretty basic stuff for salsa, but it has a pretty watered down feel no matter how I swing it. How do I get the tomato base that some of the classic salsas have in order for everything to hold on the chip a little better?
Update
I really wanted to accept two answers because I like both depending on what I am doing. For a fresh salsa (pico de gallo) straining the juice from the tomatoes seems to work really well. But for the thickness I was going for the key was experimenting with Tomato Paste/Cooking the salsa. I am able to get a much thicker salsa that I enjoy much more. I did learn how to create killer pico de gallo from this though.
are you doing a raw or cooked salsa? You have to cook it to activate the pectin in the tomatoes if you want it to get thick like salsa from a jar
Thick salsa is made by cooking the tomatoes or using the already cooked tomatoes from a can of tomato sauce, as @Joe pointed out.
@Joe/papin I've been doing raw, but I am a newbie. Didn't think about cooking the tomatoes! I think this is what I was looking for, surprised you didn't answer the question. Going to try this, and Martha's solution out and see which ones turn out better for me. :)
There's a few types of salsa -- salsa fresca (aka pico de gallo, aka salsa cruda), which is "fresh salsa" and uncooked, and if made fresh, it shouldn't be too watery (unless you add to much liquid, eg, lime juice), but letting the vegetables sit after salting will start to draw out extra liquid and could become watery.
For truly thick salsa, you have to treat it like a jam, and cook it to release the pectin in the tomato. (or I guess you could use some other thickeners ... I've never tried. tomato paste, maybe?) You don't necessarily have to cook the other ingredients, too, but I personally like roasting the peppers and onions to sweeten then up and remove some of the extra liquid. (halve the peppers and seed them, lay them on a tray cut side up with the onion cut into wedges, roast 'til they're softened, then dump into a food processor and either pulse or liquify it, depending on how chunky you like it. And the skin falls off the peppers, so I leave 'em out).
You can do the same roasting with the tomatoes, and it'll be thicker from the food processor, but you won't get the same cling without letting them cook slowly in liquid to develop the pectin. If you roast the tomatoes, I like to use plum tomatoes, as they have more "meat" to the gel around the seeds, and take out the gel and seeds.
Have you tried straining the salsa? Put it in a coffee filter or in some cheesecloth in a sieve sitting over a bowl. Let drain until the salsa's the texture you want.
Yep, that's what I would do. I don't think you even need the coffee filter or cheesecloth, just dump it in a sieve and let it drain awhile. Or you could do that just to the tomatoes, after tossing them with a little salt, since that is where the bulk of the water is. Or you could remove the seed part of the tomatoes and use only the flesh.
Adversely effect the flavor and remove nutrients? Wouldn't at all be my choice.
Need to try this, I am in India and I can't find Jalapeños
I've seen a lot of people chop the tomatoes, salt them, and then let them drain before combining with other ingredients. It eliminates the main culprit of excess water and concentrates the tomato flavor. I probably wouldn't strain the complete salsa though...
Or, use a wire mesh strainer for the tomatoes after cutting them, but before mixing them in with the rest of the ingredients. Maybe just a touch of salt to draw out water.
I mix it, salt it, strain it, then thicken the juice with a little bit of xanthan gum and mix it back in.
If you remove the liquid and seeds from your tomatoes, that should increase the chunkiness. Also to remove liquid from tomatoes, consider giving them a whirl in a salad spinner.
Just chop tomatoes roughly and leave them in a strainer overnight in the fridge. It helps your salsa to have a better consistency.
If it's a salsa that you want avocado in, a relatively soft avocado cut up and mixed in will kind of dissolve, and thicken things up a bit.
I now use arrowroot to thicken my salsa. It has given me the best results yet, after having tried cornstarch, flour, and guar gum in the past.
After reading these answers, yesterday, I experimented and found cooking chopped up CHERRY TOMATOES and CELERY, then blending them together, created a suspended mass, not runny. Adding that to runny raw salsa might work for what one has in mind. My plan is to have regular raw tomatoes for the main mass, at the end, but cherry tomatoes seem to be an interesting possibility as a filler.
When I keep containers of cherry tomatoes above the fridge, some, eventually, shrink and shrivel. I hypothesize if cherry tomatoes are left to dry more to shrivel stage, they could create a thick paste of fresh tomatoes when mixed with a little fresh tomato in a cuisinart spin. That might be an addition to the salsa that could absorb some of the water, since the cherry tomatoes might continue to absorb.
I just added some Bob’s Red Mil Organic Amaranth Flour to the liquid I strained, and I found when I boiled it into the liquid, it thickened, and the taste was still good. Since amaranth is from the same land as tomatoes, originally, maybe that helps the flavors to blend. I am always looking for ways to make salsa a more complete food.
FYI, I, also, freeze containers of boiled amaranth whole grain to add to other things, ongoing. It can be gelatinous, and as a vegetarian, I am always on the lookout for such aids. I love the taste added to things as they are cooking, i.e. hot milk, soup, etc...mild with natural energy. I find putting a Viva paper towel over the strainer lets me rinse the amaranth whole grains with it not falling through the mesh, being so tiny. I am going to look for a way to make the cooked grain a paste, which might, also, be a good thickening aid for raw salsa.
BOTTOM LINE: As an answer to the original question, here, I would advise straining the too-wet raw salsa, then take that juice and bring it to a boil with amaranth flour as a thickener. Then just mix that back into the raw salsa, after cooling. I gave the salsa I made to the husband and he said it was the best he has ever tasted. So, slipping in amaranth flour does not dull the taste, if maybe it might blend it a little.
Roasted Nopales work well, especially when puréed and they add a nuttiness that is a nice complement to most salsas. I also agree roasting tomatoes helps, but you don't always want that. If you have a blender, emulsify a neutral oil into part of your salsa, if you want it to remain chunky leave some of the ingredients out of the blender and mix by hand. Roasted garlic. I think avocados works well but over-mellows out most salsas. That might be your thing, so try it out.
Straining, for me, is the last resort. You really don't want to lose flavor, but you could always strain the tomato water out, if you have a nice fine mesh strainer either overnight or a few hours and then reduce the liquid on high heat and reintroduce into your salsa.
Blending nuts, particularly pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds and other neutral nuts into a paste and introducing that into your salsa will work quite well too. Think molés. Oh, and of course chocolate, but not that sweet stuff. Use mexican chocolate or a nice dark unsweetened bakers chocolate.
There are many ways to improve the mouth feel of salsa, I only mention the ones that come to mind as readily done in the home.
My two cents: Corn starch is not the best thickener for a salsa. Corn starch works better for a soup. You should use potato starch. Works really well.
I strain out part of the juice and can it in jars to add to chili later, it's spicy and flavorful and I would not care to throw it away.
Once all of your tomatoes are in your pot, and before you add anything else, put a colander into the pot, and on top of the tomatoes, while they are starting to cook.
All of the juice will settle in the middle of the colander, and you just scoop it out with a measuring cup. I weight it down with a clear glass 2 quart measuring bowl to keep it on the bottom where the liquid is. You can take out as much as you want, then you can add all of your ingredients not loosing any of the good stuff. You have to have a big pot to fit the colander in, but it works great.
I have done it both ways, taking off liquid after it has cooked for awhile and then also adding tomato paste. The paste seems to make it taste too sweet.
I use 5 gram per gallon (0.0125 percent) Xanthan gum to thicken a bit.
If you look at labels at the grocery store, you'll see that this is what most purveyors of cheap sauce use.
You've got to add the stuff with rapid mixing, a food processor or a blender, or you'll get ropy slime.
Works well when handled properly though.
I drain my liquid after it cooks down for about 2 hrs, then can the juice to be used in soups,spagetti, etc.
The way I thicken is to cook it, then take out some liquid into a blender then add the cornstarch in the blender. Add this to the hot mixture and shut off the heat. I then add more raw peppers, tomatoes, and onion (This gives it a chunky texture). I fill my empty canning jars with water and microwave till boiling. Empty the boiling water and fill the jars with the still hot salsa and get the lids on. The stuff gets thicker in the sealed jars as it cools and forms a seal.
Cooking Salsa with Okra is a natural thickener and adds more green flavor to your batch. Think 1 lb okra / 6 qt. batch. Good salsa takes time and constant STIRRING over heat every 17min. that doesn't "boil it" but simmers it to remove water. Depends on the cooking pot, get a double bottom stainless steel 12-14QT.
Still after 2 hrs. ye may have to skim off the top quart of liquid for "juice". The remaining batch should be lowered to heat just to keep it hot enough to cause the canning jar to seal. Chunky salsa is best, & runny salsa is reflection of an amature!
Anytime I have excess liquid in a stew, casserole, cold salad made with mayo or salad dressing, creamy soup, gravy, or something similar, I add alittle mashed potato flakes at a time...it absorbs the excess liquid without changing the taste or texture...unless you put too much in. A LITTLE at a time is key! But, I've never tried it in my homemade salsa...I've just made salsa to process, & it's too liquidy...I'm going to strain it first, (reserve the juice for canning), then see how it is. If necessary, I'm adding a few mashed potato flakes to absorb the extra liquid...wish me luck!
Welcome! If you are honest, this isn’t an answer yet - would you mind to come back when you can actually report on how well this suggestion worked?
a can of tomato paste per pound of salsa
I'm from my Mexico and my mom would always just a couple of corn tortillas to make the salsa thicker. If there are no tortillas chips work too.
Instant masa works in a pinch.
I cook my salsa in a slow cooker for 4 hours on high.
Adding some Okra can thicken it up, it can also add an interesting texture to the final product if you like chunky salsas.
Time will also help, although reduces chunkiness. As it cooks down the result is smoother and thicker. Tomato paste will help it thicken more quickly and allow you to keep larger chunks of tomato as you go.
add corn starch.....slowly like making gravy......its in a couple recipes i looked at and i also tried it for mylself and it works
Uncooked corn starch is not a very effective thickener? Are you sure you have actually tried this? Normally uncooked corn starch will just settle to the bottom of a liquid, and form a dilatant paste
@chad I would update your answer to explain the complete thickening process using corn starch. I'm guessing you are implying that this is to be added during cooking?
people If you want to make thick salsa all you have to do is cook in a pot like normal and then put in a frying pan and cook just the water out not the juice from the fruit!!!! You can cook it down as thick as you want with out looseing any flavor.
Salsa is normally raw, but as the accepted answer from Joe mentions, you can cook it to thicken it. What does your answer add to his two year latter on? What is the word "people" doing at the start?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.582218
| 2010-09-28T23:49:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7668",
"authors": [
"Adrian B",
"ChefAndy",
"Craig Michie",
"Diego Ponciano",
"Joe",
"Kumar",
"Michael Natkin",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Roxann Hatch",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"Unferth",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yuet",
"emalamisura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85733",
"jsmith",
"papin",
"rgk",
"vizz_bob",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104368
|
Why doesn't milk create gluten when combined with flour?
I wanted to make a simple pizza, but as I read the recipe, I began to wonder about the chemistry behind it.
When flour and water come together, gluten starts to form. We know that.
But why doesn't gluten form when only flour and milk come together? 87 percent of the milk consists of water. When I whip the milk and flour, there is no elastic structure.
Out of curiosity, why didn't you think that gluten forms when milk is mixed with wheat flour?
The answer below - wrong incipit - goes in details but gluten IS in flour. The gluten structure or whatever is something you can get because gluten is there, already. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/past-issues/archive-2011-2012/gluten.html
Milk does create gluten1 when combined with flour. The water in the milk does create a gluten structure. If it didn't, any bread made with milk would be dense and flat. But the dinner rolls I made yesterday (with no water, only milk) were light and airy. Milk clearly creates gluten.
Note that gluten isn't only about elasticity. Beginning bread makers often associate gluten with stretchiness, but gluten is also necessary for the structure of bread. Without gluten development, bread won't rise high. Without gluten, gases will escape and bubble out, rather than stay in the dough. Without gluten, the final risen loaf of bread could collapse into a flat, dense pancake. Different doughs may be easier or harder to stretch into long strands, but that's not all that gluten development is about.
The other ingredients in milk will tend to alter how gluten behaves. As Jeffrey Hamelman notes in his book Bread: A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes:
Although the lactic acid in milk tightens the gluten structure, the
fats present soften the structure, and the result is baked products
that have less elasticity and an even grain. [...] When milk is used
in yeast breads, it should be heated to about 190°F, a temperature
higher than pasteurization, in order to denature the serum protein.
Unheated, the serum is active and has a weakening effect on the
structure of the gluten. Bakers often replace whole milk in formulas
with dried milk, first for convenience, and second because the serum
protein is deactivated in dry milk.
A couple takeaways from that:
Milk tightens the gluten structure (which means it won't stretch as easily)
The fats in milk soften the structure, leading to more fine-grained bonding
Some milk proteins can weaken the gluten structure (which will make the dough easier to tear and bread won't rise quite as high; as Hamelman mentions, a remedy for this is using heated milk or dried milk, but bakers often also just use a high-protein flour that generates more gluten to begin with)
The question specifically mentions pizza, and the above issues are one reason that milk is less commonly found in pizza doughs than in things like soft rolls or soft white bread. Pizza dough needs to stretch easily, and it needs a very strong gluten structure to be stretched thinly. (Also, the sugars in milk will cause faster browning, which for pizza baked at high temperature may result in a crust that's quite dark.)
1 In response to a comment, I should clarify what I mean as the word gluten is used in modern English in several different ways. Gluten comes from a Latin word for "glue" and, when used in the context of preparing dough, generally refers to a network created when certain proteins combine with liquid to form a sticky and elastic mass. The properties of the combined liquid and protein mixture are different from the protein alone, so most cooks use the word gluten to make reference to this specific mixture and its properties.
Nevertheless, as the proteins that occur in flour were isolated historically, the term gluten (or glutens, in plural; in wheat specifically called glutenins and gliadins) also came to refer to the specific proteins generally involved in creating this structure. Hence, one may also use the word "gluten" sometimes to refer to proteins in flour even when it is dry. And this dry substance can be isolated and sold separately as "wheat gluten." (Important note: occasionally, one sees people using the word "gluten" as a synonym for "protein content" of flour. However, other proteins that are non-glutinous may be found in flour as well, so the total protein content -- often found on labels -- is often different from the fractional amount of that which is gluten.)
This ambiguity of usage -- a wet, elastic substance vs. the dry ingredient that enables its creation -- can be found in many sources. For a few examples, Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking writes:
Gluten is a complex mixture of certain wheat proteins that can't
dissolve in water, but do form associations with water molecules and
with each other. When the proteins are dry, they're immobile and
inert. When wetted with water, they can change their shape, move
relative to each other, and form and break bonds with each other.
Here McGee tends toward the second usage, but in subsequent paragraphs he switches nomenclature to refer to the dry components as "glutenins" and concludes by noting: "The result [of bonding and stretching of glutenins] is an extensive interconnected network of coiled proteins, the gluten." Thus, in McGee's usage, "the gluten" only comes into being in the presence of liquids, conforming to the first usage.
Michel Suas in Advanced Bread and Pastry tends toward the first usage, stating:
The two primary proteins in wheat -- glutenin [...] and
gliadin [...] -- are responsible for the formation of the dough. Depending on their quality, these proteins can absorb 200 to 250
percent of their weight in water. As they inflate, they become
attracted to each other and form chains of proteins called gluten.
Some sources go further and even deny the existence of dry gluten (a view conflicting with the standard second English usage and product labeling). For example, Modernist Cuisine states:
Gluten is formed when two of wheat’s native proteins, glutenin and
gliadin, come into contact with water. That’s why it’s more accurate
to talk about the gluten potential of a particular flour, rather than
its gluten content.
In any case, it's important to note the distinct meanings of the two uses of the word gluten in English, which can usually be understood from context. In dough formation, as here, it's quite common to talk about the "formation of gluten" through the addition of liquid, which is what I assume OP was referring to by the phrase "create gluten," a phrase I also incorporated into my answer.
Thank you so much for your detailed answer. There's another thing I'm curious about.
For example, I did pudding yesterday. I mixed flour,sugar, milk and cocoa. But the resulting mixture was like water. There's got to be a little elastic structure in the place with gluten, right? I understood what you said. There are reasons that tighten and relax the gluten structure. But 87 percent of the water in a structure, fat and lactic acid is how to prevent the mixture to be elastic?
@mhendek: I'm unsure what you mean by the word "pudding." In American usage, that usually means a rather thin dessert dish, but in British usage it can mean something quite thicker and more bread or cakelike. In either case, if your resulting mixture was "like water," it's likely because it contained so much liquid that no significant gluten network could form. Gluten networks are mostly relevant for dough, which has a smaller amount of liquid compared to flour. But if you add only a small amount of flour to a large amount of liquid (whether milk or water), it will be thin and runny.
As for the pudding, in American pudding, flour is included for the starch not for the gluten. The gluten is prevented by cooking the flour in fat.
@Sobachatina: Interesting - I've never seen an (American-style) pudding recipe that requires one to cook the flour in fat first. I mean, I understand how that process would work (as I use it in gravy and such frequently), but most pudding recipes I've seen (and I just looked at a couple dozen to verify) that use flour rather than cornstarch just seem to add the flour directly to a milk mixture or the reverse. And yes, obviously in that case one cares about the starch for thickening, rather than gluten. Is that a particular style of pudding you're referencing?
Milk doesn't create gluten. Gluten is a substance. The so called gluten structure it is a property of the resulting dough. I did down vote and suggested edit.
@Alchimista: English usage of the term "gluten" is inconsistent. I rejected your edit (as I think it is an inaccurate explanation of how the word gluten is actually used) and provided an explanation. If you still disagree, you might consider writing your own answer. Also, I just used the phrase "create gluten" as it was in OP's question. It's a reasonable synonym for the term "formation of gluten" commonly seen in the literature on baking. Just as adding water to dirt may "create" mud, so adding water to flour can "create" gluten in the first sense I discuss in my edited answer.
I like the analogy with "formation of mud". The point of my concern was that the gluten content, or potential, was linked to the presence of a particular texture, but it is not in reality. At least people with a real gluten problem must avoid flour whatever form. About editing:I am, more than fine. The answer is now correct and it is a good one.
Let's start with what Gluten development actually is. It's the process of developing the protein in flour, gluten, into a web that traps air into it.
Water is essential for this web, and as you mention 87% of milk is water. However, 3% of milk (whole milk, at least) is fat.
This fat will coat the gluten molecules, preventing them from being shaped into a gluten web. A barrier is essentially formed between the proteins and they can no longer meld and developer together.
This is also why Brioche uses a ton of fat in it. The fat will give it a fine, soft crumb.
This is the answer. You could stress that brioche and bread would have the same gluten content although different texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.583457
| 2019-12-26T11:17:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104368",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Athanasius",
"RonJohn",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80212",
"mhendek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110875
|
What is this leafy green with a sharp taste, and how do I safely use/cook it?
I recently purchased this vegetable at a farmers' market without getting its name. It was marketed as organic/fresh/local in the Northeastern United States in late September.
The leaves are thin and non-waxy, but a little moist (when I try to slide my fingers across the leaves they stick a little).
When I tasted a small portion of a leaf raw, I immediately felt moderate burning in the mouth which I (mistakenly) believed to be oxalic acid at first. In reality, it was a mustardy spicy/sharp taste (which I didn't expect from greens). Because I don't know the name of this plant, I'm not sure if this is the case. In light of that concern, does it require any special preparation to be safe for healthy individuals?
It looks like it might be green wave mustard... Which would also explain the spicy taste/feeling.
Unlikely to be oxalic; Ruhbarb leaves contain oxalic are are regarded as relatively toxic.
@AMtwo that looks like it could be right and I could be misinterpreting the sharp flavor as oxalic acid; would you mind adding a brief answer?
Rhubarb leaves are toxic because of high levels of oxalic acid. Some greens with lower levels of oxalic acid, such as sorrel and wood sorrel are both edible and delicious. The oxalic acid gives them a sour, lemony taste. I wouldn't describe them as sharp/spicy.
@csk Yep, I think that was a fundamental misunderstanding that I had when writing the question. Do you suggest I delete it, or leave it up for an answer that fully describes this?
@nanofarad how about an [edit] that makes the post clearer - like you already did? You can always add more relevant details to improve the post.
@csk: while sorrel may be lower in oxalic acid than rhubarb leaves (whcih are not eaten because of their high oxalic acid content), the oxalic acid content of sorrel is very high - chewing some leaves is fine, but it should not be eaten as a main vegetable dish. The dose makes the poison!
From the photo & description of the leave look & feel, these sound like green wave mustard--a variety of mustard greens with curly leaves.
Mustard greens have a "spicy" or peppery taste, which also seems to align with your experience.
Mustard greens can be safely eaten raw or cooked. It can be a raw salad ingredient, or be sauteed, braised, grilled, etc. Because of the assertive flavor, some people find it best when mixed with other leafy greens to balance out that spiciness you describe.
I'll tackle the other part of the question: dealing with high oxalic acid levels (or more precisely: a high oxalic acid : calcium ratio).
I'm aware of two traditional ways of preparing food from high oxalic acid vegetables:
When cooking the vegetables, soluble oxalic acid gets distributed throughout the veggies and the cooking water as well. Throwing away the cooking water will get rid of the corresponding part of the oxalic acid.
Oxalic acid forms insoluble salts with kations like Ca²⁺ (Fe²⁺, ...). Thus, if you prepare (or eat) vegetables that are high in oxalic acid with sufficient food that is high in Ca²⁺, calciumoxalate will precipitate and mostly prevent the oxalic acid from being absorbed.
E.g., in my home region, spinach is traditionally cooked with milk: spinach contains something between 1.2 and 13 g Oxalic acid per kg fresh weight. A part of it is already present as insoluble salts (Ca-oxalate, Fe-oxalate). To precipitate 1 g of oxalic acid (calculated anhydrous), you need 450 mg of Ca²⁺. As a very rough guesstimate, 1 l milk contains 1.2 g Ca²⁺, so 375 ml milk to precipitate 1 g of oxalic acid (yielding 1.45 g of calcium oxalate).
If the vegetable was indeed high in oxalate, you may find a slightly gritty texture due to the calcium oxalate.
If you prefer to use cheese instead of milk, keep in mind that sour milk cheeses tend to be low in calcium (the calcium is in the whey) whereas rennet-based cheeses are high in calcium.
Bon appetit :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.584552
| 2020-09-27T21:43:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110875",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Stephie",
"blacksmith37",
"cbeleites",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"nanofarad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110570
|
Vegetable lasagna a bit too wet. How to adjust baking temp/time?
I’ve just assembled a vegetable lasagna, and the filling and sauce have both come out erring a bit on the watery side — not dreadfully so, but noticeably wetter than when I’ve previously made this recipe.
Usually I cook it 35–40mins at about 180ºC (in a fan oven). How should I adjust the cooking temperature and time to correct for the extra wetness — i.e. to cook off a bit more water, without affecting other aspects too much? Slightly higher temperature? Slightly longer time?
Edit: To be clear, I’m not asking “how do I avoid this problem next time?” (which I know well enough), I’m asking “when this sort of mistake happens, how should one adjust to compensate as far as possible?”
what kind of veg....and how are you treating them?
Onion and mushroom, lightly sautéed. And the sauce is a béchamel.
Were you seeking to rescue this lasagne or amend your approach for the future?
@Spagirl: To learn what to do if I make such a mistake again in future. (Obviously the best approach is always “don’t make the mistake again”, but we’re human, mistakes happen, so it’s also good to know how to react when the do.)
Mushrooms can throw off excess moisture. I would suggest cooking them down a bit further and draining on paper towel before adding them to your lasagna. You didn't mention how you baked your lasagna, but my process is to bake (and your temp is fine) covered for 40 to 50 minutes. Then to uncover and return to the oven for about 10 to 15 minutes more. I'll take a look, and often run it under the broiler to brown the top and crisp the edges.
Thankyou; your second half (cooking for longer, but combining covered and uncovered cooking) seems just what I’m after.
Cooking a casserole like this for longer isn’t a great way to reduce moisture. Unlike a stew, there’s not much circulation. The top dries out, and then further reduction requires a lot of heat to be conducted to the inner areas. Even up at temperature it’ll take a long time.
If you’ve got significant liquid, instead just spoon it out or remove with a turkey baster.
In addition to moscafj's advice on pre-cooking your vegetable ingredients, I would also recommend that you consider using uncooked noodles of some kind, either no-boil dried noodles, or fresh-rolled handmade pasta.
Boiled noodles are wet, and can actually give off some of their moisture while baking. Whereas dried or fresh noodles absorb moisture from the other ingredients, ensuring that you don't get a "soupy" lasagna even if some of your veggies or your sauces are too wet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.584886
| 2020-09-06T16:59:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110570",
"authors": [
"PLL",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129449
|
What’s the difference between hazelnuts and filberts, really?
I’m confused about the distinction (if any) between hazelnuts and filberts. I’m interested primarily as a cook and shopper, but trying to look up the difference led down a deeper rabbithole than I expected, involving not just culinary but also linguistic and botanical aspects.
On the one hand, looking plenty of sources (first of all Wikipedia) draw distinctions between them. From that WP article, for instance:
The hazelnut is the fruit of the hazel tree and therefore includes any of the nuts deriving from species of the genus Corylus […] They are also known as cobnuts or filberts according to species.
A hazelnut cob is roughly spherical to oval […] while a filbert is more elongated.
On the other hand, different sources seem to make the distinction differently, or elide it altogether. Between the two wikipedia quotes above, for instance, the latter distinguishes hazelnut cobs from filberts, while the former presents filberts as a subclass of hazelnuts. And the Wiki article for the species Corylus maxima says:
In Oregon, "filbert" is used for commercial hazelnuts in general. Use in this manner has faded partly due to the efforts of Oregon's hazelnut growers to brand their product to better appeal to global markets and avoid confusion.
And in colloquial usage, I’m unsure if most people make any distinction at all, or if it’s just regional variation. In British usage, I’ve only come across hazelnut in everyday usage (including product labelling), never filbert. From the US I certainly recall hearing both used, including people using filbert colloquially to describe products sold as hazelnuts; I don’t recall if I saw products officially labelled as filbert. So I had assumed filbert was just a US-specific synonym of hazelnut, until reading some sources recently noting a technical distinction.
Overall it seems clear that at least within some specialist circles, there is a distinction, but on the other hand that usage varies, and colloquially at least some people treat them as synonymous. So I’m trying to work out where the situation lies, between “a clear widely-agreed-on distinction, although some non-specialists are ignorant of it” and “mostly used interchangeably depending on dialect; occasionally distinguished in some specialist contexts, but not consistently”. Specifically:
Among people who make a distinction, do they agree on what the distinction is, or do people mean different things by it in different regions/industries/etc?
Is the distinction respected in formal usage — for instance, in food product labelling in the US or UK?
How widely, if at all, do non-specialists make any distinction? In the US, for instance, do most people mean different things by the two words, or just use one or the other depending on their region/dialect? When I see filberts/hazelnuts in a recipe, should I consider them synonyms, or presume the writer intended one specific kind?
This may be a better suited to Gardening.SE
@GdD: Personally it’s the food/cooking side I’m interested in — when I see hazelnuts/filberts named in a recipe, or listed in ingredients, what should I make of that? The horticulture aspect came in just insofar as the detailed sources I found discussing the distinction were mostly on the industry side.
That doesn't come through strongly @PLL, if that's really what you want to know then it would be worth editing to make that clear. What's the difference between the two from a taste and cooking use perspective is a totally valid cooking question.
I think in the UK "filbert" is regional, but possibly also more likely to be applied to green hazelnuts than fully ripe ones, or maybe wild rather than cultivated (I'm not near my books today) . "Cobnuts" is even more regional
@GdD: Thanks — I’ve edited to try to clarify. “What’s the difference from a taste and cooking perspective” is pretty much the question I originally had in mind, but when I searched about it online, I realised the presupposition that there are two clearly different things “filberts” and “hazelnuts” and people basically agree on which is which was much less clear than I’d assumed. So my question here started from that question, but had to end up taken one step further back.
Cobnuts and filberts are the same hazelnuts are from the same family but tend to be harvested earlier and are used more for cooking and oil production.hope this helps.
Brian.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.585122
| 2024-10-27T14:44:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129449",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"PLL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19250
|
How to Rescue Too-Soft Cookie Dough Made with Butter Substitute?
The other day I made a batch of sugar cookies intending to roll them out and cut into shapes. I used the standard Martha Stewart's recipe, but didn't have butter, so I used Smart Balance Lite Margarine. Needless to say the dough didn't get stiff enough to cut or roll, even though its been refrigerated for more than 24 hours. Is there anyway to either use this dough as is OR to add ingredients to the dough to make it more stiff?
The freezer, maybe?
I don't believe you will be satisfied with any cookies you roll out and cut from this dough. That said, there are three options that may allow the dough to find a tasty future.
Make a 'Mega Cookie': roll the dough out and fit it onto a pizza tin and bake. This can be decorated as one large cookie/pizza.
Make 'Brownies': work the dough into an 8"x8" or 9"x13" pan and bake.
'Cupcakes': scoop a spoonful of dough into each compartment of muffin tin and bake.
Of course you will have to watch to get them done enough as the standard bake time probably won't apply.
If your recipe doesn't include eggs (or you are not concerned with the risk that raw eggs may pose) adding it to homemade ice cream would be a fourth option.
Good luck.
In the ice cream department, you could probably also freeze the dough and use it as a topping, or even stir it into softened storebought ice cream.
I had the same problem by using margarine instead of butter, thought it would be ok because it said it was used for baking on the package, but mine was so soft and looked up receipes where you had to refrigerate the dough so I just put in the freezer for a few mins, got a little stiff and was able to make some crooked Christmas trees into fall leaves.. happy baking.
The dough should still make edible cookies; the problem will be with spreading. So instead of cutting out shapes, just drop the dough by spoonfuls on a cookie sheet and bake it, possibly for less time than the recipe calls for. You can still decorate the cookies, or you can keep these for munching and make a new batch (with butter!) for cutting out and decorating.
The method I use for the “butter shortbread biscuits” could be useful in your case, too:
I roll the whole dough out on the baking paper,
And then place it on the baking tray with the paper and there slightly cut into shapes by knife,
After baking, I cut the shapes again (as it is still warm and kind of soft)
and let the biscuits to cool before taking them out of the tray.
The natural answer would be to add a little more flour. You will probably need to leave the dough out of the fridge a while to soften so you can fold/mix in the flour until the mixture stiffens sufficiently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.585589
| 2011-11-30T17:11:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19250",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jonny Henly",
"Martin",
"Mrs. Leena Joshi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user1031742",
"user3617530",
"user41879",
"zanetu"
],
"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
}
|
14445
|
How do I prevent burned chicken breasts when cooking on the stovetop?
Ok I'm going crazy with this. I've tried everything, but no matter what I do, it always results in my chicken breast burning and becoming black. Here is what I usually do:
Grab a chicken breast, wash it with water.
Next, I season it. I usually add salt, pepper, curry, and lemon pepper.
Then I grab a pan and I've tried these things to cook the chicken with:
Olive Oil
Vegetable Oil
Butter
All of them usually result in me burning my chicken. I set the temp at like 5.5/10 on the knob, so that it takes its time and doesn't burn. What am I doing wrong and what should I do instead?
Are you sure you're not just cooking it for way too long? I've dried out many a chicken breast by accident but I've never managed to turn one black...
No it gets black long before its anywhere near cooked. Not fully black but a lot of parts..
@Aaronut what do you use to cook it?
Just olive oil at medium- to medium-high heat (depending on the pan). ElendilTheTall is probably right, I glossed over the fact that you were seasoning it before frying; you can salt it first, but those other seasonings will almost certainly burn. You need to add them late or even afterward.
Since you mention that you are washing the chicken, make sure to dry it thoroughly before cooking. Some say that it may even be safer to not wash the chicken at all!
An alternative is to brown the chicken on the stove, and then put it in the oven.
But it is getting burnt so don't set it at 5.5/10. Try 2.0 / 10 and be patient.
I suspect the blackness comes from the spices you put on the chicken burning.
Try this technique I learnt from Jamie Oliver: Season your chicken as normal. Put the pan on a high heat until it's hot (not stupid-hot, just hot). Add olive oil and the chicken skin-side down. Cook for about 5 minutes.
Meanwhile, take a square of baking parchment or greaseproof paper big enough to cover the pan. Fold it in half until you have a 'folded fan' shape. Hold the point so it's roughly over the middle of the pan, and tear off any excess that goes over the side of the pan. Unfold and you should have a circle of paper. Scrunch it up, then run it under a cold tap and give it a shake.
Turn the chicken over, turn the heat to medium low, then place the wet paper (a 'cartouche') on to the chicken. Finally put a heavy pan lid (the lid from a casserole is ideal) on top. Cook for another 20 minutes.
The moisture in the cartouche helps keep the chicken moist and prevents it from burning. Cooking time will depend on the thickness of the breast, so do check it's cooked through before eating (cut it open and check it's not pink).
I found this to work well even without the 'cartouche'. Just putting a lid on top after turning the chicken over works fine for me. I do cook it for much less time though; usually about 15 min total seems all that's needed to cook it through for me.
I am slightly paranoid about chicken after having a massive bout of food poisoning due to undercooked poultry, so 20 might be a little longer than necessary. However, the steam from the moisture under the lid still keeps it nice and moist.
If you're cooking skinless, boneless chicken breasts, I would recommend pounding the breasts flat. That way, you won't have to cook them as long. Reducing the time means that it's less likely that your spices will burn. Wrap the chicken in plastic wrap or wax paper, and use a rolling pin or meat mallet until they are even. (I usually go for 1/2 inch thick or so.)
According to my favorite recipe, at 1/2 inch thick, over medium heat (5 out of 10), the breasts will cook six minutes on each side.
Plus you can then deglaze the pan with chicken broth to make a sauce. (Add broth and seasonings, cook until it's reduced by half, then remove from heat and add butter and an acid.)
A couple answers above seem to have skirted around the question of whether you were using boneless breasts, or bone-in, skin-on breasts.
The boneless ones are certainly easier to work with, but I've had much better luck working with the full bone-in/skin-on breasts. They take longer to cook, but you've got that extra layer of skin and fat for protection. Which is really what you want, right? Keep the chicken in long enough so that it's done, but not so much that it's turned into a big, chewy burnt wad.
Also, one of the best ways to combat the dry, overdone chicken breast is a quick brine ahead of time. You can also count on the brine to deliver some of the seasonings you were looking for.
Try the brine with the bone in/skin on breast and any of the cooking techniques in the other answers (especially the finishing in the oven after a good stovetop sear as you'll be able to monitor the changes and make a more timely adjustment than if it was on the stove), and you should see good results.
Well, there are number of things you can do to try and reduce overcooking, but I think the real answer has already been hit upon -- the seasonings. Most seasonings aren't nearly as tolerant of heat as the chicken itself is, and what you are seeing isn't so much burned chicken as burned spices. (Want to see? Try putting a bit of olive oil in the pan, add seasonings, and watch them... The pepper, and the lemon in the lemon pepper, for sure, will have problems. Not sure about curry powder.)
You may have better luck with a brine or some such to impart flavor, or adding the spices at the end, but if you are going to spice it first, you will have to cook it at a very low heat to avoid burning the spices. Salt is safe, but the rest should be used just before taking it out of the pan.
Take your pick:
Pound it flat before cooking - this will drastically reduce the required cooking time.
Brown it in oil first, then add sauce to the pan and finish it in the sauce.
Finish it in the oven.
Use a lid, works great to keep in the moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.585883
| 2011-05-01T03:55:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14445",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Rodrigo",
"Snowman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62328",
"paparazzo",
"pathway",
"soegaard",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12711
|
How do I make macarons de Paris in a neat shape and make them rise with the lip?
I have a recipe for macarons that works well; it says to use 2 trays while baking to get the raised lip.
I find if I crust the macarons overnight, that the lip comes up because the goo inside explodes like a volcano ripping apart the outer layer crust. My question is though: what are the optimal conditions - should the oven be hotter or warmer? how long is long enough for crusting
Finally, how do people make them in such nice neat shapes? Mine always come out looking misshapen.
I was lucky enough to get a macaron session from a Michelin-starred pastry chef before Christmas and he gave me some invaluable tips.
Use an Italian meringue recipe. In
other words, pour warm sugar syrup on
to the egg whites instead of sugar
from the cupboard. The eggs will
already have been 'cooked' into
structure and will not require any
crusting. They will retain the same
shape that you pipe them out at. You
can bake them straight away, or in a
couple of hours - they won't be any
different.
When piping, use a moderate pressure.
Don't wring the bag out. Keep the
nozzle approx 2cm over the tray and
maintain that height while you pipe -
let the weight of the batter spread
the macaron out evenly. When there is
enough mixture in place (about 4cm
across?) stop squeezing and flick the
nozzle away in a controlled circular
motion to avoid creating a 'nipple'.
I wrote about this including his recipe on my blog here.
PS. I just remembered that adding further weight to the Italian meringue technique a very prominent French chef in the UK, Raymond Blanc, said that he always uses this method. On his TV programme this week he said it delivers far more consistent results.
I've weighed a lot of egg whites. 2 eggs depending on the size will yield 60-65g of egg whites. Isn't that a big difference in the moisture content? Don't know why you wouldn't weigh everything and be spot on every time.
It's hard to say what to do about your shells without knowing the recipe. I agree with using an Italian meringue. However, if you allow sugar crystals to form in your syrup, either because you heated it up too much, or crystals formed on the edges of your saucepan, then this will also lead to weak shells that will crack.
To get nice shapes is easy. Don't bother guessing. Use a template. Google image search "macaron template" or make one yourself to the desired size. Print this out and when you pipe, place the template under your baking paper/silicon mat. Laminate it so you can reuse it, or just print out a bunch.
You will still need to practice piping. Always pipe from directly overhead into the centre of your circles. Leave about 2-3 mm before the edge since the batter will spread a bit. You can flick your nozzle or do the tiny circular motion, but this does not (in my experience) matter much. If you have the correct consistency, it will flatten out by itself, if it's too thick, you'll get a peak either way.
I haven't heard about the double tray ,but you obviously must be happy with your recipe. Generally if your batter is of the right consistency and you use a piping bag you can get the right shape. I find that when you have achieved the right size you gently push down and quickly flick up to stop more being released .
To achieve crust (the French call croquer) it should really only take about 60mins, but it needs to rest in a dry and warm area. Cooking on 150*C for about 10 mins checking from about 8 mins, ready when crusted on the bottom but no colour on top. If to hot you will lose the chewiness inside.
Hope it helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.586375
| 2011-03-02T12:15:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12711",
"authors": [
"Dust_In_The_Wind",
"FatherOfChef",
"Jeanine Burnett",
"Megasaur",
"Menasheh",
"Strawberry Farmer",
"TronicZomB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69228",
"twoifiplay",
"wickypup"
],
"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
}
|
19633
|
Can you make your own black garlic?
I've seen black garlic--fermented garlic with a complex flavor--used a number of times on TV cooking shows, but I've never tried it. The description of the flavor is intriguing. Is it possible to ferment garlic and make your own black garlic? What is the process?
You can absolutely make your own black garlic. All that is required is to have the garlic in a vaguely air-tight container (preferably individual wrapped or contained) for 30 days at 140°-155°F. My method, covered at my blog, is to put the garlic in mason jars in my light bulb heated black garlic oven, which can be made for about $30 and can ferment 12 bulbs easily for about $4 of electricity over 40 days. With the cost of garlic, glue, aluminum foil and the mason jars, the oven with one recipe is less expensive than an equivalent order would be online.
The first 30 days, the jars are kept sealed in the mason jars, to allow the garlic to ferment properly. After 30 days, the lids are removed and the heat in the box dehydrates the garlic, leaving a dried out head with shriveled black cloves inside of it. The flavor is reminiscent of balsamic vinegar and soy sauce, but without the sourness of vinegar or the saltiness of soy sauce. The oven design is easily doable for anyone of any DIY skill level with access to a hardware store and an Academy (where they sell the Huskee cooler I use for $25).
Thank you! Appreciated.I'd go easy on the aluminum, though. See my other comment.
As a chef who has studied black garlic for several years, including visiting China and a manufacturer in Austin to see how large factories make it...the answer is yes you can make it, but it will be nothing like true fine black garlic in any way.
Which is why even chefs in restaurants, such as myself, order their black garlic rather than making it. It's like saying you can make caviar just by cutting up any old fish who has eggs. It may look the same but the taste in texture is nothing like the good stuff.
Why? the steps that can't be done at home. The first day of making black garlic requires it to be steamed all day. This is the only way to release the bitterness of regular garlic, a prime component in good black garlic. Then you canNOT simply cook black garlic on low heat for 30 days as some believe. It must be alternated in temperature, humidity and more steam and ideally for 40 days straight.
I have come close to making fine black garlic in a process of actually creating my own machinery to mimic the huge batch processes I've seen in China and in one black garlic manufacturer in Austin but I still order my black garlic because really fine black garlic is exceptional and really fine homemade black garlic is always average to bad
who was the austin plant out of curiousity
You can make black garlic by putting garlic 10 days in a rice cooker, on low, and leaving them hanging in a cotton bag for 10 days. My grandmother is Korean, and this is the way she makes black garlic.
If you gain more specifics on the cotton bag procedure, I'd be interested to hear it. E.g. what temperature/placement in your apartment, would be optimal? Air supply? Should the bag be well closed?
@yura you really need to clarify as Ron Dallas said -- is that an And or an Or?
I want to share how to make this wonderful fermented black garlic at home.
Buy 15-20 bulbs of organic garlic (I used organic garlic from California).
In a electrical rice cooker that has cooking and warming settings for 10 cups, place the basket vegetable steamer at the bottom of the rice cooker. Place the garlic about 15-20 bulbs in an upright position in the rice cooker.
Spray the garlic with draft beer (I used Asahi Japanese beer) lightly.
Closed the lid and plug the rice cooker, set it at warming. I recommend keeping the rice cooker outside. It smells really strong. I kept mine on the deck under the patio table to keep the snow and rain out.
Leave it alone for 14 days. DO NOT OPEN PRIOR TO 14 DAYS.
Take the garlic out and place them on a tray and let it dry for 14 days in a cool dark place. I dried mine in the garage.
Put the garlic in a ziplock bag and store in the refrigerator.
Peel one bulb at a time.
Thanks for the detailed instructions! I've edited your answer, fixing the formatting, and removing the health claims - we're a food and cooking site, not a health site, and we want to stick to what we know. I also took out the link you provided, because it was incomplete/broken. It'd be great if you edited back in the full link!
Thee is a propensity to get better results at fermenting black garlic using hardneck garlic rather than softneck. Yes I know, what in the world is a neck.well it is the stem sprouting from the vented of the bulb. Garlic grown in the Namhae region In Korea seems to be one of the better suited, or at least the one showing the best results.
My wife is Korean and just made a batch of Black Garlic. She peeled 10 bulbs, put them in a rice cooker, and cooked them on warm for nine (9) days. Without opening the cooker, unplug it and leave for 11 days. Then open, drain and peel ASAP. They're as sweet as you can get.
A rice cooker on a low setting would be feasible way to ferment garlic at home. I don't think it would be necessary to ferment the garlic for the full 40 days, but I'm also not finding any information how the garlic changes day to day.
Looks like you might have to experiment a little.
I've never tried this, but here's one internet reference: http://www.ehow.com/how_5902625_make-black-garlic.html
If that's accurate, it doesn't seem practical to make at home. You have to keep it at 140F for 40 days.
I'd be cautious about trusting ehow for something like this - information there is very hit-and-miss, and though this looks better than average, with something like fermenting that could lead to spoiled food, you might want to check somewhere else before you eat it after 40 days.
Ehow is usually total crap, and often ripped content. Modern ovens don't have pilot lights, or if they do they don't get warm,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.586720
| 2011-12-13T20:37:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19633",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Arthur",
"Cascabel",
"Charms Market Deli SPAM",
"Dinkie",
"Freek de Bruijn",
"Henrik",
"JBD",
"Keith Ford",
"Magic",
"NightKnight on Cloudinsidr.com",
"Olam",
"S. Marizza",
"Serah",
"Skyler",
"TFD",
"ceren gamze yasar",
"g33kz0r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86951",
"user44335",
"user44712",
"user70906"
],
"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
}
|
25452
|
What is the difference between light and dark soy sauce?
I heard on a TV show dark is just for colour and light is just for flavour?
Do you mean the beans themselves, or soy sauce, miso, or another soy product?
oh good point. i clarified the question - its the sauce i'm interested in.
Is this question related to Japanese or Chinese soy sauces?
Light soy sauce: "is a thin (low viscosity), opaque, lighter brown soy sauce, brewed by first culturing steamed wheat and soybeans with Aspergillus, and then letting the mixture ferment in brine. It is the main soy sauce used for seasoning, since it is saltier, has less noticeable color, and also adds a distinct flavour."
Dark soy sauce: "a darker and slightly thicker soy sauce made from light soy sauce. This soy sauce is produced through prolonged aging and added caramel, and may contain added molasses to give it its distinctive appearance. This variety is mainly used during cooking, since its flavour develops during heating. It has a richer, slightly sweeter, and less salty flavour than light soy sauce. Dark soy sauce is partly used to add color and flavour to a dish after cooking, but, as stated above, is more often used during the cooking process, rather than after."
It's probably similar to the difference between run-of-the-mill balsamic and aged balsamic. In that case, the "light" or regular balsamic is an everyday condiment while the aged stuff is thicker and has much more concentrated flavor.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_sauce)
after hearing the comment on the tv show, i tried them both neat (!) and i agree with wikipedia, the dark is a much richer and nuttier. i think i would keep the dark around for more than just colour.
I wonder if they do a similar thing with tamari, I'd love to try a thick flavorful version of one of my favorite condiments.
@lemontwist Tamari is the Japanese equivalent of dark soy sauce. Koikuchi is the Japanese light soy sauce. The Japanese do however produce a super-dark soy sauce, made by fermenting soy beans not in brine, but in more soy sauce. It's called Saishikomi.
@ElendilTheTall, I will have to keep my eyes peeled for that. Very cool!
I ditched my light soy sauce a couple of years ago. I like the dark soy sauce much better, and for anything that really needs light soy sauce, I use Bragg's soy seasoning because it has less salt and more "kick" than light soy sauce. I am very interested, however, in the Saishikomi. That sounds as if it is right up my alley.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.587251
| 2012-08-03T19:55:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25452",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FlyingMolga",
"Nigel Small",
"Pieter De Bie",
"Shalryn",
"Shane Wayne",
"cmc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58276",
"lalafrance",
"lemontwist",
"leonigmig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8539
|
What is a good online resource for purchasing high quality sea salt?
I would like to purchase some very nice sea salts. There are many sources available online but it is hard to tell what their quality and reputation is. What is the most comprehensive online shop for purchasing sea salt?
I realize this is a decade old, but isn't this the type of list creation we try to avoid? Perhaps a better question for the site is: What qualities does one look for in a high quality sea salt?
While their selection of salts isn't the broadest ('only' eight or nine varieties) I'm a huge, huge fan of World Spice ( http://www.worldspice.com ) here in Seattle; I've never mail-ordered from them but every time I've dropped in to pick something up the staff has been immensely helpful and knowledgeable.
MySpiceSage normally has great prices for everything, including salt. Quality has been good on everything I've ordered (thought I haven't ordered salt). They are constantly running new offers - today's you receive 8 free vanilla beans with an order - and you always get a 1oz sample of any seasoning you want with every order.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.587467
| 2010-10-26T03:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8539",
"authors": [
"Expat Eric",
"Southpaw Hare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17555",
"jamespaul112",
"moscafj",
"user17524",
"user69998"
],
"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
}
|
10171
|
What is Spaetzle? How is it cooked?
We had Spaetzle for lunch today. I've never had Spaetzle and couldn't figure out the ingredients or cooking method.
german-cuisine hmph. It's called galuska or nokedli, and it's a vital part of Hungarian cuisine - can you image paprikás csirke without nokedli to accompany it?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59505/how-to-cook-spaetzle-german-homemade-noodles-pasta-without-it-ending-up-soggy?rq=1
Spaetzle is basically a noodle. Throw together egg, flour and salt (maybe some water to thin it out) and force it through a mold. Anything with holes can be used as a mold (for instance, I've used my old metal colander and that would work fine). Once the dough is formed into little pieces (it doesn't usually hold together for long threads), put it in boiling water to cook for a few minutes and dress it to eat however you desire.
Note: some people say Spaetzle is a noodle, some say a dumpling, I have no preference, I just call it tasty!
I would like to say that with the right technique and utensil (Link in german, but the picture would suffice), it would form long threads. I would have to ask my girlfriend though, as I never did it myself.
The ingredients are pretty similar to Italian egg pasta: wheat flour, eggs, salt, and water. The amount of eggs used is more, though, so that the consistency is that of a fairly thick batter instead of a dough. This batter is typically pressed through a coarse strainer into boiling water.
More details at wikipedia.
the other traditional way of cooking it is to place a small amount of batter on a wooden chopping board, tilt it towards the pot of boiling water, and sweep small 'lines' of batter into the pot with a flat knife. This takes a lot of practice though: Spätzle-making devices are much easier! They are delicious either way though.
The methods listed here are good for making it. A simple dough forced into boiling, salted water. My grandmother Tauscher would make it, then drain and toss with some fresh farmstead butter and chopped fresh parsley or sometimes dill. Heavenly.
My grandmother -in-law ( grew up in Austria) made the dough/batter as described ; then took a spoon and scooped bite size bits into a large pot of boiling water. She did this very fast , at a rate of about one pound of dough a minute. Later , she would fry them in goose grease with mild spices.
Call me a purist, but those are “Spatzen” - Austrian / Tyrolean cuisine, Spaetzle (actually Spätzle, but English has no ‘ä’, hence the transcription) are either strands / bands or bean-sized knobs.
My grandmother would make this using a small amount of the dough and flattening with a fork, and then dredging it thru flower before putting into boiling chicken broth for our chicken noodle soup. She would also do the same technique and add to our potato soup.
While probably delicious, not what I would accept as “Spätzle”. And I am a native of “Spätzle Country” aka Swabia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.587705
| 2010-12-15T18:35:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10171",
"authors": [
"Eldros",
"Fra H",
"Jason",
"Johnny",
"KimbaF",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"Tiago B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3392",
"robthewolf"
],
"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
}
|
8935
|
How long does it take for unopened cheese to go bad?
I bought one of those blocks of Dubliner cheese (at Costco, sealed relatively well in wax paper) and left it in my car all afternoon and overnight by mistake.
Given that it is unopened and the weather is relatively cool, what are the chances that it is still good?
The term "bad", when applied to cheese, can actually refer to a great many defects (p. 14), several of which are caused by improper or over-aging and only some of which are dangerous. The issues that you most likely need to worry about are:
Moisture loss applies primarily to soft cheese and is probably the first negative effect you'll see. In a sealed package, it will "sweat" as Ivo points out, caused by water evaporating and then condensing again on the packaging, forming little droplets. Unsealed, it will simply dry out and become hard.
This is not spoilage, and the cheese is still perfectly good to eat, it just might not have as pleasant a texture and might have a slightly flat flavour. You can just cut off any hardened edges.
Oxidation gives a slightly metallic taste but more importantly leads to rancidity - discoloration and a sour smell/taste. This is caused by light and is why you should store cheese in a dark place. If you left it in the car during the afternoon, it may have been exposed to a good deal of light. However, proper packaging greatly slows oxidation and wax paper in particular is an oxidation inhibitor (that's why cheese is often wrapped in it!). Light exposure also would have been minimal at night. You're probably fine in this respect, but use your nose. If it smells sour, don't eat it.
The chemical process itself results in peroxides and free radicals, which are obviously not good to eat, although there seems to be some debate about just how dangerous they are (some say it raises the risk of cancer, although I'm unable to find an authoritative source, and this might just be an urban myth).
Mold is the most obvious form of spoilage and usually also the last. Although most mold is technically aerobic, many strains are capable of growing with very little oxygen, and I personally have seen mold growing on an unopened package of cheddar that I'd forgotten about for several months. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that mold isn't safe to eat; however, by the time there's enough mold to be dangerous, you'll be able to see it.
Contrary to what Ivo's post suggests, the mold you'll see growing on spoiled cheese is not the same as the mold that the cheese was made with - some cheeses, like parmesan, aren't made with any mold at all, although they can certainly grow mold later on. The molds used in cheese-making are typically some variety of penicillium, which is safe to eat. The mold that grows weeks later could be anything, and is not safe to eat. Ivo is also partially correct in saying that the packaging does not prevent mold growth; however, it does slow it down by restricting the available oxygen.
On the whole, I tend to agree with the other answers that your cheese will almost certainly still be good after only 1 day. Keep in mind that cheese is thought to have been popularized as a method for preserving milk before refrigeration existed - the whole idea is that it lasts a long while, usually well over 24 hours before food safety becomes an issue.
Your absolutely right that the mold that makes cheese isn't the same as the ones that spoil it! Though the color and smell should already be an indication :-)
Given the way cheese is made (with bacteria and molds) I don't really think the packaging is what keeps it safe.
However, if it hasn't heated too much, it should be fine.
The only that will have probably happened is that the cheese starts to 'sweat', as water in the cheese vaporizes, but is trapped in the packaging. But you can easily just dip this off and shouldn't really affect the cheese.
PS: I'm Dutch, so I know my share about cheese ;-)
Like Ivo said, just wipe away the sweat and you'll be fine. Unless it's fresh cheese, cheese really takes a lot of abuse before going bad, and even if it does, you can always cut the bad part and still eat it. It's really a resilient food (apart from fresh cheese).
When fresh cheese goes 'off', you can try to dry it and make your own cured cheese. You have to drain it, keep it dry, out of the light, cool. See what happens. If it tastes bad, it doesn't have to be a health hazard.
Note that this applies primarily to hard cheese. If you see mold growing on a soft cheese, there may be roots deeper inside and you should throw the whole thing out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.587973
| 2010-11-08T04:24:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8935",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ivo Flipse",
"Janet Luker",
"Karl",
"Tracey Green",
"evuez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/512",
"kosmičák",
"myersjustinc",
"swasheck",
"user18260"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16510
|
Refrigerator drips water inside
My mom's refrigerator drips water inside. Is it because she is opening it too often, holding the door open, or is there another possible reason? At times it's so bad there are pools of water. She lives in Missouri where it has been extremely hot and humid.
Warm moist air goes into the fridge and condenses. This is where you get the moisture. Normally, there's a drain, perhaps below the veggie drawers, that ducts the excess moisture away to a tray below the evaporator coils.
It's common to have this drain clog. You can try pouring in boiling water to clear it, but you may overflow the bottom tray and need a mop.
You can also try soft copper wire, like 14 gauge stripped electrical wire, which should not poke any holes in anything yet still be stiff enough to clear the jam.
Most refrigerators manufactured today receive their actual "coolness" from the attached freezer. The attached freezer sections must have periodic defrosts, otherwise the air pathways which circulate the cooled air will become blocked.
In the good old days, the consumer freezers were defrosted manually when they became so full of frost that nothing much would fit. The newer ones all have auto defrost at varying periods from daily to thrice daily.
The vapor pressure of water in the presence of a freezer is very high - an open freezer or refrigerator will literally suck the moisture out of the air (this is why your lips crack while you are skiing and why the glass cooler doors at the store are difficult to open immediately after you close it) and condense it to water or ice.
Anyway, the defrost cycle produces lots of melted water, which must drain somewhere; which is usually underneath your appliance or the floor. There is usually a tube to drain the freezer water from defrost to the drain pan. What usually happens is that mold grows in the drain tube. Someone else mentioned above to use a soft wire to clean the tube, this is correct procedure to clear the blockage.
To cure it for a long period (roughly equivalent to the elapsed time between the purchase of the refrigerator and now) run bleach down the tube to kill the mold (yes it's probably mold) growing in the tube. What I usually do (or have done) is pinch off the low end of the tube and fill it with household bleach and leave it for a bit (5 minutes is fine). Then open it and allow it to drain and rinse well with water. Clumps should come out, uck!
Oh yeah, don't forget to empty the container you use catch all the junk that comes out of the tube.
Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.588340
| 2011-07-30T17:47:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16510",
"authors": [
"PrincessFi",
"Richard Sharp",
"alejnavab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36785",
"kameswari"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16624
|
Indian Cuisine - Atta Chicken
There was an article early march on npr called Oberoi's Kitchen: The Art Of Indian Haute Cuisine. It featured several recipes and talk of a traditional workman's lunch called atta chicken. It is a featured dish in this chefs restaurant but he did not give the specifics of the dish. I have searched everywhere for a recipe.
Can anyone describe this dish and/or give a general idea of how it's made?
For those interested the article can be found here http://www.npr.org/2011/03/18/134594286/oberois-kitchen-the-art-of-indian-haute-cuisine
In this case, I am not sure if it is completely off topic. The question is asking about a previously uncommon (perhaps extinct) food that has started making a comeback, and, unlike other recipe requests, it is not even clear what the basic ingredients are for the dish, let alone the method. In a sense, this is similar to a [tag:food-identification] question.
I think that, though this question maybe shouldn't have been phrased as "does anyone have a recipe?", it's a great question to have here. In truth, the question is more "what is atta chicken?".
Apparently a lot has changed since this question was first posted exactly five years ago today.
Today a simple Google search yields many recipes, a lot of lore, and lots of pictures.
Here's one picture I like from DamnFineLife:
But, I suspect that one has been very much prettied up for the camera.
This one is from the blog Fit Foodie Megha, which does restaurant reviews. The chicken was prepared by a well known and apparently very highly regarded restaurant called Punjab Grill in Phoenix Market City, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Here is an example from the blog Chandigarh Chaat showing perhaps the original variation from Kotkapura, near the Indian border with Pakistan.
Finally, here is one from the entertainment blog alvinology:
That one was prepared one year ago by the world class chef Hemant Oberoi, who the blogger credits with making Atta Chicken famous beyond Kotkapura. Not coincidentally, it is Chef Oberoi who the OP learned about on NPR and inspired the question here.
For more images, click here
For recipes, click here
I watched the videos and read the recipes. The original Kotkapura recipe is still a closely guarded secret, but a number of foodies have published their take on it.
To paraphrase: Take a clean chicken and score it (or not) on the breast and thigh. Other recipes say prick the chicken with a fork. Marinate it in a heavily spiced (usually yogurt based) marinade for hours. Some recipes do that in two steps, one in a dairy based marinade, the other in an oil based one.
Stuff the chicken cavity with some combination of almonds and/or pistachios and whole garlic cloves.
Wrap the chicken tightly in muslin, cheesecloth, or in at least one recipe, banana leaves. Although in the banana leaf recipe, the cooking method is quite a departure from the others.
Make a simple dough with just whole wheat (atta) flour and water, perhaps salt.
Completely encase the chicken with at least a 2 centimeter layer of the dough, carefully sealing (that's critical).
Now cook it in a tandoor (which is the Kotkapura method) for at least two hours or until the dough is completely charred. You can also do it in a barbecue or a very hot oven for approximately three hours, again until the dough is completely charred. Three hours seems like a long time at such high heat, but if you watch the videos or read the blogs, they all seem to agree that long and hot is the way to go.
When it is done, don't break it until you are ready to eat it. Supposedly it can be kept at room temperature for three days if it hasn't been broken into. I am more than a bit skeptical about that, but I'm just repeating what I've read. Refrigerated and unbroken, the chicken is supposed to be good for up to two weeks. Just rewarm it, then break into it. Discard the cooked dough.
The chicken supposedly divine, and very, very juicy.
If you found this information interesting, you might also enjoy watching this video, which is very coy about the super-secret Kotkapura recipe, but shows a lot of the fun stuff including breaking into the chicken.
encasing meat in dough is a food preservation technique that's been around for centuries, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's good for 3 days (and often, as is the case here, the shell isn't actually eaten).
It's probably also worth mentioning that they're probably not getting their chickens from a grocery store that's been holding for quite some time after it's been slaughtered. If you were going to try making this for a trip, I'd go to a reputable butcher with high turnover to get the chicken.
Something which I found
Atta chicken [...] has been a closely guarded recipe which involves
marinating a dressed-up chicken with specially-made spices, tightly
wrapped in a muslin cloth with a thick covering of kneaded flour and
roasting in a slow-fire oven. Once the flour shell hardens and turns
black, it is gently cracked up and the chicken is served steaming hot.
An unbroken atta chicken can be stored for up to two weeks in a
refrigerator, without any loss of flavour.
It's worth noting (for those unfamiliar with Indian cookery) that the flour used here is probably a whole-wheat durum. It has a rich flavor without adding any seasonings besides salt and pepper, and probably a contributor to the chicken's taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.588584
| 2011-08-04T00:20:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16624",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Michelle",
"Russell McMahon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"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
}
|
16665
|
Is it really necessary to wash a skillet that will be heated up again soon?
I made some eggs in a cast iron skillet yesterday and didn't wash the skillet. Today I want to make eggs again.
Is it really necessary for me to wash the skillet before making more eggs? It would seem to me that heating it up would kill germs that had accumulated in the day since I used it.
Is it just breaking the social norm that is the problem or is there really danger here?
@Fabian: More commonly they would be exotoxins (Stx, Verotoxin, perfringens, botulism, etc.) Endotoxins are the ones produced in the body.
Ignoring for a moment any safety issues, there's the problem that oils will have gone rancid, food spoiled, etc.—these will taste bad. Not to mention that if you leave a cast-iron skillet wet, you will rust it.
Seems almost every question about bacteria seems to bring about both the bacteriophobes and the cavalier. In this case, the cavalier are probably closer to being right, but I'll try to present the facts so that you can decide for yourself.
The most common microbe groups responsible for household food poisoning are:
Salmonella, found in poultry, produces the CdtB toxin. CDT can be denatured (technically, "heat-labile") but is one of the most resistant toxins, taking 30 minutes at 70° C to destroy. This type of bacteria isn't normally associated with eggs, but since chicken eggs and other poultry products may be handled in the same area, it's not unthinkable that the shells could become contaminated - and depending on how you handle the eggs, so could the frying pan.
E.Coli is normally associated with beef but is also known to be found on egg shells. It's improbable, but not impossible for it to be found in yolks as well. This is a bit of a weird one because egg yolks also have immunization properties against e.coli, but not in the yolk itself or the frying pan. The strains of e.coli associated with food poisoning encode Shiga-Like Toxin (SLT) and also Enterotoxins, the latter of which are often heat stable. I'm not sure about SLT, but the STs can withstand boiling for 30 minutes.
Campylobacter (causing Campylobacteriosis) produces certain enterotoxins and also CDT. As above, these tend to be heat-resistant.
C.botulinum is responsible for for botulism and is ubiquitous. The spores are incredibly difficult to kill but they are also only harmful to infants and the immunodepressed. More importantly, the bacteria are killed by heating to 85° C for 5 minutes and are also anaerobic - meaning they can only grow when they are not exposed to air. In other words, these may be present, but won't grow and produce toxins on a reasonably clean pan.
C.perfringens is one of the most common sources of food poisoning, and I believe is actually what drives a lot of the specific food safety/food inspection rules. The spores are very heat resistant (can survive boiling for a full hour), and even though it is anaerobic, it is also aerotolerant. It can grow on a pan - just more slowly than it would grow in an enclosed container or in raw/fresh food.
S.Aureus causes staph infections but also produces heat-resistant enterotoxins. It doesn't generally come from food, but more than 20% of humans are carriers, and also many pets (cats and dogs), so it is very likely in your household somewhere and can easily get on your frying pan and multiply on leftover food bits.
B.cereus is less common but very resilient (they're known for "fried rice syndrome" because they can survive steaming) and afterward produce spores and heat-resistant enterotoxins. Important to note that many strains of this are harmless - but not all.
V.cholerae causes (as you may have guessed) cholera symptoms which come from CTX and TCP toxins. Both of these are heat-labile although I wasn't able to find a time/temperature data point.
Chances are, you have at least one these friends in your kitchen. Chances are, you have several. The question is, did enough of them manage to get onto your frying pan after your last meal to produce dangerous levels of toxins?
Probably not. It's really very unlikely. But it is possible, and you're taking a chance if you don't wash your dishes.
In fact, it's probably more dangerous with eggs, because typically you'd cook eggs only up to a temperature of around 70° C, at most (63° is the temperature at which they set). So day after day you're bringing all those lovely bacteria right into the danger zone for several minutes and not staying above it for very long at all!
Doing this one time... really not a big deal. Bacteria don't get to multiply much in the 5 minutes (or less) it takes to fry an egg, and most eggs aren't even contaminated to begin with, although there have been small outbreaks.
But doing this several times, day after day - you're increasing your risk each day because the pan may never get hot enough, long enough, to kill all of the new bacteria from the day before.
I would strongly recommend that you wash your pans after use. You don't need to use soap if they're cast-iron; a good scrub with salt and hot water is fine. But please - especially if you're going to be cooking for guests - don't just leave the dirty pans sitting there and use them again the next day without washing them first. It's not safe.
P.S. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that of all of the items in the list above, botulism, despite having some of the worst symptoms, is generally the least of your worries. Both the bacteria and the toxin are easy to kill, and the spores are harmless to healthy adults. So if you hear people on this site or any site talk about food safety entirely in terms of botulism and the temperatures required to kill/inactivate the bacteria/toxin, ignore them, because they haven't done their homework.
With cast iron it is not uncommon to simply wipe it out and put it back on the shelf. Alton Brown, who is so phobic about bacteria that he washes fresh mushrooms, just scrubs his cast iron with a little salt. Since cast iron users don't tend to fall over dead with any more frequency than users of regular pans, I'd say it's fine. You don't wash the cook surface of your grill every time you use it, do you? (Some people recommend that you do, which baffles me. The antibacterial properties of my dishwasher are somewhat less than the antibacterial properties of raging fire.)
Now, understand, this is not to say that a pan full of yesterdays food is anything but disgusting, but if you wipe it out, and you heat the pan to kill anything that might be alive you're unlikely to have much trouble. Yes, bacteria leave toxins, but if you wipe out the pan the concentrations should be too low to do you any harm.
As long as you heat the skillet a bit before you add any food, you won't have anything to worry about. 150F kills damn near everything in 30 seconds or less...If you're in the US, your car is probably hitting that temperature right now: in cooking terms, it's not very hot at all. If you had some C. botulinum you might want to bump it to 180F, but you won't have C. botulinum living on your skillet, so don't worry about it.
There's an important point you're glossing over, which is that most cooks rinse and wipe cast iron (or non-stick) shortly after use, they don't leave it lying around at room temperature with bits of food on it. I wouldn't be satisfied with just a wipe after waiting a full day, I'd do a quick burn-off afterward just to make sure everything's dead or inactivated.
@aaronut: Well, I'm in the "Don't need no damn water on my cast iron" camp, but I don't leave food sitting in it either. I wouldn't be worried about bacteria the next day (as long as food wasn't being added to a cold pan), but I would be concerned about lingering tastes, because remaining oils will pick up flavours.
While microbes may be killed by heat, the toxins they produce are not.
That's not true.
@Sneftel What did you mean by this? The top answer to this question lists several toxins that can last through cooking.
Did you just mean that not all microbes will be killed by cooking, and not all toxins will not be neutralized?
That’s a good question. I probably should have added more detail.
As far as my iron skillets and the same goes for my mother and grandmother and great grandmother and so on...a Lil salt on a hot skillet letting it heat up and scrape any remaining food it off into the trash is often sufficient to clean it depending on if you do it right after cooking...I don't wait...I do it while the pan is still hot and then after cleaning with just salt and a small wire brush no water I wipe it out or rinse it with just water then I let it dry while I eat my meal and afterward oil it...it's how it's been done for generations in my family and we have never gotten sick...nor do we worry about random bacteria and I am a bacteriaphobe...lol
Let's assume that you're well and not already suffering with food poisoning. Then we can deduce that your cast iron skillet was free of pathogenic bacteria, and spores by the time you finished cooking the day before.
Bacteria need water to survive in their non-spore forms. A cast iron skillet is normally covered in oil, and furthermore that oil penetrates the microscopic cracks and crevices preventing bacteria from taking hold. In this way seasoned cast iron is much more inhospitable to bacteria than stainless steel.
Let's say that you didn't wipe off the excess egg that was cooked on your skillet. You're going to have to inoculate that food with pathogenic bacteria from somewhere to cause a problem. If someone does manage to inoculate the cooked egg on your skillet with pathogenic bacteria before you use it, you're going to heat the skillet and the food remnants up for another egg. You're going to Pasteurize that food just before you hit 100 deg C, and as you reach 120 deg C which is a temperature useful for cooking omelette, you're going to sterilize the food remnants in the time you cook the next egg.
So, in the scenario you posted, it's not necessary to clean your skillet before use. But also note that the USDA recommends that perishable food be refrigerated within 2 hours.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/30/seasoning-frying-pan-leads-new-approach-food-safety-13242
https://www.oliveoilsource.com/asktheexpert/can-bacteria-develop-olive-oil
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Keep_Food_Safe_Food_Safety_Basics.pdf
Wow. Do you wash your barbecue grill between uses, or just scrape it clean and cleanse by fire? The idea of washing cast iron pans strikes me as funny. I have three that I've used for decades, as have my mother and grandmother. The smallest and largest I don't use so often, so I after use I wipe with table salt to get rid of excess grease and anything stuck. The medium size pan is near-daily use and NEVER gets washed. Could I look up a list of rare bacteria and imagine how they might survive frying and hang out in my salty bacon grease? Sure, but in daily activity we accept so many higher risks that this is a pretty silly one to worry about.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.589016
| 2011-08-05T17:30:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16665",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Clements",
"David Weinraub",
"Felix Pring",
"Georgie",
"L Berman",
"Pam",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sneftel",
"TedEwen",
"akaltar",
"alphacapture",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67515"
],
"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
}
|
20690
|
Will changing the setting on my Crock Pot reset the timer?
If I have a Crock Pot "Smart Pot" set to "High" (or 4 hours) and then I change the setting to "Low" or 10 hours, does the time start over or will it just cook for 10 hours from the time I changed it?
For instance, if I put the crock pot on high at noon, it will turn off at 4 PM; say I change it to low at 2 PM - will the slow cooker turn off at midnight (10 hours later) or just cook on low until 4 PM?
The answer might be a little too specific to that product.
I'm kind of inclined to let this one be, because the brand is in fact a Crock Pot, which is pretty much the most popular brand there is, and I have to assume that all of their models work similarly. So this is probably relevant to anyone who owns any Crock Pot, and there are a whole lot of 'em. That said, the manual would be a better place to look for the answer than the internet...
From experience cooking chili in Crock-Pot brand slow cookers, each time you change the setting (at least from high to low or vice versa), it resets the timer. Also, of course, so does high->off->high.
So, (at least my Crock-Pots) would cook on low until midnight in your example.
Well, unless the power went out for three seconds. (It'd be off after the power blip.)
Personally, I've switched to non-"programmable" slow cookers.
Odds are, unless your cooker has a documented feature that explicitly remembers its timer state, it is going to reset. Most of these devices are pretty simple, electronically, and you would probably know it if yours was capable of maintainng state.
I agree with Davy8. But being a programmer, I'd have to guess that the time starts over when you change the setting
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.589824
| 2012-01-22T23:44:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20690",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"C_B",
"David Ly",
"DvorahQ",
"Tony Junkes",
"WebMeister",
"XaolingBao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57009
|
Cooking old beets
I just harvested some beets from last year, they are red in the center and the rest is a yellow white color. They are huge, so are they edible?
There may (or may not) be palatability/texture issues ("woody") but they should be edible - you just may find that you don't enjoy them much, depending just how far past their prime these are.
Hello Beet gardener! We specialize in giving clear solutions to clear-cut problems. "Are they edible" is a clear, answerable problem. "How to cook them" is not, there are tons of ways to cook beets, none better than the other. So I removed that part of your question, but the first part is fine. Welcome to the site!
I believe the beets are safe to eat. I happen to have some beets that have been in my fridge for about 3 months. They are also big. What I will do in the next couple of days is what I think you should do. Clean them, cut off a bit of the top, about a half inch and the same with the bottom, then put them in foil, put a bit of canola oil and salt on them, wrap them tight, put on a pan, in preheated 400 degree F oven for about one hour, check at 45 minutes, then cook as needed 15-45 minutes more. I don't know how big yours are and if you are a bit iffy then bake at 350 F or 375 F, same time. Boiling is also a way to do it but baking brings out such a sweetness in the beets it is just an unbeatable way of cooking them for me. Good Luck.
"un-beet-able" way of cooking them. :)
Beets last ages if stored in cool conditions; if it isn't moldy and is still hard like a rock and not squishy, it should be completely safe. If it is a gigantic beet, it's possible it might be woody, but that's a separate question from whether it is safe.
I agree with @user33210; baking beets is definitely the best way of cooking them and brings out their natural sweetness in a way that moist cooking methods cannot. I always bake them with a little bit of salt and olive oil; just like baked potatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.590355
| 2015-04-27T20:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57009",
"authors": [
"Amelia Brown",
"Belinda Hall",
"Buy Here Pay Here Passaic",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jay",
"Josh Fitch",
"Marilyn Huntress",
"Zoe Pring",
"danny martin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57032
|
Do I always have to peel garlic?
Is it safe to prepare ginger garlic paste without peeling garlic skin ?? I always peel garlic which is a labourious and time taking process. I would like to know whether if it is ok to make paste without peeling skin of the garlic.
Peeling garlic shouldn't be a difficult process. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/895/67 . If you're peeling lots of garlic, see the second answer. I think there's another answer somewhere (as I remember doing some experiments on see how much crowding the bowls affected the peeling last year)
Found it : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/45470/67
Buy "garlic paste" have you considered doing roasted garlic? http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/roasted-garlic-102291
I don't think that this would be unsafe, as you do see unpeeled garlic used in some applications, but it wouldn't be particularly pleasant and you probably wouldn't end up with a great paste. Garlic skins can be pretty tough and woody depending on the particular bulb; you'd probably end up with hard, fibrous bits in your paste.
If you're willing to accept this negative impact to the final texture, then I suppose you could try it. But as @Joe points out, you're better off working on an improved method of peeling your garlic, which will serve you well no matter what you're cooking.
If you use a garlic press such as this one, you don't have to peel the garlic (though you'll have less waste if you do).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.590582
| 2015-04-28T02:48:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57032",
"authors": [
"Al Falaj",
"Anna Maile",
"Joe",
"Kewee",
"Marion Pevarnek",
"Shelley smith",
"Sheryl Bumgarner",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"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
}
|
67088
|
Can I use dried dates instead of fresh ones for baking a cake? The dates should build the base of the cake
I have a cake recipe, which is based on a mixture of 250 g dates and 200 g almonds, which is mixed in the end. Can I use dried dates instead of fresh ones?
The full recipe is, for 10-12 pieces:
6 eggs, separated
200 g almonds
250 g dates (without seeds)
200 ml water
40 g cocoa
Heat the oven at 175 °C
Beat the egg yolk and egg white separately. Crush the almonds to powder; give dates, water egg yolk and cocoa into and mix it. Gently fold the egg white in.
Bake it for about 20 minutes.
The recipe is named "Klitschkuchen" in Germany, which roughly means "very wet cake", but unfortunately I don't know a real English translation.
Welcome to SA! Please include the full recipe so that we can better answer your question.
Just curious... are you actually certain that the recipe calls for fresh dates? In the US, anyway, most recipes calling for dates mean dried dates because that's the standard way we get them here... I've never even seen a fresh date in person.
Perhaps if there's a name for this dish that would help? We could find similar recipes? This recipe doesn't even say how to prepare the dates for usage... presumably fresh dates would need to be pitted and chopped/crushed, possibly skinned... Even if the dates are intended to be dried, I would imagine some other instructions are missing...
Well, i have never baked, nor used them in any other way. I just assumed, they would mean fresh fruits, but I have no evidence on assumption.
btw. i forgot to note the dates should be seedless.. And is named "Klitschkuchen" (which could be translated to "very wet cake"
http://www.mrsflury.com/bester-schokoladenkuchen-ohne-zucker/ This certainly looks like it's being made with dried dates.
Well, that is exactly the same book/source for the recipe, so i think dried dates are okay. At least i try it. Thanks!
These are fresh dates. In Germany, you might get them from Turkish groceries around November (might be a good idea to ask them). At first, they have a resinous texture but open up their full flavor as you chew them.
I live in Egypt, a date-producing country, and even here we use dried dates rather than fresh ones. For one thing, they are sweeter. I would recommend chopping then soaking the dried dates in hot water for half an hour or so, to soften them. The recipe you quoted includes water: you could probably use this water.
Dates prepared in this way do make for a very moist cake: here is a typical recipe. http://www.thestickman.me.uk/recipes/Date%20and%20tamarind%20cake%20%28dried%20dates%29.html
Based on similar recipes for this cake, it looks like "dates" actually means "dried dates".
Here's an example with a video.
I don't speak German so I don't know what's being said but those are certainly dried dates.
So... not only can you use dried dates for this recipe, you should use dried dates!
Well, I happen to speak German, so +1. Completely irrelevant side note: that's Austrian German, just in case anyone wonders why she has the same accent as a famous actor / former US governor ;-)
In Germany, the only Dates that are available at the stores are preserved one way or other - dried and/or sugared - so using dried dates in a German recipe is certainly the right thing to do. I've eated dates straight from the tree in Tunisia and the difference to dried dates is small - the dried ones are a little sweeter - so you'd be fine with either no matter which was meant in the recipe. Just don't use sugared dates in a dish that isn't meant to be sweet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.590744
| 2016-03-04T18:12:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67088",
"authors": [
"Arc",
"Ben Cooper",
"Catija",
"Charlene Sisson",
"Eimear O'sullivan",
"Jimmy Mcewan",
"Margaret McCann",
"Philomena Monk",
"Stephie",
"Sumyrda - remember Monica",
"TONY NEHRING",
"Trevis X. Leigh Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43204",
"uuu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125383
|
Is there a good way to convert a nutrient powder (i.e. green drinks) into a low calorie candy?
I don't like putting powder into my water bottle, because I have trouble getting it washed out, and don't like to use my water cup, so I'm wondering anyone has ever had any luck converting the powder into a hard candy to suck on (i.e. a sucker without a stick) when on the road, because directly into your mouth would make you cough (think cinnamon in the mouth).
No, but I’ve made extra-strength gatorade popsicles. That’s not very portable, though.
It is not clear to me what nutrient powder/green drinks is, perhaps include a link? If you mean something like Athletic Greens then could you not just eat the fruit/vegetables they are made of?
People have made hard candy out of lots drink-related things (like root beer, green tea, whiskey, etc.). I imagine turning your nutrient powder into hard candy would be much the same process - follow a recipe for normal hard candy, and then add as much or as little of the nutrient powder as you want on the step where you add the flavoring. My only question would be if you can use the powder itself or if you need to make it into a slurry first, but that's a simple matter of experimentation.
@Abion47 the problem here is the low-calorie aspect. Candy is mostly sugar, structurally, so there isn't much you can do about making it lower-calorie
@Esther There are ways to get around that limitation. I hear allulose is a good option for making hard candies as long as you don't mind it being less sweet overall. (Maybe even add a drop of honey if you do.) You could also combine a zero-calorie sweetener with something like agar agar to make a different kind of "hard" candy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.591075
| 2023-09-27T18:02:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125383",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Esther",
"Joe",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3365
|
Pan reutilization techniques
How to achieve a constant browning and even cooking when you have a bunch of steaks that do not fit on the pan?
What happens to me is that usually the first batch gets not brown enough, and the second and subsequent batches get browner (more than what I like.)
What is the proper technique to have all the pieces cook about the same?
It sounds like you are adding meat to the pan before it comes fully to temp, which is why your first batch is coming out unbrowned, and you are additionally cooking the steaks to completion in the pan which is why you have too much browning on the second and subsequent batches.
The way to solve this is make sure that your pan is hot for the first batch. I normally throw the pan that i'm going to be searing in on the fire about five to ten minutes before I start to cook but you might need to adjust that time based on type of stove and how quickly it heats. The trick to steaks after that is to sear in the pan and finish in the oven. This lets you control the darkness of the sear independantly of the doneness of the meat. It is critical that you let the pan come back to temp before starting your next piece of meat. Once you have gotten the desired sear on the meat, bring to desired doneness in a 350 degree oven.
Let rest for at least five minutes to allow the steaks to reabsorb the juices.
Be very careful in preheating if you use a non-stick pan though - above 500F, the coating will start to degrade and can make you sick.
yeah, you should always remember that non-stick doesn't handle heat like stainless or cast iron. I try to avoid them for searing for just that reason. Thanks for pointing that out Eclipse.
Another thing you can do is add a little oil to the pan and wait for it to barely smoke. Not sure if you want to use oil for searing your steaks, but I do and this technique usually yields great results.
I noticed also that using a stainless pan is a bit more difficult because it gets hotter faster. Try searing your steaks in a cast iron pan. I have found this is a great way to get a good crispy, yummy sear and also you can toss the pan in the oven for a few to finish the meat.
Don't crowd the pan; brown in small batches. It takes longer, but if you put too many steaks in the pan at once, the pan's temperature drops too low to brown your meat (and it steams rather than sears in the pan).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.591243
| 2010-07-26T22:40:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3365",
"authors": [
"Eclipse",
"Sascha K.",
"dgw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6110",
"ihsoy ih",
"sarge_smith",
"steamer25",
"yayu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4470
|
Can non-dairy creamer be used to make desserts like rice pudding?
I've used Soy Milk before, but never tried Non-dairy creamers - any help?
What about other type of pudding?
I think it will work; you aren't really using any "fancy" properties of milk when you make rice pudding, it is mainly just serving as a liquid medium for the starch from the rice to thicken. Not saying it will taste great or be great for you, I think the soy milk, rice milk or almond milk would be more pleasant non-dairy choices, but I think it will work.
Don't forget coconut milk/water
Yes! I use So Delicious coconut milk creamer all the time for making rice pudding. You can also use canned coconut milk for a very delicious coconutty-tasting (although high-fat) rice pudding!
Non-dairy creamers are truly disgusting products. Read the ingredients. They're a horrid combination of sodium caseinate (chemically processed milk protein), artificial flavors, trans-fats, mono and diglycerides (gelatin), phosphoric acid, sodium alumionosilicate (anti-caking agent), corn syrup and stabilizers.
You might have found a better brand, or a vegetarian/vegan brand, but if you're using any of the standard grocery store brands, please don't. Try some almond milk instead.
Actually, it doesn't surprise, or even really bother me any more. I assume that corporations sell things, and the only solution is education. It really baffles me that more people don't read (or care about) labels: I take that as the shopper's responsibility. Good brands do make it clear what their products are (or more likely 'are not') made of.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.591476
| 2010-08-06T16:44:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4470",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Barbara",
"Frederic De Groef",
"Jane Wilkie",
"Martin",
"Ocaasi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8478",
"nhutto"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4572
|
When a recipe calls for a cup of chopped nuts, should they be measured before chopping or after chopping?
It seems like it would throw off recipe since you can fit more in once they are chopped?
"1 cup of chopped nuts" is measured after chopping.
"1 cup of nuts, chopped" is measured before chopping.
I like this answer, but I don't believe that recipe writers are that picky. It would be nice, though.
On the contrary, that is precisely how it should be specified in a recipe. Any cookbook, blog, etc. that doesn't know that fundamental should be looked at with a squinty eye... I wouldn't trust a recipe writer that didn't know that.
While this may be technically accurate, I would wager that many people eg John Q Public contributing a recipe to a website would not use the latter version. I only ever see this reversal of "noun, adjective" with things like "2 oz of butter, melted" or "1 lb potatoes, boiled" on the basis that you don't buy or store them like this so there is an implied step to prep them this way.
Following recipes from John Q. Public, especially if you can't taste or see a picture of the finished dish first, may be very hazardous to your dining pleasure :).
Another cue for me to an unreliable recipe is if the ingredients aren't listed in the order you will need them in the recipe.
I'd say it depends on the recipe. "1 cup chopped pecans" I would chop and then measure. If it calls for 1 cup of pecans and then chops them as a step in the recipe, measure first and chop second.
In most cases, I would assume it means after chopping.
1 cup of chopped nuts is 1 cup after chopping.
The writer is unlikely to have thought about it. They'll just write down what they did as they did it, in what they (sometimes erroneously) think is clear language. If it bothers you - and it's unlikely to really matter unless the ingredient is essential to the chemistry involved in the recipe - then consider how they're likely to have made the recipe themselves. It would be silly to chop some unknown quantity of nuts then measure a cup of them. You'd start with a known quantity, then chop them. That is, unless you buy a packet of them ready-chopped. So I suppose the answer is, use your noggin.
If noggin use were involved, the recipe would specify the nuts by weight, since that doesn't change when the nuts are chopped. In any case, your reasoning is wrong: "a cup of chopped nuts" refers to the quantity of chopped nuts required. One way to produce that would be to take a cup of nuts, chop them and estimate how much more you'll need to chop to give a cup of product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.591640
| 2010-08-08T14:55:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4572",
"authors": [
"AdamV",
"BenjaminRH",
"CPerkins",
"DanB",
"David Richerby",
"Michael Natkin",
"Neal",
"Sam Hoice",
"Valerie",
"Viji",
"chadoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8855",
"lashleigh"
],
"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
}
|
7310
|
salmon + microwave = BLAM, any suggestions?
Salmon fillets tend to go 'pop' and spatter bits of themselves around the container in the microwave. Anyone got a procedure that discourages this?
Besides not microwaving it? Cover your filets with a paper towel, it will catch any exploding bits.
Seriously though, it shouldn't take but 6-8 minutes to sear a refrigerated salmon filet in a hot pan. Do this, your taste buds will thank you.
Usually I bake to avoid the boom, but this also sounds good.
You can simulate steaming in a microwave. First defrost the salmon. Put it in a glass dish. Put some soy sauce on the bottom of the dish, say half a cm deep. Add some chopped ginger. Cover the dish with plastic wrap. Microwave for 5 minutes or so. Tastes great and healthly too.
You can also replace the soy sauce with lemon juice, and the chopped ginger with fresh herbs. Certainly not the best way to cook fish fillets, but a quick and still tasty and healthy way. This is useful when you're in places with only a microwave, e.g. at some workplace "kitchens"!
My suggestion would be to cook en papillote, (wrapped in partchment) such as in this recipe. There is no shame using a microwave for serious culinary endeavors as long as you don't ask it to do what it can't do.
I had the same issue until I cut the the power down to half normal. And it only takes about 3-4 minutes for a filet of fish.
I would try reducing the cooking time. I was having this problem with Tallapia and found that reducing the cook time from 4min to about 2:30 fixed the problem. It comes out great!
I assume you mean salmon in 4-6 ounce fillet pieces. Boiling fish juices and bubbling fat makes salmon explode. Jab some holes in the salmon with the tip of a sharp knife before you cook it.You don't need to cut it into pieces. Be sure to cross the muscles with the knife when you make the jabs. Put some holes in the sides of the fish too. Keep an eye on it as it microwaves. You'll probably have to re-jab the fish as it microwaves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.591913
| 2010-09-14T21:57:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7310",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Cat M",
"David Dildine",
"Tim Liao",
"bmargulies",
"ehmhunt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67089",
"jackcogdill",
"sufw",
"tricasse",
"user14981"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.