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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2030
|
How long does cooked pasta last in the fridge?
I sometimes cook more pasta than I intend to eat or use at once and store the rest in a container in the fridge (just plain, cooked pasta). How long would it store safely for?
What kind of pasta? The sugars in each kind may differ
I'm not sure if you're asking about the shape or what it's made of? They are "mini shells" made from "100% hard amber durum semolina" in this case. I'm not sure if that answers your question :)
100%, eh? I suspect your container lies to you.
@Adam manufacturers mean that 100% of the wheat is such-and-such.
http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/17887 is as good advice as any I'd give.
In my experience, it gets some slimy mold stuff on it. If it feels slimy, its probably not good to eat, although the mold might taste delicious, you never know...
I LOVE that site. I highly recommend stilltasty.com for anyone looking to know how long to keep a food item and how to store it.
Some molds are antibiotics, too! :-p
Critical information in the link should be posted in the answer.
I don't keep plain cooked pasta or rice in the fridge for longer than 2 days. Both of these are starchy and pH neutral which makes a perfect environment for for mold / bacteria to grow.
I've refrigerated pasta for 7 days or so before. I wouldn't keep it any longer. If it starts to grow fuzzies or smell off, don't eat it.
In this particular case, it doesn't seem to smell but there was lots of condensation in the container and the pasta looks a bit "glossy", if that matters.
I wouldn't eat it then. If something looks like it might be bad, it's generally safer to leave it alone. I like to imagine that it's an instinctual response that causes us to question bad food. I trust it :)
Thanks. I suppose I was just being lazy because in the time I spent writing this question I could have already cooked fresh pasta :) (though on the other hand, I'd rather not waste food that is edible, right?)
I've stored it for over 2 weeks without water and all that crap others are telling you. As long as it doesn't have green mold on it, it is safe to eat. Otherwise only a really bad smell would be bad. Easily over 14 days if kept in a container with a lid. In fact I store my pasta sause in a container as well for just as long. People will have you throwing away good food just because they don't know or are uninformed. I've save a bunch of money doing it my way. Like meats for over 2 weeks and fruits and vegatables. If it ain't got green on it or smells bad then it's still good to eat.
"If it ain't got green on it or smells bad then it's still good to eat." This is terrible advice, which can kill people. Food contaminated with botulism, for example, doesn't look mouldy and doesn't necessarily smell off.
If you're concerned after several days of storage, re-boil it for a minute or two. This will take it back to it's original cooking date.
This isn't accurate advice, and following it is potentially unsafe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.592133
| 2010-07-19T16:10:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2030",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Arun P Johny",
"Daniel Vandersluis",
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Gary",
"Herman Pius Ariffin",
"JJ Caldwell",
"Joe Phillips",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mike's Home Wash LLC spam",
"Pointy",
"Shizam",
"ceejayoz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/950",
"ljrk",
"paparazzo",
"terry"
],
"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
}
|
128831
|
Plant-based alternative to isinglass/gelatin for glazing tarts or other desserts
At least in Italy, most dessert recipes that require for a gelatin to make the surface shine ask for "colla di pesce" that should be "isinglass" in English. Despite its name, it is actually produced using pork rind along with bones and cartilage.
For other recipes that use the isinglass (like some type of cheescakes) I can use other kind of starch as thickeners, but here the goal is to make the surface shine.
Are there plant-based alternatives to isinglass suitable for this purpose?
It seems you've got a bit of a translation problem going on here. Looking at the italian wiki page for 'colla di pesce', it seems to say (emphasis mine):
Oggi sul mercato sono presenti principalmente gelatine, impropriamente note come colla di pesce, prodotte prevalentemente utilizzando la cotenna del maiale insieme a ossa e cartilagini anche di origine bovina,
Today, the market mainly features gelatins, improperly known as fish glue, produced mainly using pork rind together with bones and cartilage,
The isinglass you found would be the English term for 'colla di pesce' or 'fish glue' that's properly made from fish. The other kind would be generically known in English as gelatin. Luckily, the Italian Wikipedia page also states:
Alternative vegetali sono rappresentate dall'agar agar e dalla pectina.
Plant-based alternatives are represented by agar agar and pectin.
Googling some recipes for e.g. 'vegan mirror glaze' seems to imply that these materials can indeed be used to make shiny dessert surfaces, or the 'jelly' layer on top of vegan cheesecakes, as the recipes that I checked all use agar agar or pectin. To find out how to best use one of the plant-based alternatives for specific tarts or desserts, I guess your best option is to Google for vegan recipes of those.
In fact agar agar and pectina are the alternative I already use as thickeners, but I don't know if and how I can use them to make the surface shine
@Mark I think you're best off finding some recipes here that use agar agar or pectin specifically. I've updated this a little anyways to also address the 'how to use them' part as best as I can... Since I don't know if you can replace set amounts of colla di pesce with set amounts of agar agar/pectin without also having to add/remove other ingredients, I think your best option here is to find vegan recipes and use the glazes/jelly layers from those... But I'm not the best kitchen princess out there, so someone may have more info on that for you!
A very traditional shiny glaze would be an appricot glaze. Sometimes it's also found under the french name "nappage", for example on Wikipedia. You simply mix apricot jam with water and use that on the tart.
If you are very detail-oriented, you can also make the glaze with pure pectin, you should be able to find recipes for that, depending on your exact requirements and the type of pectin you can access.
Another popular option is sugar syrup, where "sugar" covers not just simple syrup but also things like agave syrup etc.
As you mention starch: starch glazes, especially arrowroot, are also popular for covering tarts, but they aren't as shiny as gelatin or sugar. In the end, you can use water combined with any thickener for a glaze, it's up to you to decide whether the appearance is what you're looking for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.592526
| 2024-07-19T09:48:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128831",
"authors": [
"Mark",
"Tinkeringbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22625
|
What's the secret to making good turkish bread? (pide)
I mean the flat but thick bread you get at turkish restaurants. I've tried it twice now, with two difference recipes, and each time it's come out hard and crunchy, more like a thick pizza crust.
Seriously, two separate recipes? Obviously I'm doing something wrong but I don't know what. Can someone who knows how to do this ask me some questions about what I did to try and help me find out what I did wrong?
Edit: I can't find the first recipe I tried, but this was the second:
http://mediterraneanturkishfoodpassion.blogspot.com/2009/05/turkish-flat-bread-pide-ekmegi.html
Also: I used unbleached enriched flour from the bulk section of the health food store, if that makes a difference.
Can you give us the recipes you followed? I think that pide is AP flour at high hydration (just a hunch, not 100% sure), but I don't know how they make the soft crust.
I don't know how enriched flour bakes, but you may want to perfect your technique with AP flour before starting experiments with other flours. As for the crust, it seems that the continued moistening is what keeps it soft, did you follow it through?
OK, so a lot of people are suggesting that my recipe looks funny.. if anyone has any suggestions for a good turkish-style pita (pide?) bread, I'd sure love a copy...
You don't kneed the dough, you stretch it.
See a recipe here with step by step instructions:
http://www.turkishthymecooking.com.au/turkish-recipes/breads/pide-turkish-flat-bread.html
update: the link given has since gone away, but is available via archive.org's Wayback Machine. Just in case something should happen again, I believe the relevant portions of the instructions are:
Pide Dough Stretching – Not Kneading
Do not knead the dough but stretch it and fold it over and over again using your fingers to work the dough.
Use olive oil to help with the process of stretching it. Do this for approx 15 minutes.
The dough will need to be a little moist and sticky when done, so if you need to add a little water, then do so but be careful not to add too much.
When kneading is complete, add 2 tbsp of olive oil over the top of the dough and cover with a tea towel.
Leave in a warm place for 1 hour or until doubled in size.
Punch down once to expel the air, then divide the dough into two even balls portions.
Roll into balls, but do not knead.
Grabbing one dough ball, fold the dough from underneath stretching the ball, continually keeping the shape of the ball but kind of kneading in your hands from underneath. Do this for about 5 minutes for each ball.
Shaping Pide
On the baking tray, using your fingers, stretch out the dough in a flat circle.
Using your fingers is much better than a rolling pin as the rolling pin will loose the air.
Once you have both pieces on an oven tray, possibly two (allow enough room for them to both expand in size) place another tsp of olive oil over each flat dough.
Cover with a tea towel for another 1 hour.
After an hour, pre heat the oven to 210 degrees Celcius.
When ready, using your fingers, indent the surface making a border approx 3cm in thickness.
Then inside the border, indent the dough with your fingers every 2-3 cm and then turn the bread to the side and do it again the other way.
Secret to good turkish bread.
Do not fully develop dough during mixing.
High hydration 60-70%
Long rest with gentle stretch and fold sequence.
Brush with egg wash just before baking or spray with water until moist.
Seeds are optional but nigella seed is what gives the distinctive flavor.
Bake at 250deg c for 7-9 mins if you want soft crust; 13-15 mins 220deg C for a harder crust.
Tips
Only mix until just past half of kneading stage the rest of development takes place during fermentation.
Handling of dough is crucial. Must be gentle to avoid knocking all the gas out of the dough.
Gas bubble formation short mixing high hydration and high temp baking are responsible for internal structure.
Add a cup of water to hot oven just before placing dough in oven. This creates a moist baking atmosphere to ensure maximum volume and a thin crust.
You can also brush with oil. Plain or flavored upon removal from oven.
Three reasons come to mind why your bread may have turned out too hard-
1- If you didn't let it rise enough.
Flat breads often don't have a proofing step. The dough should double in size on the first rise and then after you divide the dough let it rest to make rolling out easier.
2- Working the dough too much without resting.
When rolling or stretching the dough be gentle. You don't want to force all the air out. If you do think that you overworked it, letting it rest for a while will let the yeast work a little more.
3- Too low of oven temperature
Traditional flat breads are often baked in large, wood-fired, brick ovens. Your recipe calls for 475F and I would say that that would be a lower bound. Since flat breads are so thin they dry out quickly. In general the hotter you can bake them the better. Try throwing a couple loaves on a very hot grill but indirect heat. Expect this to take less baking time than your recipe. If you get some charring that is ok and even desirable. If you get charring that goes all the way through then you rolled the loaves a little too thin.
Personally- I am skeptical of the milk basting. This would keep the surface of the bread moist but it would cool down the oven which would be horrible for the bread. I never saw turkish bakers basting their flat bread but maybe it is a regional thing.
My thoughts as well (for 'too hard'). I'm not sure the recipe would taste that great, lots of yeast, short rise times, but 'hard' should be fixed with this advice.
It's not the recipe you're using, it's the method.
Place a small broad but shallow dish of water in the bottom of your oven. This shape of dish makes it easy for the water to boil and release steam into the confine of your oven, steam is what will give you the soft doughy texture you're looking for.
As well, get a small spray bottle, like the atomizer type you would use to spray an indoor plant with, fill it with water. When the bread is all but ready to come out of the oven, remove the flat shallow dish of water from the oven, crank the heat up as high as you can get it, then when the oven is hot as hell, spray the top of your bread with a mist or two of water, this will help develop that thin crust.
Once the crust has been achieved, THEN apply your egg wash, which will give you a nice finish.
I haven't even read your whole answer, but I downvoted it for not reading what the poster wrote.
I would suggest that your recipe is partly at fault. Even if it worked the bread would taste awful from that much yeast. The ratio of water is off as well. Increase it to 1 cup to give you about 40 percent hydration instead of the 30 percent stated. Flat breads only require a small amount of kneading. One method to make this bread would be to knead as directed then spread the dough out on parchment paper in a shallow pan. Cover with plastic wrap and let it rise in a warm area (80 F) until it looks about 1 1/2 height. Preheat your oven and stone then gently lift the parchment and place on the stone. Brush with egg wash ( 1 egg white in 1/2c water whisk) after 5min to give the bread a golden shine. Maybe 20 min at 425F convection and adjust your time on the next bread if required.
2.5 cups of flour...roughly 312 g of flour. 3/4 cup of water is 175 g. SO 175/312 is like 56% hydration....no idea where you're getting 30.
This is why I hate volume measurements - my preferred converter says it is 250 g flour, not 312. But this gives even higher hydration, of course. The amount of yeast is indeed high, but not unusual for homemade bread.
@rum what converter do you use? I can't find any so low.
@rfusca http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/cooking, gives 99.37 g per cup of AP flour.
my bad on on the hydration, thanks for the correction.
@rum - I think its not good for AP, I tried weighing a cup several times and never got it that low
I'm making a batch right now, which consists of
*450 grams high protein bread flour
*175 grams warmish water
*8 grams dry active yeast
*2 tablespoons lebne (greek yogurt would work here)
*2 tablespoons olive oil
*1 tsp (aprox) salt
I mix, knead, rest until size is doubled, punch down, shape into two largish flat loaves (some people roll it, I prefer flipping it from hand to hand until it's about 1 -2" thick), rest for 30 minutes or until I have a chance to get back to it. Preheat oven to 425F, oil a half sheet tray with a little olive oil, and slide the tray into the oven to get hot.
Place the loaves (one at a time) on a well floured bread board, brush the top of the loaves with an egg wash and add sesame seeds if desired. Using a bread board or other non-lipped tray, slide the loaves onto the hot tray.
Bake for about 20 minutes.
How does providing a recipe answer the question? The OP stated that he gets the same problem with different recipes. He wants us to give him ideas what to change about his current approach, not to give him yet another recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.592782
| 2012-03-28T23:40:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22625",
"authors": [
"Ali Niroomand",
"Dhanishtha Ghosh",
"Gale Anita",
"Gloria",
"Jan Waldner",
"Maru Kun",
"Michael",
"Prasad",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ScrappyDev",
"Sean",
"Vincent Callus",
"h3xtor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9673",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"xQbert"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28130
|
What can I do if I didn't process my salsa long enough?
I made salsa last week, and processed the jars (quarts) for 20 minutes (may have been 25, I forgot to note exactly when the water started to boil). I got my times mixed up for the salsa and some applesauce that I was preparing to can also, so I didn't process the salsa long enough.
Can I reprocess the salsa? Do I need to open the jars, reheat salsa and re-can it all, or can I just reprocess without redoing anything? Or is it too late because it's been 5-6 days until I realized what I did?
How long did they need to be processed for, and what size jars are you using?
In general, if jars are improperly processed or don't seal, you reprocess them exactly the same way you did the first time. This doesn't depend on the original recipe; you just have to do the exact same thing over again. In your case, since it sounds like your original process was hot pack, you would have to open the jars, dump out the salsa and reheat it, resterilize the jars, and reprocess.
But in your case, unfortunately, it's too late. If you didn't process it long enough the first time, you have to assume that it wasn't sterile, and treat it as equivalent to not canning it at all. Yes, probability-wise, your situation is safer than that, but you have to plan for the worst case, because you have no way to tell. Something may have grown in there. Canning just isn't a good place to mess around with safety.
And before someone chimes in and says it, yes, if you're the kind of person who eats things that have been left out way longer than is reliably safe, you could save it. It'll work out some fraction of the time, so there are plenty of people out there who can truthfully say "I've done this and never had a problem." But it could also get you sick, so I can't recommend it.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that even though I did hotpack into sterile jars with sterile lids and processed them in a hot water bath for 20-25 minutes, since that wasn't long enough that the salsa was not sterilized (or whatever the correct term is for what happens in the water bath) and not safe to eat. Yes? I understand the point about not messing with safety. A batch of salsa in the trash is WAY cheaper than a hospital visit. It's just hard to accept that it can't be reprocessed at all.
@Anne: From what I understand, that's the case - a too-short processing time isn't guaranteed to get enough air out and leave a sterile environment. (The problem with reprocessing is that if something has already spoiled, simply cooking it more won't unspoil it.) Kate seems to think that sealing means there was sufficient time, and it's certainly possible I'm wrong, but I've never seen that written anywhere.
I had a job years ago in a hospital, and a patient came in about the time I started who had eaten home canned salsa. They got to leave after about 5 months and huge bills. Botulism poisoning isn't something to trifle with. Yeah, it's probably safe, but are you willing to bet your life it is safe?
+1 here. If @Anne had quickly noticed that the processing was incorrect, she could re-do the same day. However, now the salsa has been sitting around for 5-6 days without being safe - and organisms could have been making toxins that whole time.
The official word is that if a jar fails to seal, you can reprocess within 24 hours. You're quite a bit past that, unfortunately.
Sealing and sterilizing are two different things. The long processing times are to kill all the microorganisms that could spoil the food. The seal keeps new baddies from getting in.
If you hotpacked, then "long enough" means long enough for the lids to stay down. If your lids are staying down, you're good. If they're not, and you didn't check as you were putting the jars away, throw them out.
I want to believe this, but I haven't found any mention of it in a couple sources - do you have a reference?
try http://nchfp.uga.edu/questions/FAQ_canning.html which just wants "ten minutes or more" even if your jrs were unsterilized
If you're talking about the "Is it necessary to sterilize jars before canning?" part, that's not the same thing - that's saying that in some cases you don't have to pre-sterilize the jars. It doesn't say that it's safe if jars seal after ten minutes of processing even if the recipe said they needed 20.
If they're sealed, it's okay.
Most hot pack salsa recipes require only 15 minutes in a water bathe or in a pressure cooker at sea level. Check your altitude for time differences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.593487
| 2012-10-31T15:39:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28130",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"Ben Mathews",
"Cascabel",
"Graipher",
"Janice Bowersock ",
"Kate Gregory",
"KatieK",
"Komi Golov",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"lemontwist",
"mshea",
"sangheestyle",
"thursdaysgeek",
"user167968",
"user64696"
],
"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
}
|
28753
|
Prevent scrambled eggs from sticking to stainless steel
I'm having the hardest time preventing scrambled eggs from sticking to stainless steel cookware. I've tried bringing the eggs to room temperature before cooking, slowly heating the pan, loads of butter (tasted great, still stuck), adding milk to the eggs. How can I prevent scrambled eggs from sticking to stainless steel?
try a cast iron pan, best alternative to non-stick
Eggs are the strongest glue in your kitchen. They will stick to stainless steel, no matter what. Change the pan.
+1 @rumtscho. My favorite egg pan has become my DeBuyer Element B forged iron fry pan.
Raw protein sticks to hot stainless steel as soon as it comes into contact with it. However, once the layer which is stuck to the pan cooks through, it releases from the pan. The trick is to heat the pan over a low heat before adding the eggs, then don't touch them until there is a layer of cooked egg on the bottom - about a minute or two. Then when you start stirring, the cooked egg will easily peel off the bottom and the pan will be sufficiently seasoned so that the rest of the egg doesn't stick to it.
The worst thing you can do from a sticking point of view is slowly heat the pan with scrambled eggs, the pan must be hot enough to get them sizzling right away or they'll act like glue. That's the opposite of what you want to do of course, as the slower you cook the eggs the better they taste, which is why I always cook mine in a non-stick pan.
After scrubbing out many a burned-on egg fond, and giving up and buying a cheap ceramic pan just for omlets, I finally figured out the secret to cooking even notoriously sticky egg whites in stainless:
1) Heat pan on high until water drops levitate, as usual
2) add oil or perhaps clarified butter
3) COOL IT DOWN! reduce the heat and pick the pan up off the burner for a bit
4) add eggs only when the pan is down to the same medium-low that would be used with non-stick
Tried this with the last of some egg whites on a whim after heating a frozen scallion pancake, and they released once set without the slightest sticking, completely opposite earlier disasters when the pan was too hot and the eggs reached through the thin fat layer to grab and burn.
I knew I'd done this before, but I couldn't remember how. This answer is 100% correct. I used butter - about 1.5 tbsp in a ten inch pan, waited until it had just melted down, and poured the eggs in. The water in the butter cools the pan. The eggs immediately set on the bottom, but they don't stick during stirring.
On the contrary, what you claim was "unnecessary" was the absolute key to making it work. Add fat at a low cooking temperature and the eggs stick, but get the pan hotter first, add the fat at elevated temperature then let it cool to the desired cooking temperature, and it works wonderfully.
Start with medium heat and get the pan hot but put a tablespoon of butter before it gets too hot. Once the foaming stops, add the eggs into the pan and stir constantly but reduce the heat to low. I add about a tablespoon of milk to my eggs.
If it starts sticking to the bottom while you're stirring, then the pan has gotten too hot. Just move it off the burner and continue stirring.
Boil quarter cup of water, and then add 3 broken eggs. Stir well for few seconds. Allow it to cook for 3 minutes, this will prevent eggs from sticking to the pan.
I never use non-stick. I always use stainless (French copperware with stainless coating inside). Just make sure that the stainless is evenly hot but not too hot. Always use animal fat like butter, lard, dripping, goose fat or duck fat. Vegetable oils have resin. I make pancakes, omelettes, fried eggs etc. and it is the very first one you need to take care to pre heat and use butter. Let the butter melt slowly. If it burns then the pan is too hot. Ideally, the butter melts without too much sound. Once the butter is runny and the particles starting to darken and all the steam is gone, the egg mixture is ready to add. Do not stir too early. When the bottom is solidified, just lift and turn or very gently turn in a lift and fold motion. In some parts of Britain the stirring is done very vigorously, but in this case the heat should be ultra-low and is a paragraph all its own. Thanks for reading.
Well, if you must use a stainless steel pan (you should ideally use a non-stick pan) the two things you must do is -
1/ Cook over the lowest heat you can get on your cooker hob and,
2/ Stir continuously, don't stop for a second.
It's a similar principle to making roux (fat and flour) cook over low heat and stir continuously otherwise it sticks and burns.
That's what's happening to your eggs, they're sticking and burning because they're cooking too fast (because the heat's too high) and sticking because you're not stirring enough or fast enough to stop them sticking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.593893
| 2012-11-29T17:29:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28753",
"authors": [
"Chris Stratton",
"Dean Harvey",
"Debra Hargrave",
"G. Nachtigal",
"Gramma Sandra",
"Jerome Johnson",
"JoeFish",
"Kyle Rouse",
"Marian Eldred",
"Marilyn Marie Brunton",
"Matt Mills",
"Muziam",
"Pamela Schmidt",
"Priya Sengupta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"rumtscho",
"underarock"
],
"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
}
|
29019
|
What is size 2 pasta?
I have a recipe requesting pasta #2 as an ingredient. What is pasta #2? I searched in several places but found nothing useful.
Pasta manufacturers do sometimes refer to their product by number (either indicating die size, the order they developed the shapes in, or possibly their favorite lotto numbers), but Adele is most likely correct. If the recipe says "2#", that means two pounds. (In American English, "#" is sometimes called the "pound sign", and using it as an alternative to "lbs." is very common in cooking.) If it's "#2", that probably requires more background information (where did you get the recipe) to answer.
If it means pounds that's a lot of pasta - enough for 9 or 10 people.
Any chance you could post a scan and/or picture (even from a cell phone camera is fine) of the recipe? Seeing exactly what's on the page would help figure out what its saying... Unless its an online recipe, in which case please link to it.
Would this maybe help?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4815/whats-the-numbering-system-for-spaghetti-and-does-it-matter
#2 pasta is a very large noodled pasta with a hole in the center running the length of the noodle. It's like a spaghetti noodle only much thicker around. Used often in Greek dishes and esp with the mizythra cheese and browned butter recipe. It is very difficult to find.
This recipe seems to support this. It lists bucatini and ziti as possible substitutes. It is also worth noting that Greek pasta makers Melissa and Misko both describe this type of pasta as "no. 2". Perciatelli may also be similar.
@JTL : Amazon lists the #2 Misko, which looks like bucatini. They have other numbers, too ... one of them mentions "#5 is thinner/smaller than the #2 and #3 macaroni noodles"
Is it possible that the recipe calls for two pounds of pasta? I have seen recipes where the # symbol is used as a notation of pounds.
This is most probably referring to the size of pasta of a certain type.
But you shoul be more detailed in your question, saying the type of pasta you refer to or the source where you got the receipt from.
If the pasta are noodles then you can bet it that they are talking about the size of pasta.
Pasta exist of many different kinds (at least here in italy), so pasta #2 is to us like saying "a car with comfortable chairs"...quite generic :-)
This link might help.
Buccatini pasta is a #2 pasta. Saw this referred to in Symon Cooking Outdoors program as he was making a greek pasta dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.594353
| 2012-12-07T20:29:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29019",
"authors": [
"Christine Holley",
"Corey Austin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JFC",
"JTL",
"Joe",
"Meng Lu",
"Samantha Duberstein",
"Ted Klein Bergman",
"Traipsing Lutrinae",
"derobert",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70232",
"jscs",
"sausagemaster"
],
"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
}
|
19849
|
How to replicate golden brown color of McDonalds chicken nuggets?
Does McDonalds use any food color in their chicken nuggets to get the golden brown color? How do they ensure that all the pieces are of same color and would it be possible to replicate the same at home using a deep fryer?
It is not "food color" in the conventional sense. McDonald's techniques are based on something the 'home cook' can rarely achieve, consistency. Their friers are designed to maintain exactly the same temperature (375F, if I recall correctly). The typical home frier drops 20-30F as soon as food is added, the McMachines have the kind of heating elements that don't do that. The coating is milled and applied to create a consistent coating and they are cooked for EXACTLY the right amount of time, every time. It is interesting to actually sit and listen to what is going on in McKitchen, military drill teams lack the precision that McD's instills into their burger flippers.
The home cook can try to come close to the McDonald's 'standard' by monitoring the temperature and time closely. Put the home fryer at 400F and an egg-timer at 3' and adjust.
Frying in small batches will also help prevent a large temperature drop.
You can also increase browning by adding some baking soda to the batter. This changes the alkalinity of the mixture and has a positive effect on the maillard reaction that causes food to brown and taste delicious.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/what-is-the-difference-between-baking-powder-and-baking-soda-in-pancakes.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.594613
| 2011-12-21T04:18:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19849",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"BaffledCook",
"Charles katchur",
"Sofia Delagarza",
"Tim Galvin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
72888
|
how to make health bar hold (stick) together
Much to my surprise - this came out cake like instead of crunchy semi-hard granola bar. Asking for advice to save money and time. I thought of eliminating the egg or possibly adding more egg white? or maybe no cream? or don't use butter? Obviously, I'm not a scientist.
By the way, mixture "tasted" very good.
1 Cup Old Fashioned Oatmeal.
1/2 Cup each of the following:
toasted coconut, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, chopped walnuts and slivered almonds. Also 1/2 C very fine grounded sunflower seeds. (Maybe this turned into a cake? What would've happened if I didn't add this.)
1/2 C Raisins, dried cranberries and dates
In pan, melted together 1/2 C Honey, 1/4 C unsalted butter, then when cooled, added 1 egg and 1/4 C cream, and 1 tsp vanilla.
Poured over dry mixture, coat all evenly, pressed tightly into 9x13 pan to
bake for 30-40 mins. until top is lightly brown. Let cool completely before cutting into squares.
if you slice it right and bake again, you could end with something hard and crunchy like biscotti. Since you liked the taste. Not sure how to get to granola bar, though, sorry.
Is this something you created yourself or something that you found a recipe for somewhere? If the latter, please cite the source of the recipe.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11088/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11399/67
Don't have a dehydrated & have no desire to get one.
I created this recipe in search of matching a health bar from a bakery.
If I read your question correctly, you are wanting to create something more like a commercial "granola bar" and not like a cake.
Warm your honey and butter till it flows smoothly and you can mix it with your dry ingredients to get your desired consistency. Press this into your pan and bake for 15-20 minutes. While that bakes mix the ground sunflower seeds, egg, cream and vanilla separately. After par baking the granola, pour the 'cake batter' over the granola (you just want a thin layer here, so you may need to tweak your volumes here, and you might mix in some chocolate, or may I just want to add chocolate here). This should maintain your flavor profile and get you the 'granola like' texture you are after. Continue to bake until top layer passes 'the toothpick test'...and cool.
I would advise omitting the cream, as you mentioned yourself. It's a liquid, and combined with the ground sunflower seeds, eggs, butter, honey, and vanilla in the bottom of the pan, chances are good that that was your "cake." If things seem too dry as you mix them together, I would suggest adding another egg—it will help stick things together and add moisture without being as likely to stay moist, which is probably what created the cake texture. Eggs solidify with heat, they don't just evaporate like milk or cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.594887
| 2016-08-04T22:46:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72888",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"EJ Taylor",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"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
}
|
53369
|
Keeping consistent quality of marinated meat throughout the day in a restaurant
The issue I need help with is knowing how to serve marinaded meats consistently to customers. I have found that for my recipe, the marinaded meats taste good after three hours of marinating. Of course, this is not possible to have the meals served after three hours consistently to patrons. For example, if I place the meats in the marinade at 6:00pm and start serving at noon the next day, they will have one texture and taste. If I start them in the morning, 9:00am, they are ready at noon.
Bottom line, what is the best practice for a food establishment that serves marinated meats on the menu (chicken, pork, lamb) without having different tastes and textures for patrons?
I've never had to deal with this issue, but if there are no other recommendations from knowledgeable people, you might try reducing the amount of acid and/or enzymatic tenderizers. It might then require a longer marinde, but increase the window of when it's best to use.
It's called rotation of stock. You must anticipate the demand of the product and have just the number that is required ready at that time. So if you need 10 portions ready at ~6pm and 10 at ~7pm start 10 at 3pm and 10 at 4pm.
@jbarker2160 if you elaborate a bit more on the concept of rotation I think this would make a good answer.
Your question is actually a more general topic under food quality.
The concept is either called stock rotation or just-in-time(for manufacturing).
You simply need to anticipate the need for the item and prepare it ahead of time, multiple times throughout the day. If you need 10 portions an hour starting at 6pm, you need to begin marinating 10 portions at 3pm then 10 portions at 4pm and so on to satisfy your needs for the day. Your work day begins when prep time must begin, not when your restaurant is open for customers.
Many restaurants do this with any product that doesn't hold well. These items need to be prepared several times throughout service and rotation is a good way to do it.
Bakers don't go to work in the wee hours of the morning for no reason. They do it to ensure their products are served at their peak of quality.
In particular, you can have all the marinade made already, and all the meat prepped, so all you have to do is quickly mix some up every hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.595132
| 2015-01-07T13:59:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53369",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Mahek",
"Jacklyn Rainey",
"Joe",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nick Main",
"Paula Bid'daum",
"Phrancis",
"Roderick Lloyd",
"Sunny Reyes",
"Wendy Hazzard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sajana mh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55526
|
How do I recognize if a dish cannot be cooked in a gas oven?
I have moved to a house that has a gas oven. I am new to gas ovens. What dishes can we cook in a gas oven? Cake? Are cookies possible to bake in a gas oven?
What can't you cook in a gas oven?
Hello Bobby, and welcome to the site. We are not a discussion forum, and we don't take all types of questions. Especailly questions which are going to produce a list of equally good answers are closed here. Your original question asked for such a list, so would have had to be closed. But it so happens that such a list does not exist, and as Joe explained, you can bake anything. So I changed the title into something which does not invite people to post lists of things you can cook in your oven, but still can be answered with the correct explanation.
@rumtscho I don't think there was ever any real danger that people would start answering with lists of oven-cookable dishes.
@DavidRicherby wait until you have the rep to see the kind of answer I have to delete frequently. Not from the core users, but there are sufficient people driving by who just post such things. Editing it is a good prevention. Also it makes for one less precedent when somebody else posts a real big-list question and later points at this ones and says "it wasn't closed, why is mine closed".
Not owning any gas ovens: What is the range of temperatures that can be typically set and held in a gas oven?
You can cook anything in a gas oven that you can cook in an electric oven. There might be a little extra moisture (due to the products of combustion), but some people consider that to be an advantage when baking bread and cooking roasts.
If you've never had an oven before, the list of items is way too large to enumerate ... but if it calls for oven cooking, you can cook it.
There are two answers to this question, both are right and they disagree with each other.
Some ovens are better for certain things, electric ovens are good for pastries, gas is better for roasts.
An oven is an oven. A skilled cook can cook a pineapple upside down cake or high tea over a campfire, wood fired pizza oven, or commercial stove with equal panache!
There are differences between types of ovens, and some ovens are superior for certain tasks, but any functional oven can be used to bake almost anything. (Some wood fired bread and pizza ovens are very difficult to cook large roasts in.)
Everything can be cooked in a gas oven, but some things will be done differently. Anything thats needs heat from above (such as garlic bread) needs to be cooked in the broiler. That's the drawer at the bottom. Not a storage space!
This post is much more informative now. You might want to note that not all broilers are under the stove... mine actually has a second heating element, so broiling is done in the same space and the under drawer actually is a storage space.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.595374
| 2015-03-08T10:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55526",
"authors": [
"Alex Mirakian",
"Catija",
"David Richerby",
"Eva Mellon",
"Grace Forsyth",
"Joe",
"Kathy Adams",
"Lena Carroll",
"Pam Collins",
"Pam Protto",
"Siwi Wong",
"Spammer",
"Susanne von Dobschutz",
"bob lindsay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57418
|
Difference between fermentation and leavening?
What is the technical difference between fermentation and leavening? Both cause bread to rise.
Does fermentation only refer to the chemical process of one substance converting to another, which causes bread to rise?
And is "leavening" rising by any means?
Classic white bread, for example - it undergoes fermentation. Does it also qualify as leavening?
Whereas banana bread undergoes leavening, but not fermentation?
Hello JLandsberger, you almost nailed the way to make a list. You need to leave an empty row under the last paragraph and the first list item, and then an empty space after each dash. Look at the source of the edited question and you'll see what I mean.
Thank you. I looked at the html as well, but was getting a bit frustrated after I tried it about five different ways and couldn't get it to list right. I'll note this down.
Ah yes, I know this kind of frustration. Markdown just happens to be one of those computer languages which are easy to read but hard to write. For the most common stuff, you can use the formatting buttons over the posting box, they insert properly formatted markdown for you. You can also read the short tutorial, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/formatting, or follow the links in it to the official specification. These have saved me some headaches in the past.
Leavening is rising by any means, so baking soda and baking powder (chemical leaveners) both apply here, as does yeast (fermentation).
Chemical leaveners like baking soda and powder work by mixing an acid (varies, depending on the recipe) and base (usually baking soda in some form) to produce carbon dioxide gas.
Fermentation is the process of yeast converting sugars to carbon dioxide and alcohol. In bread making, the carbon dioxide is the desired product. In beer or wine making, the exact opposite. In both cases (beer/wine and bread), other byproducts produced by the yeast add flavour and are highly desirable.
There are other types of fermentation by bacteria (such as those used in yogurt-making, pickles, or sauerkraut) that produce lactic acid; but those are somewhat outside of the scope of this answer (although lactic acid fermentation by bacteria is responsible for the taste of sourdough breads).
To specifically answer your question - yes, yeast breads undergo fermentation (which is also leavening). Quick breads like banana bread use chemical leaveners, which are not fermentation.
Great concise answer. I would only clarify that fermentation is also a more general process that can also involve bacteria and result in various byproducts (gases and alcohol as you mention, but also acids). In the context of bread in this question, fermentation can produce not only leavening in the form of gas but flavor as well in various chemical byproducts (most noticeable, for example, in sourdough where fermentation produces significant acidity).
True; I didn't want to confuse the matter by adding lactic acid fermentation by bacteria to the mix, or the intricate details of the different types of yeasts (e.g. brettanomyces yeasts) that can yield very different characters due to their other byproducts, so I stuck within the confines of the specific question asked :-)
I've edited to add a bit more context, hopefully without adding confusion.
If you have a fast rise from yeast, although there is some fermentation happening, there's so little of the chemical byproducts that many people might not consider this to fermentation. (it's an issue of how you view groupings -- are we going with classical categories a.la Aristotle, or more fuzzy categories a.la Lakoff
@Joe - You've made me curious. If the gases which cause bread to rise are not "fermentation," what do "many people" consider them to be? (This isn't argumentative; I'm just confused by your comment. I think of fermentation as a chemical process, so whether it happens for 30 minutes or 30 days doesn't change what's going on.)
@Joe I have to agree with @Athanasius; if the first step (sugar -> carbon dioxide + alcohol) happens, then fermentation has happened. Now, certainly in beer making, you want the fermentation to go on longer so that the yeast are forced to break down more and more sources of food (rather than just the "easy" sugars) to add flavour and character. While that is a subtly different kind of fermentation, it's still fermentation.
Athanasius : it's fermentation, but when someone mentions 'ferment', you picture in your mind something that typically takes a long time and imparts significant flavor or structural change -- saurkraut, cheese, sour pickles, kimchi, sourdough, beer, wine, etc. Wonderbread and the like are on the far fringes of the category as although the yeast might've eaten the added sugar, it hasn't had a chance to act on the starches within the wheat ... so it's barely fermented.
To give a possibly better example of a fuzzy category -- consider 'sandwich'. Is a hamburger and bun a sandwich? A hot dog and bun? Gyro? Quesidilla? Pupusa? Burrito? a piece of toast between two pieces of bread? a tuna boat (tuna salad on bread, no top)? For those who say you need two slices of bread, so that only the hamburger would count, you've also managed to exclude many hoagies/grinders/subs where the roll is only split before filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.595661
| 2015-05-12T17:52:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57418",
"authors": [
"Adam Dale",
"Athanasius",
"Brandon Scott",
"Chris Macksey",
"Christine Chrissy Seddon",
"JLandsberger",
"Jenny Barnes",
"Jessica Stead",
"Joe",
"Leany Bean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"megan Montgomery",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57121
|
Will adding yogurt whey to homemade mayonnaise make it keep longer?
I was looking up recipes last night and came across a recipe that started with homemade mayo. The author said that fresh mayo has a shelf life of 3-4 days, which is what I always heard, but then she said that if you add yogurt whey (1 tablespoon or 1 teaspoon, can't remember) that it would increase the shelf life to 2 months in the fridge.
Is that a real thing or is this lady off her rocker? How would it change the taste. Also, would you trust it the whole 2 months, or would that be the max. It'd be nice to make some and have it for at least a couple of weeks. That'd be much more reasonable than making a small batch much more frequently, which I don't have time for.
Hi, your additional question was completely unrelated to this one aside from sharing the very broad topic of mayonnaise. I see you have been on other sites of the network, so you probably know by now that we try to package our information in small, independent questions which are easy to discover and read through. So I removed it from this post. You are welcome to make a separate question out of it, though.
Sounds like a plan. @rumtscho
It's possible to give up on mayonnaise completely, and switch to yogurt. In most dishes, the difference is undetectable. Regular, sour plain, or thick plain, non-sour 'Greek' depending on the application.
This is generally referred to as "lacto-fermented" mayonnaise. The whey is assumed to have active bacteria, and most recipes insist on a room temperature rest for at least several hours. During this time, I suppose the assumption is that the bacteria from the whey will ferment and produce sufficient acidity to act as a preservative (as in sauerkraut or something).
The idea is not completely without merit. As discussed in my answer to this question, there is a well-documented and validated food science procedure for killing off harmful bacteria in homemade mayonnaise, which involves sufficient acid content and a rest at room temperature before refrigeration. Mayonnaise that follows this advice should be roughly as shelf-stable as commercial mayonnaise, and its acidity will make it a poor growth medium for most harmful bacteria. It will generally deteriorate in quality not due to spoilage bacteria, but due to oils going rancid and other such processes that will degrade texture and flavor over a period of weeks.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts that a few hours at room temperature with a tablespoon of whey is going to produce a consistent level of acidity to ensure safety and longer preservation. You simply don't know the bacteria count and activity in the whey, how well it may grow (if at all) in the mayonnaise, and how much it will lower the pH. (In a quick search, I couldn't find comparable food science research on using lactofermentation to achieve safe homemade mayo, but it may be out there. It sounds implausible to me, not least because of the lack of sufficient food in mayo for the lactic fermentation to produce a lot of acidity.)
If you want to make safe homemade mayo, you need sufficient acidity. Usually that comes from lemon juice or vinegar. It's that simple. And with adequate acidity, it will likely have a reasonable shelf life of more than just a few days. There is further advice and thoughts on that issue in another question. But I would not recommend this whey-based technique to ensure food safety.
EDIT: Despite the huge number of recipes online for lacto-fermented mayonnaise, I've been unable to find any reputable food scientist vouching for even the possibility of significant fermentation occurring in mayonnaise. Nobody reputable even discusses it (probably since, as I said above, it doesn't make a lot of sense). Anyhow, I did manage to find this, in a list of fermentation "myths" maintained by a prominent fermentation Facebook group:
MYTH: Mayonnaise can be fermented by adding a bit of whey or
sauerkraut juice and letting it sit on the counter for [x] hours.
FACT: Oil cannot be fermented, and mayonnaise is primarily oil with a
small amount of egg yolk emulsified into it. All bacteria have an
absolute moisture threshold necessary for their survival and function,
which mayonnaise doesn't provide. . . . The amount of moisture that is available for use is called
the Water Activity level, or aW. Pure water has an aW of 1.0. Lactic
acid bacteria require a minimum aW of 0.94, but not much activity will
occur below 0.95 and a level closer to 1.0 is needed for vigorous
growth. Mayonnaise has an aW of 0.93 or lower. . . .
I wouldn't say this qualifies as a reputable source for food science (and I haven't checked the facts), but the reasoning is plausible, as bacteria simply don't grow well in mayonnaise. If anyone can find any better food science on topic, I'd be interested.
I haven't seen proof but this isn't plausible to me.
The way to make mayo last longer is to make it more acidic- per this question. Notice that many recipes call for mayo to rest at room temp for an hour or two to let the high acid kill salmonella before it is refrigerated.
Vinegar or lemon juice are usually used in Mayo and they have pH levels of around 2-3. Whey acidity varies depending on how long the yogurt fermented but can be as high as 4-5.
Federal guidelines recommend mayo be at or below a pH of 4.1 to be safe for longer periods.
Whey just won't be acidic enough to make your mayo last longer.
There aren't any secret, bacteria inhibiting, ingredients in whey. On the contrary it is very nutritious with a lot of sugar, vitamin B, and potentially protein and fat.
I read through your link. 4.1 is the pH required for eliminating Salmonella risk, which is what I said is not making the mayo more stable than any other food. The link contains a recipe for shelf stable mayonnaise, after Figure 1. This one has a pH of 3.6 (the difference is larger than it looks because pH is logarithmic), with more lemon juice and vinegar than yolk, and it is also required to be pasteurized at a certain temperature. But thank you for finding that! I knew of this research, but I wasn't aware that the resulting mayonnaise is considered safe for 4 weeks.
This is wrong. There is no food safety rule saying that mixing yogurt into mayonnaise will make it magically shelf stable. Even though there might be some factual reduction in bacterial growth, it is not enough to assume any change to the usual holding time.
I can imagine two sources for the confusion. First, if you add acid to mayonnaise, you can prevent Salmonella growth. But first, you cannot achieve that with yogurt, because the target pH is 3 point something and pure yogurt has over 4. Second, once you have added enough acid to reach that pH, your mayonnaise will have a completely different taste, predominantly sour. Third, it is salmonela-specific. There are certainly other bacteria which will be affected, but it won't be all of them. You will have simply made the risk comparable to that of other cooked foods without raw eggs, not to that of preserved food.
The second possibility is that she thinks it will behave like cultured dairy. If an opened container of yogurt doesn't get mold, it is likely to be OK to consume after several weeks (although, if it is homemade yogurt with live culture, it will reek by that time, especially if you used thermophilic cultures). But mayonnaise is not milk, and won't turn into yogurt when seeded with culture. Its risks are not reduced at all.
Once we are over that explanation, I can encourage you to mix yogurt with mayonnaise if you have never done it before. It results in very tasty sauces and dips, and you can experiment with the ratios as much as you like. Other soft dairy products such as quark, creme fraiche, and so on, are also excellent for a mix. It is the only good way to answer the "how it will change the taste" part. But please, when it comes to safety/shelf life, treat all these mixtures as standard mayonnaise.
Oops, sorry, this is so late in the day that I completely overlooked the "whey" part and thought you suggest adding yogurt. Still, the whey will not behave that differently, so I'm leaving the answer.
I haven't tried mayonnaise and yogurt, but I do regularly mix sour cream (which is also tangy and creamy), mayo, and buttermilk to form a base sauce for several dressings, including ranch, my favorite.
Surprising that sources here did not quickly find a couple of online articles from 2010, on lacto-fermented mayonnaise, one being the Washington Post.
Unsure who the Facebook group is, but they are all off the mark on this one. Sometimes, a piece of information becomes dogma just because.
Foods have been fermented for centuries, are enzyme-rich in probiotics, and was an essential method for maintaining shelf life long before refrigerators were invented, and is still used in places where home cooks have no refrigeration.
Fermenting mayonnaise, although an oil-based food, is lacto-fermented with either yoghurt whey, kefir whey, or fermented juice from any properly-fermented jar of veggies (pickles, kraut, etc). Use 1 C mayo per 1 TBSP liquid whey. Once fermented, homemade mayo lasts for months in a properly-cold fridge.
Whey may be added before mayo is whipped, as opposed to after. Doing so does not produce a thin or runny mayonnaise, as some state.
Unless someone is a supertaster, no discerning tart or sour flavor is detected, as well.
Some additional information that may be of interest:
Please keep in mind that lacto-fermented mayo is not for lactose-intolerant individuals, just as using raw eggs may not be suitable for those with compromised immune systems (the Portuguese make a thick, rich milk-based mayo that has no eggs, and recipe may be found online at Leite's Culinaria).
Cooked or uncooked yolks may be lacto-fermented.
Harold McGee, noted food science author of The Curious Cook website, and book, On Food and Cooking, has a method for gently cooking egg yolks to avoid samonella, as well as American Egg Board, The Incredible Egg website.
Apologies for typo on "Portuguese."
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is interesting, but (mostly) doesn't answer the original question. Please take our tour so you'll know how better to contribute here, and then edit out the portions of your answer that aren't relevant. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.596090
| 2015-05-01T19:07:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57121",
"authors": [
"Anthony Yun",
"Benjamin Co b",
"Bill Walker",
"Dalton",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Jean Santos",
"Jennet McAvoy",
"Liam Levchenko",
"ProBaker",
"Silvia Tyndall",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71951",
"rumtscho",
"utopos"
],
"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
}
|
11268
|
culinary difference between dill and fennel
Many salmon recipes use Dill (Anethum graveolens) as the usual ingredient as condimentary herb.
In my place, I have fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) available outdoors, so I opt to use it instead. And I like it.
Why is it never mentioned as a substitute? what is your opinion?
I assume you're speaking of using fennel fronds, specifically. The fronds look a bit like dill, and are often used as a garnish, but certainly taste different than dill.
I think the main reason is that most people usually only get fennel fronds when they also buy a fennel bulb, so it's usually inconvenient to only use the fronds for a garnish when you're not using the bulb. Also, some people (my wife) just don't like the taste of anise/fennel at all. If you have it growing in your backyard, and you like the taste, there's no reason you can't use it.
Yep, it's that "black licorice" taste aspect of fennel that dill doesn't have. Considering some people use dill and tarragon on salmon though, this idea as a substitute should have some merit.
It's not mentioned as a substitute for dill because it tastes nothing like dill. You'll find that chefs don't generally choose substitute herbs based on how much they look like the original but on comparable flavor, so though fennel fronds look like dill, that's about the end of their comparability.
I agree that it might be tasty in some applications where dill is used (particularly salmon as @zanlok said), but I think the flavor profiles are so different that you'd want to be really careful in making the substitution in other recipes.
Well done on using fennel for salmon, keep on trying other recipes. I grew up in Czechoslovakia, and we used a lot of dill in sauces, pickled gherkins, cucumber salad etc. I never knew what fennel was then. Yesterday my neighbour Nicky gave me a lot fennel tops to use. So I tried them with salmon steaks and pesto sauce, in the absence of dill. My husband and I loved it, the taste is similar to dill, especially when it is cooked. The only small problem was that it was a little tough, even though I chopped it up fine. Today I used the raw tops chopped up finely in a tomato salad, again lovely.
In the absence of dill, I would use fennel tops for marinades, salads, salmon etc. Of course I like the licorice taste, unlike many other people who hate it. Zenka-Marie
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.597076
| 2011-01-20T11:55:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11268",
"authors": [
"Business setup in dubai",
"freya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"user64176",
"wdobbins",
"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
}
|
11782
|
How do I prepare tofu so comes out like at Noodles & co
I really enjoy the texture of the tofu in the pad thai with tofu dish at Noodles and Company. In particular, it comes out much firmer than it does when I make tofu at home by cubing it and cooking it in a pan with vegetable oil. How do I prepare the tofu so it comes out in a similar way?
First thing's first, are you buying extra-firm tofu?
Could you perhaps describe their tofu? Noodles and Company isn't in every state (let alone every country).
I think @Aaronut hit the nail on the head. Buy extra firm (or even super-firm, if you can find it) tofu. You can try to weight and squeeze some water out of tofu at home, but it is much more effective to just buy it the density that you want. The cooking doesn't have anything to do with it.
@Aaronut: Yes, I am buying extra-firm tofu. It still doesn't come out as firm as I'd like after cooking.
You can also firm up tofu by cooking it in a way that removes a lot of water - like baking. Is it possible that's what they do?
There are some other products you can buy that are even more pressed, into an almost leathery dense texture and usually pre-marinated. Look in the refrigerator section of a natural foods store, usually near the veggie meat substitutes. Those are about as dense as you could want. This sort of thing: http://www.pulmuonewildwood.com/baked.asp
My girlfriend and I cook a lot of tofu - we have also found that "firm" and "extra-firm" tofu is highly variable and that the quality makes a big difference in the actual firmness, density and cooking results.
Here in SF though we did have good luck with the random brand of tofu available at our local produce market (in the Outer Sunset) we have now switched to almost exclusively cooking with tofu from http://www.tofuyu.com/ who are a local tofu maker and whose plain tofu cooks up amazingly well - gets great color, stays firm and in short is far better than anything else we've tried.
While not every part of the country is as lucky as the Bay Area to have multiple artisanal tofu makers competing to make fantastic tofu you should experiment with the various brands of tofu you can find - look for the one that gets the best results for your in your preparations.
To make your tofu more firm, you can press it. Before cubing it, place the block of tofu on a plate, put another plate on top of it and weight it down with something (like a can of tomatoes) and leave it for 15 minutes. This will compress it further and squish out extra water.
Try baking your tofu before adding it to the dish. It'll lose a lot of moisture and turn out a lot more firm.
you may want to marinate your tofu.
and/or coat it in cornstarch before you fry it.
see this recipe: salt and pepper tofu
The brand and type of tofu are essential and easy to get right. We have one called Cleveland Tofu in Ohio that has an extra-firm that works well, but even the one I see most frequently, Nasoya, works great if you follow up with these steps.
You can cube first but it creates more work. I get good results by:
slicing into 1/8-1/4" strips the short-length of the block
pressing/patting dry with a paper towel and laying out to air for 15ish minutes
putting on a baking sheet on 325-350F for about 15-30 minutes (depends on your taste in firmness, I like it to have some give, my wife prefers it to be firm to the point of crunchy), flipping once for even cooking
This gives a nice crispness by ensuring you have dried out the tofu sufficiently. If you choose to only bake just extend baking time. If you want to follow up with a deep-fry or saute they are a nice texture and won't crumble.
To make it more firm, try pan searing it. High heat, low oil, and flip it often with the pan itself. Don't use a utensil, you will want to keep it moving but using even a soft spatula may tear and crumble the tofu before it gains a seared texture).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.597406
| 2011-02-03T02:43:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11782",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bill Farrow",
"Cascabel",
"ComputatriScriptor",
"Lorin Hochstein",
"Marley St.Cyr",
"Metalskin",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mrs Mac.",
"Nzall",
"Tim McClure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4670",
"jnnrss"
],
"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
}
|
13473
|
Pans with ceramic coating useful?
being a passionate home cook I of couse like working with good kitchen tools... Besides my precious knives I need good pots and pans...
Lately I've seen a lot of advertisements for pans with a ceramic coating, and today I saw those pans in my kitchen supply store...
They are (according to the advert) cast aluminum pans with a ceramic coating on them... they are said to be useful for every kind of stove, from gas over electro, ceran or induction... and they are said to be extremely robust and should cook evenly and so on...
But before buying one I wanted to ask you whether you have experience with those kind of pans? Are they really indestructable? Will working in the pan with forks or knives harm the coating? Will dishwasher usage harm the pan?
What results do you have with those pans? Is food sticking to the pan or is it really going off like nothing?
Would be great if you could provide me with some information and experience about those pans...
Thank you!
The cooking surface has a ceramic covering not just the outside? I've seen that with dutch ovens where I thought it was to prevent corrosion but that wouldn't make sense for aluminum.
no really on the cooking side... it's said to be "ultra-anti-sticky" (I'm German so it's not always easy to find the right term)... and ultra-durable since it's ceramic...
is this just a translation of "non-stick" ie Teflon or similar?
Well it's hard to describe for me... it really had like a white-ish (ceramic-color) coating on the cooking side... it was not a usual teflon coating... and they said that nothing will stick to it, so even eggs or anything will move around easily in the pan (without usage of oil)...
I've found that the non-sticky-ness of the white ceramic pans wears out in no time flat. The ceramic doesn't come off or anything, but it's no longer non-stick; if anything, it's extra-sticky. It might be possible to extend the life of the coating by not putting the pan in the dishwasher (as the instructions state), but with my mother around, that just ain't gonna happen in my house.
I have two ceramic-coated skillets (one aluminum, one cast iron; both coated on the inside with ceramic) and they are decent. There is still some sticking of food, but it is very manageable. It also doesn't (so far) peel off like the Teflon (or other non-stick coating) always did, so I feel much better about preparing food without the negatives of that stuff getting into my food.
As far as cooking, one of the skillets (standard shape/size) cooks very well. The other is a large skillet that is almost wok-shaped (but not quite) and it cooks things very differently from what I am used to, but I am pretty sure that's due to the pan style and not the material.
And even if ceramic did come off that would be perhaps unpleasant to bite into but not toxic like teflon.
@Sobachatina : 'unpleasant to bite into' could be a cracked tooth ... which could be years of dental pain ... I'd think the advantage would be that it should be obvious from cracking of the coating's showing signs of wear and/or blatant holes if parts have come off.
They are useful, as long as they last.
The problem with ceramic is that it is perfectly slick when bought, and degrades over time. Unlike Teflon, it is not about scratching or overheating. No matter how careful you are with your pan, it will lose its non stickiness after a year of daily use.
I don't know if there is a scenario where they are good. If you buy the quality ones, they are expensive, and it is no good to pay much money for a product which only lasts a year. If you want to buy cheap ones and change them often, you don't get good heating quality because the part underneath the coating is not good. Maybe, if you have a few items which will stick on anything else (fish pan fried at low temperature) and you make them rarely, it could be a good idea to buy one and use it for these items only. But that wouldn't be worth it to me.
After I had this experience with ceramic (which is confirmed by other sources, inclusive Amazon reviews on the most expensive brands available here), I decided that they don't deliver what they promise. I continue using Teflon for non-stick at low temperatures, and it does not degrade then. (I know lots of people who throw their Teflon out each year because they turn the burner all the way up - that's the wrong way to do it). For high-temperature frying, I rely on the old ways - steel or seasoned iron with sufficient fat in the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.597762
| 2011-03-26T19:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13473",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Martin Beckett",
"Sobachatina",
"florianbaethge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
12330
|
Chili cooking time
I've often heard that the key to a great chili is letting the ingredients soak and/or simmer for a really long time. However, all the recipes that I'm finding suggest about a 30 minute simmer once the chili is brought to a boil.
Can I get a better flavor if I let it simmer longer? Can I stick it in the crock pot all day? How do I adjust the recipe (for example, simmering it all day will probably take more water--should I add extra water initially, or intermittently throughout the day)? Or should I just forget about it and follow the recipe?
You'll find approximately as many recipes for chili as you will chili cooks.
I find that I can make a great chili by simmering it for a minimal amount of time, no more than a couple of hours, letting the hot peppers do most of the work of flavoring it. (Here's my current chili recipe. I used to take three days to make chili.) Soaking and simmering for a long time just isn't the taste I'm going for. You may find you prefer a chili with a longer cook time. (Many people seem to.) Experiment and find what works for you.
Chili needs a good amount of liquid both to keep heat circulating freely and to keep it from sticking to the bottom of the pot. Sticking is less of a problem in a crock pot than on a stove, but you still need to scrape the bottom of a crock pot periodically. Water will evaporate as chili cooks. If you added the water all at once, the chili would start out watery and end up dry. I add the water as it's needed, to maintain the consistency I want.
In the end, experiment, tinker, and make that chili your own! There are hundreds if not thousands of chili recipes, and there's no single correct way to make it.
Great comments in general, but one note. Don't open the lid of a crock pot more often than absolutely necessary, since it will significantly reduce the heat of the dish and make it take longer to cook. If you're going to use a crock pot, you can add a bit of liquid, but very little will escape from the pot. The reason you need to add liquid to stovetop chili is because of the loss of steam.
@Martha F - I keep suggesting we make crockpot chili! Maybe next week.
Shh! You'll give away that we're married! ;-)
@Martha F - Don't worry, it's not as if I put it on the internet or anything.
Like Neil, I figure I make a pretty decent chili, and can do it from a standing start in about a hour, or an hour and fifteen minutes if I have to roast some chilies.
*But...
...sometimes the day-old left overs really are better than the fresh pot. The best description I've got is "the flavors have melded better", and it seems to happen most if I got the pot a little on the spicy side. (My better half and I grew up in South Texas, and spent some time in New Mexico, so we can tolerate a fair amount of heat, but neither of us is a fiend for it.)
I don't have a chili recipe, but a method.
This is exactly how we do it at my house, and since the chili won the office chili cook-off I feel no need to change it.
I find with chili that the pot is best used for initially opening up the flavors at higher heats. The majority of the work should be done in a crock pot or dutch oven, stirred every 20-30 minutes (but as @Martha commented, keep the lid on as much as possible to ensure even cooking).
For opening up the flavors, you will need a pot for carmelizing onions, browning meat, and blooming spices. The purpose of boiling the chili altogether is to cause the fats and osmazome (the compound that "gives flavour and perfume to the stock") to dissipate throughout the chili altogether.
The purpose of simmering/heating in the crock-pot is to keep the fats and flavor compounds rolling. The low heat and agitation allows more flavor penetration without overcooking the ingredients. Although the exact times vary per experimentation with different meats and peppers and other ingredients, ensuring the chemical reactions is key. One piece of advice I encountered was that (for soups), "for each pound of meat, let there be one pint of water."
And yes, chili is always better the next day.
I let my chili cook in the crockpot for a LONG time. First I brown ground beef in a skillet along with an onion, garlic and seasonings (chili powder, cumin, oregano, salt and pepper) I then add the meat mixture along with the rest of the ingredients (puréed tomatoes, pinto beans, black beans, jalapeños, and the liquid from the jalapeño jar) in a crockpot and cook it on “high” for 2 hours. I then reduce the heat to low and let it simmer over night.
It starts out with quite a bit of liquid, which evaporates by morning and the end result is a thick, flavorful chili. The jalapeños definitely give it a spicy kick. You can leave them out for a milder chili
IMO: The reason you find most recipes call for "30 minutes" is due to our 'I want it NOW' culture. People are not willing to wait four to five hours to eat. Italian grandmothers across the nation are turning in their graves, knowing that the family recipe has become a McDonald's recipe.
I highly recommend you slow cook your chili and your spaghetti sauces. By cooking slowly and for a length of time, you will experience flavors you did not think were possible.
This is why Wendy's Chili tastes rather good for fast food...they made it fresh in the morning, and it has been sitting in the pot for hours before you bought it to dip fries in.
An old roommate used to make chili. We'd get a bowl the first day, with lots of "water". We'd make peanut butter sandwiches and soak up the "juice" of the chili, then enjoy the meat and such in the bowl. Then we'd add as much water as we took out to eat, and put the whole thing in the fridge. We would repeat this ritual nightly until the whole thing was gone. Each night, sitting in the fridge, the whole creation got thicker until by day five it was a delicious spicy mush.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.598133
| 2011-02-18T02:27:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12330",
"authors": [
"BobRodes",
"DanVan",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Martha F.",
"Martin at Mennt",
"QueenKelsey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25431",
"jII",
"justkt",
"schwein11",
"user25393"
],
"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
}
|
20562
|
Gas or electric for rack oven in a bakery?
I plan to purchase a rotating rack oven for my bakery. What type (gas or electric) would achieve the best result for pastries and small breads?
Electric is generally better for baking. Gas ovens introduce a bit of water vapor due to the combustion of the gas. In general, electric ovens also have smaller variations in temperature during the oven cycle than gas, and so maintain a more even heat.
Gas ovens also have to ventilate slightly to get oxygen to the burner- this will heat up a room fast if it isn't vented to the outside.
@Sobachatina: Is there somewhere where outside venting for gas isn't required? If the combustion isn't complete for whatever reason, you don't want to be dumping CO into the room.
@derobert- I don't have any experience with commercial ovens. The new residential gas oven that I had in the last house did not have outside access. We avoided using it in the summer at all costs. Presumably you would want good ventilation in your kitchen.
In forty years of baking I have used gas, electric and oil fired ovens and I can tell you that the construction of the oven matters more than the fuel. I prefer gas to electricity, mainly because I need a smaller generator to keep a gas oven running in case of a power failure. (I have the stand-by generator to keep the lights on for employee safety, but if it helps me finish what is in the oven at the moment, and keep the refrigeration running -- it is a strong plus.)
Frankly, all five ovens here run on gas because gas is cheaper then electricity here, and our ovens do excellent jobs making bread, pastry, cookies, pies and cakes. Our two and four rack ovens are from Gemini, two 24 pan rotary ovens from Fish and our conveyer oven is from Picard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.598617
| 2012-01-18T14:41:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20562",
"authors": [
"BruceV",
"Dévai Andi",
"Mithrandir24601",
"Sobachatina",
"agc",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45207"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22124
|
Why did my French onion soup with 'red' onions come out tasteless and bland?
I usually make the French onion soup with white onions. The prodecure I normally use is as followed:
I slowly caramelize them on a low heat for around 40min.
Then I add some sugar, salt and oil before finally adding broth.
I let this come to a boil.
I followed the same procedure with the red onions expecting something sweeter, but the end result was a tasteless soup. Since all the ingredients and steps were the same except for the red onion, why did my French onion soup come out tasteless and bland?
Typically you should use yellow onions for cooking. They have a higher sulphur content and are more flavorful after cooking. Raw, a red onion will taste more pungent. However, once cooked it is more mild and sweet than a soup would require. Red, as well as other sweeter onions, have more sugar and water than their yellow counterparts. For more details on the profile, seriouseats has good primur.
If you wish to improve your results, you might slice more thinly and add some salt in advance of sweating (rather than before adding broth) to draw out the excess moisture, as the onion's moisture (more prevalent with red onions) will inhibit browning, ergo inhibiting caramelization and the maillard reaction that break the bigger sugars into little ones and lend flavor through browning. The explanation at norecipes also adds that deglazing with sherry can slow down the process if you are experiencing uneven browning. Another possible tactic would be adding a 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda per pound chopped onion; this will speed up browning.
Ultimately, unless the recipe calls for red onions, you are going to get better results with yellow onions in terms of raw, "sweet and tangy" onion-y flavor. You can use the tips above to try to overcome that, but a nice big bag of yellow onions are going to do you better in the long run, and if you put the same effort into the it will take less time, taste better and be less expensive.
great answer, thanks. Red onions on burgers taste great with perfect taste compared to yellow ones, and I wanted that taste, but maybe in a soup it does not work out. Could it have been because I had put a bit of water in the first stage of boiling??
The water would delay the process minimially, it's really just the onions. Red onions are best raw or grilled. A bunch of water would start a sweat, and delay until the water evaporated. Caramelizing onions is slow and tedious and a labor of love
so the boiling prior to frying until max caramalization did not do it. Could having used butter instead of olive oil been responsible?
@Vass To be clear, I wasn't recommending using a bunch of water in the beginning, or any actually. The water will ultimately inhibit the reaction. My recommendation is just to use yellow onions. Caramelizing red onions serves no purpose. Here is another question about using water in that way
@Vass, using butter instead of olive oil definitely might have adversely affect the carmelization as butter is not 100% fat and contains a significant amount of water. Approximately 16-17% water.
@Jay, yes, I think that is it. I tried iwth olive oil and it was much better. Could you put that as an answer?
@Vass using butter is not necessarily detrimental to caramelization and is frequently used in combination with oils to add flavoring as the smoke point is typically not problematic unless you are using only butter. The smoke point of butter is ~300'F, onions caramelize around ~350'F; so if you were using only butter this would not reach any caramelization prior to smoking. Since olive oil smokes at 375'F you're a smidge better off, but you will be cooking away the flavor of the oil and may as well use something like sunflower/safflower so you can have a buffer against over heating.
One of the things that I noticed when making onion or French onion soup is that you need to use a good amount of onion. Definitely caramelize them. Personally I like to use more than one type of onion as well. Adding leeks and two or more other types of onion make for a nice flavorful soup. Then finally it is important to use a good flavorful stock or broth. So to answer your question it could be one of a few things. Maybe there weren't enough onions, the broth was bland.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.598804
| 2012-03-09T15:18:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22124",
"authors": [
"Heinzi",
"Jay",
"Kayla Klassen",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23868
|
Why would using oil make muffins less sweet?
I've been wondering, what makes muffins less sweet when using oil? (instead of butter?)
In this case, a muffin mix tells me to use butter. The alternative (to make "american style" muffins) is to use (sunflower)oil. It would make it less sweet.
Are you saying the muffin mix says that'll be less sweet, or that you've actually tried it and found that to be the case?
The muffin mix says it'll be less sweet, an it actually does. It does really taste a lot less sweet.
Oil and butter don't have the same capacity to hold the sugar/sweetener used in the mix. Whatever isn't dissolved fully in the shortening will still be bound up in the final product (or maybe end up mostly in the outer crust), and you'll likely perceive the difference as more/less sweet.
The main cause is that butter has quite a lot of water bound up in it, which you wouldn't find at all in oil. You might get a closer similarity by comparing melted, evaporated butter to oil (1-to-1 proportion), since solid & melted butter have different volumes depending on how much water you've evaporated (1 cup solid /= 1 cup melted).
I've got an answer in another question that applies more generally to different phases of shortenings and perceived/actual sweetness - Does butter reduce perceived sweetness?
wow, this (and the other question, nice!) contains a great deal of "cooking chemistry". However, the evaporated butter is interesting. I'm going to try, thanks!
Also exchanging (melted) butter for oil or vice-versa is going to change your crumb & crust texture/flavor a bit. Probably not in a muffin-shattering way, but it's just something to keep in mind.
Some mixes are all-dry (flour, baking powder, salt), and some mixes are wet+dry (all-dry plus dehydrated milk/butter solids and/or other shortening), so if there's shortening in the mix itself that will be another variable.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way... butter makes it sweeter, so not using butter is naturally "less sweet". It isn't that the oil 'causes' less sweetness.
Why would butter make anything sweeter? Butter does not contain any sugars.
Most butter contains a small amount of salt, which increases the tongue's ability to perceive sweet (ala salted caramels). Beyond that I have often heard butter's flavor described as 'sweet' in and of itself (though I am not sure it is a technically correct description, it is a common one).
In the US most butter is "sweet cream" butter, which is I think mostly sweet in that it isn't sour. I suppose it's possible that between the salt and the butter flavor it's perceived as sweeter than oil?
The salt explanation is plausible and would make a decent answer... although only decent, it's still on shaky ground because butter only has salt if you're using salted butter, and most baking recipes call for unsalted butter (so as not to throw off the ratio of salt). @Jefromi is correct in that "sweet" butter simply comes from "sweet" cream which also doesn't contain any sugar, it just indicates cream made from milk (as opposed to whey).
Butter is sweet, I suppose due to lactose. You can taste it if you eat a piece of butter pure (noncultured butter). But I highly doubt that it will make enough difference to be noticeable in muffins.
@rumtscho: If you look at the nutritional facts on a stick of butter you'll literally see the sugar content listed as 0 per serving, as compared with (for example) my carton of 1% milk which has 12 g sugars (lactose, obviously) per cup. So, maybe butter has some minuscule amount of lactose, but nowhere near enough to be able to taste. My sister is lactose-intolerant but generally has no problem with butter. I guess you're right in that non-cultured butter would have a little more lactose, but at least in North America, non-cultured butter is pretty hard to come by.
@Aaronut, you seem fixated on the idea that ONLY sugars can be sweet. If not as 'sweet' how would you describe the flavor of butter? (note: you may not use the term "buttery").
It's hardly an "idea", it's a fact. Only certain compounds activate those taste buds and those are chiefly (a) sugars and (b) sugar alcohols. I would most certainly not describe butter as "sweet", it is mostly fatty and maybe slightly creamy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.599154
| 2012-05-20T19:26:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23868",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Tremblay Lavoie",
"Cascabel",
"Christine",
"Cos Callis",
"Gretchen Allison",
"Joris",
"MandisaW",
"Martha",
"Tamaki",
"Wendy bederman ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"jenifer",
"rumtscho",
"user54157"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28183
|
Is there any dessert that needs a knife?
A friend of mine told me that there is no dessert that needs a knife to eat. I'm sure that this is not true, but I can't find a good example in the Internet. So is there any dessert that needs a knife to eat? And if yes, what kind of dessert?
This is very subjective. Nothing needs a knife, I can pick up a steak and gnaw it. But I can also choose to eat a piece of cake with a steak knife and a big fork. Also, what is your definition of "dessert"? I would say that a watermelon fits the "always needs a knife" part, unless you get picky about the "can be served pre-cut" part. But some people have very narrow definitions of "dessert" and don't see a watermelon as a dessert, what is your definition?
Ok I agree that this is maybe too subjective in the current form. But for example, there are official dessert knifes. So in a formal dinner what are they used for?
The proper use of dessert knives is a different question, but I am afraid it is off-topic for our site, so it would be closed if you asked it. See the off-topic discussion at http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/820/are-questions-about-food-presentation-and-table-setting-on-or-off-topic for detail.
A pound of taffy that's all melted together.
@User, may we assume you're asking whether the individual serving requires a knife?
There is always the case where someone has stolen your desert, and will only let go of it at knifepoint.
In certain cultures whole pieces of fruit, like an apple, for example, will be served for dessert and the diners are expected to eat it using fork and knife only - no fingers. as far as traditional desserts such as pies and cakes, I'm sure you must mean whether the individual serving requires a knife because, of course, a whole cake or pie must be cut into individual servings. I've only seen dessert forks offered for traditional baked desserts. There's an interesting website on manners that deals specifically with eating desserts using a fork and spoon, but no knife.
http://www.etiquettescholar.com/dining_etiquette/table_manners/dinner_etiquette/desserts/desserts.html
It would be pretty hard to eat a pie without cutting it up first. You could argue that you could cut it up with a fork, but if you allow cutting with a fork, then knives are unnecessary in any case.
Not everything that can be cut with a knife can also be cut with a fork, however...
@lemontwist Depends on how sharp your fork is ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.599601
| 2012-11-02T19:40:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28183",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"ChefRandi",
"D.Eyes 40",
"Eugene",
"Eugene Yamat",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Paul Menten",
"Tim",
"User",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64890",
"lemontwist",
"pxed",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"scQue814"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13408
|
What effects will xylitol have as a sugar substitute?
What effects does xylitol have when used in place of sugar?
Will replacing sugar with xylitol lower the calories in my candy?
Does it have a laxative effect if eaten in quantity?
Will my fruit gems benefit from other gums or thickeners added to the recipe? Or citric acid, wheat starch etc?
I am new to confectionery but making food stuffs and making cosmetics seems to be a kindred talent. Let's see if I am up to the task. Can't be too hard can it??? LOL
When you ask if they will benefit, do you mean in terms of improving the flavour or improving the cohesiveness? They'll be plenty gummy enough with a sufficient quantity of gelatin or agar, and you say you have flavour under control...
well i was thinking about the cohesiveness so seems like thats not too big an issue if i play with your recommendations of gelatine and agar. I have access to professional colours and fruit flavours and love the idea of experimenting with real fruit juice concentrates or purees. I will need to have some hands on with xylitol too. Thank you for your interest and support Aaronut
actually, I can imagine more dramas with setting points and sugars and more with confectionery than making cosmetics
wow . . I had no idea who I was intereacting with on this site . . you guys rock! Love your work and molecular gastronomy! Loved the referred blog on autumn leaf crisps I was trying to imagine how to make tasty crisps that were low in fat and carbs for my diet and this has inspired me.
It's difficult to find reliable information amidst all the marketing hype with xylitol, but here's what I've been able to figure out:
Xylitol does have fewer calories, per unit of weight, than table sugar. However, xylitol is also less sweet than sugar. Factually, it has about 2/3 the calories of sugar. Anecdotally, it is about half as sweet, so if you judged your amounts entirely by taste (as opposed to doing a 1:1 substitution), you would end up with more calories.
Xylitol has been associated with gastrointestinal upset in doses higher than 35 g, so if you plan to use a lot of in your candies, you might want to use very small servings. It seems to be not as bad as most other sugar alcohols, but still much harder on the gut than ordinary sugar.
One of the more interesting properties of some sugar alcohols (including xylitol, again) is that they are humectants - meaning that they draw in moisture from the air. This is a useful property if your candies are prone to drying out; on the other hand, if they are prone to breaking down then this could make it worse. It depends on the specific candy and especially the gelatin concentration.
Although it is mildly alkaline - enough to spawn anecdotes of it having a "cooling effect" on the mouth - it's not really enough to make a difference in gelatin, which does fine up to a pH of about 10. Citric acid does seem like a common accompaniment in sugar-free gums but it seems to be just for flavour purposes, as humans aren't wired to enjoy alkaline tastes. Keep in mind that this will at least partly negate the supposed oral benefits.
Finally, polyols act as stabilizers for gelatin in the same way that sugar does. Although xylitol wasn't included in the linked experiment, it's very similar to sorbitol in that respect. What you'll end up with is an increased melting point and a generally firmer gel, and while that's normally seen as a good thing, don't overdo it or else you'll lose the melt-in-your-mouth property that's unique to gelatin.
I wouldn't use other thickeners; the gelatin is already taking care of that, and if you need more gel strength then just use more gelatin. If you're trying to make stiffer candies then just use a stiffer gelling agent.
Wow . . what a wealth of information, Thank you Aaronut. Great research. I will need to consider all this and apply to the task. It seems what lose in one sense you gain in another. I enjoy your input, smile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.599836
| 2011-03-24T11:09:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13408",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5403"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28663
|
Nutrient impact of squeezing water out of frozen chopped spinach
Many recipes using frozen chopped spinach instruct one to thaw and squeeze out the water from the spinach. When I do this, how much nutrition I am squeezing out?
Interesting...I haven't seen that suggested for frozen spinach before, myself. However, if you're planning to overcook the spinach (for example in a casserole, or in many Indian spinach-based dishes), I've seen it recommended to partially cook the spinach first and squeeze out the water. Squeezing out the water removes/prevents some of the terrible canned flavor of overcooked spinach. It might also be necessary if using frozen spinach in a recipe that is intended for fresh, as the partially-cooked spinach might overcook. While I know why it's done, however, I'm not sure what is lost.
One way of looking at it is that nutrient density is increased due to the removal of water. Minerals will not have been drained away at any rate.
Example from nutritiondata.self.com:
water content, g per 100g Iron vitamin A
Unprepared thawed spinach 90.2 1.9 11725
cooked drained 88.9 2.0 12061
I assume more nutrients are cooked away rather than squeezed but that was the data available.
if it was pure water, sure. But many vitamins are water soluble.
look at the nutritional charts for drained vrs undrained spinach. No, I didn't say NOTHING was lost but I AM correct about the nutritional density by weight or volume. Iron levels also are not negatively impacted by draining as I mentioned
@Kate Gregory Some vitamins are water soluble, some even "swim" in the free water, but most are bound to the cellular structure, Pat is quite correct in this observation (and the nutritional data supports that)
When you squeeze the water 'out' you are really squeezing out the water on the outside of the spinach leaves, not the juice inside the spinach. You will get some green color but most of the moisture is just wash water.
I'd think this would have the same effect as overcooking. It'll probably be difficult to measure the amount of lost nutrients, but there will likely be nutrients lost.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.600210
| 2012-11-26T02:54:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28663",
"authors": [
"Bill S",
"Chronocidal",
"Jonathan",
"Kate Gregory",
"Msry",
"NANDI EVENTS STAGE SHOWS",
"Pablo",
"Pat Sommer",
"Paul Wasilewski",
"R Brian Walsh",
"TFD",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29094
|
The best way to roast silverside of beef in th oven?
I have a fairly large piece of beef (2.4kg) with very little fat on it. I was wondering what the best way to roast without drying it out would be please?
I know the temptation is to say that it needs to be slow cooked but I like my meat rare with a crispy crust and I really don't have time.
For the US crowd, silverside is the part of the round closest to sirloin, so it's a working cut and fairly lean.
In order to keep this juicy you'll need to bard it, in other words add fat. I'd do this by wrapping the whole thing up in streaky (US style) bacon and then sear it at high temperature to give it that crust before turning it down and continue the roasting at a lower temperature. So turn your oven up full-whack and let it get good and hot, then rub your roast with some salt, then into the oven for 20 minutes, then turn it down to 160 and roast it until it reaches 120F/50c. Remove and cover with foil, then let it rest for at least 30 minutes. If you don't let it rest it won't get tender at all.
In all honesty silverside isn't a cut I would roast, and I've tried. It just too lean and has too much connective tissue to be tender. It does make a good braise though, which is what I'd do with it.
Thank you so much! I would love vote you up but this my first question and I need 15 points to do so, but thanks.
No problem @Marche101, hope it comes out well. Why not post back and let us know how it goes?
I disagree with the accepted answer, which I don't think goes low enough. After searing first, I just cooked a 1.2kg piece of silverside at the the lowest temperature my fan oven would go, which was about 55C/130F for about six hours (until it reached 50C), then rested for 30 mins. Came out pink, tender and delicious.
No larding, no marinade, no liquid. Simple and straightforward, and is worth doing. You've just got to plan enough hours in advance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.600433
| 2012-12-11T18:50:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29094",
"authors": [
"Andrew Robertson",
"GdD",
"Linda Crowley",
"Marche101",
"Paul Branscombe",
"ThatGuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67430",
"mitjajez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27727
|
A substitute for carrageenan?
We are trying to make nondairy cheese. The recipe calls for Carrageenan and we have arrowroot. How much arrowroot should we use in lieu of the carrageenan?
I doubt very much that you'll be able to substitute any amount of arrowroot for carrageenan. Arrowroot can substitute for other starches, but carrageenan is a gum.
If you want to be able to melt the cheese easily, gelatin is your best bet, and you should be able make a 1:1 substitution (although the process is obviously different - you need to bloom it first, be careful not to overheat, and give it plenty of time to set).
On the other hand, if it's meant to simulate a hard cheese (which is likely if the recipe calls for kappa as opposed to iota carrageenan) then agar-agar is probably a better choice; you'd use about 1/3 of the amount of carrageenan (or less) and, again, it's a different process, you'd basically need to boil it for a few minutes to get decent hydration.
If you're of the mind that gelatin is not vegan (it's technically an "animal product", although it's so heavily refined that the definition is practically meaningless) then you can try the agar-agar substitution, just don't expect it to be exactly the same.
processing does not change animal to plant last time I checked
Can spirulina, maca, or sacha inchi powders substitute for carrageenan.
If you're trying to avoid seaweed gelling agents like carrageenan and agar agar, you'd be better off using ground flaxseed meal or ground chia seeds. They won't set firmly so you won't get a gelatin-type set, but you can get a pudding-type set. Softer but still gelatinous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.600623
| 2012-10-11T02:02:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27727",
"authors": [
"Belinda M",
"Cheri Talbot Mambro",
"Deb McLane",
"Geremia",
"Iulia Mihet",
"Pat Sommer",
"carl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"husamwise"
],
"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
}
|
16729
|
Can I use thicker pastry dough in place of fillo / wonton wrappers / lumpia wrappers?
I just concluded making bourek (sp. var.) yesterday and everyone commented how great it was. I have also made the Filipino appetizer lumpia, and some sort of triangle pastry with pine nuts (I forget the name), using wonton wrappers in recent past as well with some success.
But my greatest anxiety in cooking (more than anything, including deeply cutting myself with a 12 inch dull blade when I am chopping) is working with this very thin fragile dough.
Can I use a thicker dough for such a recipe? Is it entirely necessary for the dough to be paper-thin? Is it a taste thing? Why is it necessary to use this dough for this type of appetizer / dish?
Phyllo dough, in particular, comes in several thicknesses, from the thinnest which is used for baklava up to horiatiko (country) style which is used for rustic pies. You can substitute, but there is definitely a noticeable difference and I think you'll appreciate why a good traditional recipe calls for a specific type. Saveur has a nice reference chart.
Also, keep in mind that although phyllo is very thin and tends to tear, in many cases a small amount of tearing is no problem. You are making multiple layers and any small imperfections will disappear. Just be sure to keep the pieces you aren't currently working with covered so they don't dry out too fast.
For wonton wrappers, they are also often available in at least two thicknesses in good Asian groceries. Again, there are traditional uses for each. When using them in a non-traditional context such as ravioli, you'll have to decide for yourself which you prefer.
Wonderful reference chart! All I have to figure out now is if I am not making my own dough, then where can I buy my fillo? All of those variations are not available at any of the stores I go to. Gotta look for new places to try.
True. Try to find the best Middle Eastern grocery in your area, they should have at least a couple of choices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.600780
| 2011-08-08T15:23:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16729",
"authors": [
"Bacon Bits",
"Davo",
"Farducci",
"Michael Natkin",
"demongolem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6859"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12446
|
Maillard in a Pressure Cooker
I was reading about frying in On Food And Cooking this weekend and it mentions that frying works so much better than oven cooking because oil has a far higher specific heat than air so it is able to transfer that heat to the food being cooked much faster than an oven. It then went on to mention that oil has significantly less heat storage capacity than water - according to this specific heat table, it looks like water has around 2.5 times the heat capacity as most oils. This got me thinking about whether there’d be any way to “deep fry” something in water. What I mean by “deep fry” in water is - get the water up around the temperature you’d get in a deep fryer, and then drop some food in. This way you’d get the same temperature as the oil, and therefore hopefully you’d have the same Maillard reactions, but none of the oilyness from frying. I’d like to give this a try. but there are a few important hurdles I’d have to get over first and I’m wondering if anyone here has any guidance. around a few questions this raises:
I did some calculations and it looks like I’d have to get the pressure up to around 70 psi above atmospheric pressure in order to get the water up around 155C - Probably I’d want to go a bit higher than this in practice. It doesn’t seem to be out of the realm of possibility that a pressure cooker could exist that could handle this kind of pressure (bicycle tires go a lot higher than this), but I only see pressure cookers that go up to around 15psi. Do pressure cookers that handle this high of pressure exist? Otherwise, might there be other kitchen-sized industrial equipment that could achieve this high of pressure and temperature?
Can I expect a maillard reaction to occur at high pressure, or will the pressure make the reaction require relatively higher temperature and therefore preclude it from occuring?
Can I expect a maillard reaction to occur under water? Everythíng I read about the maillard reaction mentions that it will only happen after the water on the surface of the food evaporates specifically because water keeps the temperature too low. This makes sense at standard pressures, but will the water in and of itself make the maillard reaction difficult or impossible (since one of the outputs of maillard is more water), or is the water mentioned ONLY because it keeps the temperature so low. All of the references I've found that say water deters the reaction specifically state that this is because of the temperature factor.
Is there any chance that I’d get any crisping through this process? I’m thinking that if I depressurize the food while the surface is superheated (obviously I’d have to figure out a way to get it out of the water bath first), I’d get some amount of the water in the surface boiled away as the pressure dropped, and thus some crisping. Might this work?
Obviously I’d have to set up a pretty crazy rig inside the pressure cooker to get the water and food pressurized without significantly cooking the food in the process, then have a setup inside the pressure cooker that drops the food into the water at a given temperature, and then pulls it back out after a set time. I’m thinking that my first step would be to get a super-high-pressure pressure cooker and drop some chicken into it, get it up to 160C or so, cool it and see what I get. It’d be way way overcooked I’m sure, but I think I’d be able to tell if I could get any reasonable browning in water, and proceed from there if the results were favorable.
I'd really appreciate any insight, either from experience with pressure cooking of non-traditionally-pressure-cooked foods, or other experience, or possibly from understanding more about how maillard works and what I would expect at high pressure and submerged.
The first paragraph here is a little off. Conventional ovens (not convection ovens) use radiation to cook. And deep-frying is technically conduction, like pan-frying - the oil is acting as a conductor of heat.
I giggling to myself because this is a really fun thought experiment you've got going. I have serious doubts it's practical but it'll be fun to see what answer come out.
Also, I won't post this as an answer due to lack of hard data, but the results ought to be virtually the same as steaming the food, since water vapor has the same high heat capacity. Pressure cooking is still moist heat, so it probably won't cause a Maillard reaction no matter how high a pressure you get.
@Aaronut - thanks for the pointers. I'm pretty sure that regular ovens use both convection and radiation (natural convection versus forced convection) - i.e. the hot air naturally moves up from the heat source at the bottom of the oven when heated. I'm not sure how much oil expands when heated, but if it does, I think you'd get natural convection currents in a deep fryer as well - I'll have a look at On Food And Cooking and make sure I'm not forgetting what it actually says.
I see in the below linked table that oil has a significantly higher volumetric expansion coefficient, insofar as you get natural convection in a heated pot of water (which I believe is accepted to be the case), you should get more in a deep fryer.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cubical-expansion-coefficients-d_1262.html
Oh, and I edited the post to remove the offending section since it's not really critical to the discussion.
I'm with @bikeboy389 - I certainly don't know the answer, but I think it is a hell of a good question. You know who you should ask? Dave Arnold from the French Culinary Institute. Right up his alley. Call in to his radio show on Tuesday or send an email and he'll answer it on the air: http://www.heritageradionetwork.com/programs/51-Cooking-Issues or email [email protected] and tell her it is a question for the show.
Oh, hah! Turns out he's already done what you are talking about: http://www.cookingissues.com/2009/06/11/maillard-pipe-potatoes/
@michael - I think you should post that link and a summary as the answer.
@bikeboy389 - unfortunately I don't have time to produce a decent summary of it right now, but if you want to do it, the rep is all yours!
MichaelNatkin's cooking issues link has went bad. Found the article about Mailard in water at high pressure at: http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=979.html
As far as your question title goes, looking for Mailard reactions in a pressure cooker, well, sure you can - if you can burn food you can likely brown it, if you control the time/temp well enough. Of course, its not the pot's pressure and any effects of that on the heat of the water that does it, but old-fashioned "food settling against the bottom of the pot in proximity to the heat source"... of course that is't what you're actually looking for, but I couldn't resist.
Unless you are prepared to build some industrial strength equipment of your own design and then move everyone in the neighborhood away while you experiment with this, I fear you are taking your life in your hands.
Normal pressure cookers add a maximum 15 PSI to achieve a water boiling point of 121 C or 250 F. Autoclaves, used for surgical sterilization, go to 30 PSI. You are talking about going more than twice that.
There is no reason, based on the science of Maillard reaction, to believe that it would not occur at a high enough temperature. The presence of excess water would normally inhibit the process because of temperature reduction, but your "super duper pressure cooker" would keep the temperature at a high enough level to allow the chemical breakdown to occur. You might, in fact, discover that it occurs a bit earlier, as water tends to facilitate many reactions. Caramel making comes to mind as an indicator of what might be achieved, as sugar syrup (OK, most of the water is gone, but in principal) browns when you get in the above 330F-165C degree range.
As to crisping based on quick pressure reduction (perhaps when your device explodes?) That seems less likely as most crisping comes at the loss of water, and you are, in effect, keeping water in contact with your food both in liquid and superheated steam form. It would, most likely, be similar to a braised food surface, than a fried one.
Interesting thought. Please don't try this.
I was thinking about the pressure involved here. For some other reference, tractor-trailor tires are inflated to around 100 psi. They also have significantly more volume than you'd get in even a large pressure cooker (at least a few cubic feet). These do sometimes blow out on a freeway yet I've never heard of significant damage being caused from the explosion itself (wouldn't there be stories of car windows blown out, etc?). Obviously I'd have to take significant safety precautions, but I'm not sure this is really as dangerous as you imply in your first paragraph.
Now that I search a bit more, it sounds like truck tire explosions are quite dangerous, so I guess I'm wrong on this front. If I try this, I'll make sure I go somewhere very remote and stay pretty far away. I am thinking of hiring a machining company to build industrial strength equipment for this. It looks like there are many large pipes that can withstand pressures up to thousands of psi so it might be that I could get something machined/welded that would be safe at this pressure.
Remember that truck tyres aren't heated to the same extent that your pressure cooke will be. More heat means more energy to dissipate in the eventual explosion. Also, steam is much more deadly than air. In fact, it is a very dangerous thing to keep pent up, as it wil happily transfer all of its heat energy to any skin it comes in contact with.
Fascinating - I did some more calculations and taking into account that in an explosion at 155C, you'd get basically immediate vaporization of around a tenth of the water, during the explosion, the volume of the material would increase 173 times. In comparison, at constant temperature in an exploding tire scenario, you'd get an increase in volume of only 7 times. So, the super-heated water would make that explosion more than 20 times worse than a comparable tire. I'm pretty convinced that this is a bad idea now. Thanks for helping me avoid disaster! :)
One of the biggest detriments to a wider use of pressure cookers is that the early ones exploded often, so EVERYONE has a story of someone who had to scrape food off the kitchen ceiling. It doesn't help that the inventor of the device was killed by an exploding pressure cooker. There are much better and multiple safety devices on the modern cooker/canners, but the old stories live on. The thought of cooking with anything in the pressure range you were discussing is scary.
Mythbusters showed that a standard-issue hot water heater can achieve these kinds of pressures, once the safety valves are disabled (soldered shut, if I remember correctly). It should be noted, however, that said water heater did launch through a floor, a roof, and several hundred feet in to the air... It's a great episode, please watch before trying such a stunt!
Beside all the safety problems involved here, I wouldn't do it for another reason. Food, after all, is made of living tissue - animal or plant cells. If you put these at 70 psi, you will squish them to an unappetizing pulp.
Heat help in creating the Maillard reaction, but PH are also very important, by increasing the PH you can achieve a Mallard reaction at 120C in a pressure cooker.
See SCIENCE OF COOKING .
Or example that you can try is the Onion soup in Modernist Cuisine basically 500% onion, 100% onion juice (or stock), 0.75% baking soda, see link for all ingredients. Put in jar, put on lid but do NOT tighten fully or it might explode, put on a rack ( do not put jars directly on the bottom of the cooker), fill pressure cooker with water just under the rack. Cook on full pressure for 40 min. Season as per link above.
So as answers:
1) You can achieve Maillard reaction in water at 120 C if you increase the PH
2) Since it can happen at 120C at 15PSI, I say that pressure does not effect the reaction.
3) As per above Onion soup, the Maillard reaction happen in liquid, so it is only since liquid at normal pressure lowers the temperature to 100C it does not happen, at higher pressure it does.
4) I think crispiness and water does not happen at the same time, and you need water/steam to get heat in a pressure cooker.
Check on ebay you can buy a used "pressure vessel" these are industrial/laboratory things that normally cost a few grand but there is no demand for them so you could get something that does 100psi and holds 10-15 liters easily for a C note and regular pressure cookers do 15 psi so that would be 6-7 times more powerful.
Those are perfectly safe and most likely in your price range to experiment with. I just wanted to throw this in there, but I saw one that does 1,000 psi used for 2 grand it only holds 1 liter though and that is 60-70 times more powerful than a regular pressure cooker if you wanted to take it to the extreme =)
Using a lab vessel to cook food might not be the best idea as you never know what was used in it before you put food in it, not to mention the safety issues of using that much pressure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.600977
| 2011-02-21T19:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12446",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ashley",
"Carmi",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Fatima Bibi Khan",
"Krister Moen",
"Megha",
"Michael Natkin",
"Shannon Severance",
"Wilf",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"lemontwist",
"rasellers0",
"rumtscho",
"timmyp",
"user172839",
"user25629",
"user3788429"
],
"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
}
|
92105
|
What type of chili in Olive Garden ‘Calabrian Chicken’
I went to Olive Garden recently and bought the Spicy Calabrian Chicken. It was delicious and I loved the heat level. It heated up my mouth, but I could still taste the flavor. Can anyone tell me what type of chili they used in this dish.
I saw one place where they said that Calabrian chilies can also be called Peperoncini. I had one of these in my garden and got excited. However, my peppers don’t taste hot. Then I read that Peperoncini had a really low heat level. As low as 800 scoville. Then I found a site selling dried Calabrian chilies and they say they are around 25,000 to 40,000 Scoville. That sounds closer to the Olive Garden dish. However, right below that statement , the site sold dried ones and said they were 8,000-10,000 scoville.
Lots of mixed info. Does anyone have insite into what chilies that use. I’d love if someone could tell me exactly, like if they have it listed in an ingredients list somewhere.
Edit: a couple of people seem confused and think I duplicated my question. I've gotten fussed at before on these forums for posting multiple questions in one post. This question was about identifying a pepper. My other question is about a recipe using said pepper. Thanks.
Calabrians eat a lot of chile peppers, but usually the one referred to as "Calabrian chiles" to foreign audiences is a variety of diamante chile pepper, grown in Southern Italy, salted and packed in oil, and sold as "hot long chile peppers". These are commercially available in the USA from brands like Tutto Calabria and DeLallo.
The confusion comes in because the residents of Calabria province like a lot of peppers, and various other peppers are grown there, and even packaged and exported.
Calabrian chili peppers are not pepperoncini, or at least not what is sold in the USA as "pepperoncini". Those are a variety of small chile pepper, bred from the Anaheim, grown in the USA, picked green, and sold pickled. They would be a terrible substitute. Where you probably got that recommendation is that the word "pepperoncini" is Italian for "hot peppers", generically.
As for growing them, I'm not sure what to recommend. The name they go by in Italy, "Diamante" after the town where they are grown, is used by several completely unrelated pepper varieties from English-speaking seed catalogs. So I don't know what that pepper would be named if you wanted to plant it.
Thanks. That helps a lot. I'll see if I can find "Diamante" pepper to grow. Between posting and reading this, I actually did order some stuff from Tutto. I got a jar of crushed chilies, I assume in oil, and dried ones, to experiment with.
@Dalton : it sounds like you got a bottle of 'hots'. That'll work. For growing your own, some varieties of Diamante have no heat. You might want to go with Red Cherry Peppers, as different varieties are available w/ different heat levels (some around 3k, others around 20k)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.602070
| 2018-09-06T00:32:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92105",
"authors": [
"Dalton",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35263",
"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
}
|
57216
|
Is cooking with fruit liqueur comparable to cooking with fruit juice?
I had some cranberries and blueberries that were past their prime, so to preserve them I made them into a liqueur. However I'm not much of an alcohol drinker, so I was thinking of using this liqueur for cooking. How does one use fruit liqueur in cooking? Will there be a noticeable taste difference from using the juice of these fruits once the alcohol has evaporated?
You could always use it in ways that aren't actually "cooked". For example, you can soak berries in it and use it as a filling for cakes/cupcakes.
The alcohol won't evaporate. The idea that alcohol added to cooked dishes is imprecise, I don't have the table at hand for evaporation percentage vs time but at least half of it stays forever.
Sorry rumtscho that is incorrect. Alcohol will completely evaporate, what does stay "forever" is the flavor the spirit will impart but chemically ethyl is evaporative, to test my posit try wiping some rubbing or high proof vodka on a glass surface and you can actually watch it evaporate. The "How" depends on the recipe in e.g., deserts usually @ the end or in a finishing sauce. You could also make a chutney or in a marinade.
Cheers!
EDG
Actually I'm afraid you're incorrect. The idea that alcohol completely evaporates during anything but relatively long cooking is a myth, as shown by this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556354, summarised here: http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/AlcoholCooking.htm. Even a 2.5 hour braise will leave around 5% of the alcohol behind; flambeeing will leave 75%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.602308
| 2015-05-05T17:46:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57216",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Darrel Jones",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Karen Spragg",
"Peter McAdam",
"Róisín O'Connor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kushaagra saxena",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63398
|
Have to preserve a cake for decoration purposes
We had a cake which was made for our school opening and we need to find something to spray on to preserve the cake? For the future. We called other cake shops but they didn't have anything we could how used.
Is it a real cake or just a foam cake covered in fondant and decorated?
How do you intend to store it? Formaldehyde should work well, if it doesn't discolor it. But then you will have to enclose it in an airtight container, as the fumes are toxic.
In case of doubt: Take lots of pictures. Less storage space, no mold.
Formaldehyde? But then you couldn't have your cake and eat it.
It might be possible to freeze dry it, but that's not easy without special equipment.
@rumtscho: you inspired me for a new answer! ;-)
@Anita: As you're a 16 rep user: If any of the below answers helped you, don't forget to click the grey ☑ at the left of its text, which means Yes, this answer is valid! ;-)
The first thing would be making it as hollow as possible (probably eating the removed matter) ... the less massive it is, the easier it will be to treat.
Just spraying something on will not help unless the inside mass is either very dry (water activity) or sterile (won't be unless it was heated through to >120°C ... no it wasn't during baking!).
You would need to either replace ALL water in it with something else, or make sure ALL water is bound up or poisoned - all even harder to do without making it dangerous to a misguided person (children and animals! "Looks like food but is poison" is always an accident waiting to happen) mistaking it for an edible cake... it might be possible though, if you can get it down to a thin inner layer close to the icing - and manage not to damage the icing. A massive amount of salt would be the most obvious agent (and if someone eats it by accident, they will quickly realize they cant eat it) ... but would need to be sealed in too in order not to attract more moisture that will dissolve salt and icing.
Sealing the cake in and treating it with ionizing radiation to the point of sterilizing it would be rather impractical, heating it to the point would discolor, crack or melt it.
If you are lucky, the bare icing and decoration (if you can get it that hollow while preserving structural integrity long enough to backfill it with something inert) is dry enough/can be dried enough to be microbe and mold-proof, like lump sugar would be - even then, do not forget to deal with insects that would go for dry sugar.
Sealant? Maybe, just maybe, sodium silicate, since it has historically been used near food (egg preservation).
Favour returned! ;-)
Depending on what you want to do with your cake in the end you could (or should not) use the following tricks:
I want to keep my cake and eat it! (afterwards):
Put it in the fridge: it'll keep for another few days.
Dump it in a sealed plastic bag in the freezer: it'll keep for another few months.
Dump it in a glass jar full of 200°C (400°F) grape seed oil: it'll keep for another few years. (though it'll taste rather rich afterwards)
Dump it in a glass jar full of 50 Volume% (100 proof) alcohol similar to a Rum Baba: it'll keep for another few decades. (though you might get jailed for DUI if you eat a piece of it and then drive)
I want to keep my cake:
Leave it in a very clean oven (cleaned with soap, then vinegar then alcohol) to dry for one hour at 50°C (120°F) for every pound of cake and spray it with hair spray after it has cooled down: You'll end up with a nice glossy cake that'll still look good for another few months.
Drop it in a glass jar filled with 250°C (500°F) mineral oil: it'll still look good for another few years.
Drop it in an glass jar filled with formaldehyde: that's the stuff they use in museums to preserve fish in. Close the jar well and you'll enjoy it until the end of your life time!
Boiling oil would probably cause the same problem putting it in a vacuum would: The water will boil out and blow the cake apart. And any submersing it in nonpolar solvents is likely to make a cake-flavoured drink of it :)
Vacuum! Why didn't I think of that! ;-) @rackandboneman (and whether you eat it or drink it with an umbrella on top, wasn't specified in the original question!) >:-)
"Vacuum! Why didn't....".... is my usual state of mind when looking at my badly preserved kitchen floor after a series of baking experiments...
I think you might have mixed up the headlines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.602510
| 2015-11-12T15:05:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63398",
"authors": [
"Commercial Property a Building",
"Connie Soon",
"Fabby",
"HOLD ON SPAMMER",
"Marta Mueller",
"Max",
"Philipp",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"arash ngar",
"dot staker",
"eurigamez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mrog",
"penelope waite",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63834
|
What temperature is the "warm" setting of a PC550 slow cooker?
I recently prepared a pork roast, but it wasn't ready in time for supper. Once it was fully cooked, I switched it over to "warm" for the night to be ready for today. But now I'm a little worried if it is still good. I have heard that as long as the "warm" setting maintains a heat above 140f it should be fine, but I do not have a functioning thermometer to test this. If someone else has a PC550 slow cooker, and can give me a reference of the (approximate) setting (warm, 1, 2, 3) temperatures, that would help!
A usable food thermometer will probably cost less than the ingredients you would have to waste to be 100% safe.
I had to edit the question to be only about the temperature maintained by this specific slow cooker, because all other parts of it were a duplicate.
so I am wondering what I should do from here (turn up the temperature, refrigerate it, etc.).
Raher late advice given your posting date, but perhaps helpful if you still have and use the PC550.
As long as temperature is over 63C chill quickly. For instance put in small containers and then put them in cold water. Then refrigerate or freeze. And before use reheat thoroughly; preferably on a stove top rather than in a slow cooker.
Note if the warm temperature is not holding at 63 or above the food is not safe to eat, but surely a slow cooker on warm will be designed to hold warm at above 63. I do not have this model of slow cooker, and did not find the manual for PC550 on the internet.
I did note a post regarding a Presidents Choice slow cooker pointing out it automatically turns off after keeping warm for 6 hours, although the post did not specify the model of PC slowcooker. You may therefore need to check it is still keeping warm. And as advised by @rackandboneman you really would benefit from having and using a food thermometer.
Note advice is usually that food may be held indefinitely in a slow cooker if over 63 degrees C or as in this USA advice over 140F (that is 60C)
https://www.foodsafety.gov/keep-food-safe/4-steps-to-food-safety
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.603192
| 2015-11-25T13:35:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63834",
"authors": [
"Joni Tjentojo",
"Susan Bonaccorso",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"khairunnisa dadani",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66179
|
To what extent is curcumin destroyed by boiling?
I came across a "juice shot" / "anti inflammatory drink" recepie the other day which lists the following ingredients :
lemon (in slices)
ginger (in slices)
turmeric (in slices)
sugar
water
The above ingredients should boil for 45 minutes, and then be ready to drink.
One of the advertised health boosters of this drink is curcumin (from the turmeric). However, does it withstand 45 minutes of boiling, or is the amount of curcumin reduced by the boiling?
Hello Sbratta, I'm afraid we cannot tell you whether your drink is healthy or not. You will have to trust the recipe authors, or not. "The good stuff" is not definable.
I'm sure it is healthy, but does different vitamins differ in their tolerance of heat. Is it a valid assumption to say that a boiled lemon or ginger is just as healthy as a raw one?
That's exactly the kind of question we cannot answer. It is impossible to measure how healthy something is. There is one exception we allow: if you are interested in one exact chemical compound, you can ask if it is reduced by boiling, and the question can be reopened.
Updated question based on feedback.
I have added a further update to the question to remove the final reference to health effects - since this now focuses on chemical composition instead, I believe it can be considered on-topic for our site.
OK @sbrattla I reopened it, thank you for editing. Note that we really don't have any health expertise here and don't want to claim we have it - answers will have to concentrate on the actual measurable amount of curcumin, not discuss bioavailability, possible changes during boiling, or the general "healthiness" of drinking it.
@ElmerCat the question is now about curcumin. If you know that it will be degraded, please write an answer. Comments or answers on the healthiness of the whole thing will be deleted.
Googling, I found this report, presenting a chemical and technical analysis of curcumin. Skimming through it, it seems that degradation of the substance should not be a problem due to temperature, although the report doesn't say much about it except that it shouldn't be a problem:
Curcumin is stable in dry food. It is relatively stable to heat so it can be used in thermally treated foods.
However, it warns about using it in solutions of a high pH, without stating which of the degradation products may be unfortunate to ingest. Furthermore curcumin is sensitive to light, so if you want as little as possible of it to degrade it is probably a good idea to keep a lid on the pan while you're heating the solution and consume it fairly quickly afterwards:
In native form curcumin is not suitable as a colouring agent in aqueous solutions of pH > 7
The principal colouring components of curcumin are not particularly stable to light, especially in solutions. After the photo-irradiation of compound 1, a cyclisation product was detected, as well as decomposition products, such as vanillic acid, vanillin, and ferulic acid (Sasaki et al, 1998). Commercial formulations of curcumin are available that are designed to minimize the inherent light instability.
With regards to the pH of your solution I don't think that should be a problem, as it is probably fairly acidic from juices of the lemon.
As far as I know, curcumin is stable, and should be able withstand prolonged heating.
Hello Marc, health discussion is off topic here. The exception of the "nutrient-composition" tag requires that neither the answers don't discuss whether it is healthy to eat the nutrient or not. So I had to remove that part and leave the one which is a direct answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.603401
| 2016-02-03T18:16:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66179",
"authors": [
"Angela Reese",
"Anne Kenny",
"Bob Elliott",
"Britt Long",
"Cara Maxwell",
"Espyl Lat",
"Gary Hatfield",
"John Cannizzaro",
"Kathryn Vogel",
"Paul Thompson",
"Robin A",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"ross",
"rumtscho",
"sbrattla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20927
|
How can I make Shepherd's Pie without tomatoes?
Shepherd's pie recipes usually involve cooking the lamb mince with tomato paste or chopped tomatoes from a can, for example in this BBC recipe, or this Good Food recipe.
How can I best approximate the usual taste and texture without any tomato ingredients?
The tomato in shepards pie provides acid and is the main coloring agent of the meat portion of the dish. Any other acid will work in place of it, although which you use will entirely depend on how much you want the flavor profile to stay the same. Adding lemon juice will give your pie a Mediterranean taste, adding others will result in other flavors coming to mind. You could just leave the tomatoes out and use a roux instead of the flour, that should give you about the same mouth feel just tasting onions and lamb.
You could probably get the color back with paprika or something else red, depending on what it is about the tomatoes that you're trying to avoid!
The Worcestershire sauce should provide some colour too.
Personally I never use any tomatoes in my Shepherd's Pie. A good rich stock, well browned meat, and Worcestershire sauce provide all the colour.
You could prop ably best approximate the flavour of the tomatoe by using some sort of roast pepper paste or roast peppers - although how well this will go in a shepherds pie I'm not so sure. If you just want the color you could use some paprika but again in a shepherds pie I'm not so sure!
Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.603722
| 2012-01-30T23:57:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20927",
"authors": [
"Big Green Alligator",
"Cascabel",
"Dark_Eternal",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eric Gaudiello",
"Peter Taylor",
"Richard Slater",
"efaj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46065"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22273
|
Are meatballs different from Hamburgers other than in terms of size?
The recipes in for meatballs and hamburgers have their variations, but a lot of overlap. Many look almost the same. Other than the cooking method and size, is there a fundamental difference that sets them apart?
I edited, then figured I should ask: it seems like the primary difference is shape, not size.
In the US, hamburgers are usually flat patties weighing somewhere between 3 and 8oz. and typically 100% ground beef. Many variations are possible, including mixing spices and other ingredients into the meat, but binders such as egg and breadcrumbs are not common. The defining characteristics of a proper hamburger for most Americans are the shape (flat), approximate size, beef as the primary ingredient, and sandwich-style presentation. A ground meat patty not made from beef is likely to be named differently (lamb burger, turkey burger, etc., even though the name 'hamburger' has nothing to do with ham).
Meatballs are smaller (maybe 0.5 to 3oz), roughly spherical, more likely to be seasoned, much more likely to contain eggs and/or breadcrumbs as binders, made from just about any kind of meat, cooked differently, served differently.
Also, the cultural traditions surrounding each are completely different. Spaghetti with meatballs and tomato sauce is classic comfort food; spaghetti with hamburger is unthinkable. Meatballs are usually served in a sauce of some kind; burgers (beef or otherwise) are served on a bun or bread with mayo, ketchup, mustard, melted cheese, lettuce, tomato, and so on. Many people like their hamburgers (beef) cooked rare or medium rare, but meatballs are always fully cooked. Meatballs can be held at temperature for a long time, or even cooked, chilled, and reheated; only cafeterias and other low-quality, high volume restaurants would pre-cook and reheat a hamburger -- at home or at a good restaurant the burger would be served as soon as possible after cooking.
Meat-only burgers seem to be much more common in the States. Mr Bartley of the famous Mr Bartley's Burger Cottage in Boston, MA insists that a hamburger should be just beef, salt and pepper - "Anything else is meatloaf". Many European recipes for burgers do include onions, egg and breadcrumbs. I disagree with my confederates :)
I like that, "anything else is meatloaf".
"spaghetti with hamburger is unthinkable" Unless you're someone who considers "ground beef" and "hamburger" to be synonymous, ala Hamburger Helper, in which case spaghetti with hamburger is a classic one-pot dish for busy weeknights
@Yamikuronue No argument there, but that's a slightly different meaning of hamburger. You're talking about hamburger, i.e. ground beef, as an ingredient. This question is about hamburgers, i.e. patties shaped out of ground beef and sometimes other ingredients.
My experience with meatballs has always involved multiple meats combined together while hamburgers contain a single meat. In fact, I'd go so far to say that MeatLoaf is a closer cousin to Meatballs barring size, shape and spice.
Most meatloaf and meatballs I've had experience with are made of a single meat; however they also contain other things such as onions, oatmeal, etc. Then again, I've also had hamburgers with similar additives, as well.
Methinks there's not going to be a definitive answer on this one unless there's a canonical definition of "meatball" and/or "hamburger."
Yes, I'm sure you're right...
Probably depends on the meatball. Yes, meatballs can be just round hamburgers, but for example, you can make meatballs for spaghetti that have eggs, onion powder, garlic powder, basil, oregano, salt and pepper and you will get a much better spaghetti from it than if you just make miniature spherical hamburgers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.603893
| 2012-03-14T23:42:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22273",
"authors": [
"Alex Logan",
"Anne",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Flimzy",
"Gary",
"Jacob G",
"Jcl",
"Jim",
"Martand Atrey",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"jimmyplaysdrums",
"user50146"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21056
|
How long does cooked TVP keep in the fridge?
How long can I keep cooked textured vegetable protein (soy) in fridge and does it matter if it is mixed with for example some spices and rice? Will it then shorten the duration of how long it's good to eat?
For long term storage of TVP once it has been cooked, I prefer to bake it into crumbles so that the moisture is reduced (and it adds to the toothsomeness of it) before storage. To bake it into crumbles, just lay out in small meatball-style heaps on parchment and bake until dried through.
This is beneficial in both freezer (yes, it freezes very well and reheats in about the same time as when refrigerated) and refrigerator storage as the moisture will burn in the freezer and turn the TVP texture grainy, and in the fridge it can soak up some stray smells easily.
When wet, I find that storing it for between 3-5 days doesn't make it too soggy and limp when reheating, for longer than that I find it preferable to freeze not for the sake of contamination but because it preserves the texture better and the flavor and takes up less fridge space.
I've kept mine in the fridge (unmixed with other things) for over a week without any issues. I'd say it's probably safe to keep slightly longer than meat because it doesn't have the same levels of naturally occurring bacteria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.604314
| 2012-02-04T12:51:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21056",
"authors": [
"JKelly",
"Tony Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54770"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26054
|
Does coffee in a cafe press keep brewing after being 'squeezed'?
I've recently gotten a Cafe Press for making my coffee, and I'm pretty bad with proportions. If I make too much and leave it sitting in the press with the grounds pressed to the bottom, does the coffee on top keep 'brewing'? Does it otherwise adversely affect the flavour? Does it affect the caffeine content?
The brewed coffee stays in contact with the ground, even though you pressed the sieve to the bottom. It will eventually release the unwanted flavors it contains, albeit slowly. The ground coffee should be in contact with the hot water for about 30 seconds.
See this answer for the caffeine content.
@Pureferret: If you tend to leave your press pot sitting, consider the "scoop out" or "reverse fill" methods detailed at: http://www.coffeenate.com/how-to-french-press-coffee-technique/ . Both have the added benefit of making the pot easier to clean out afterward...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.604440
| 2012-09-08T10:53:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26054",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22315
|
Are mascarpone and clotted cream the same thing?
When serving some mascarpone with French toast to my mother, she exclaimed: "Oh, this is the clotted cream I had when I was a little girl!"
Are mascarpone and clotted cream the same thing?
If not, what are the differences?
They are completely different.
Clotted cream, also called Devonshire cream, is made by heating unpasteurized milk until a layer of cream forms on the surface. The mixture is then cooled, and the cream skimmed off. It has a butterfat content between 55 percent and 63 percent. Unlike creme fraiche it is not a cultured milk product, and is typically eaten as a tea-time accompaniment to scones or bread. Clotted cream is also naturally thickened by the heating process, whereas tartaric acid (a thickening agent) is added to mascarpone to create a firmer, smoother texture.
Mascarpone is classified as a curd cheese, unlike clotted cream and creme fraiche. The fat content in mascarpone is 25 percent. It is made by heating cream and adding tartaric acid to the mixture to further thicken it. The mixture is then cooled and strained, yielding the creamy-textured mascarpone. Mascarpone may be used as a dessert filling or as a thickener in savory sauces. Some methods of mascarpone production call for initially culturing the cream prior to heating and mixing it with tartaric acid.
Ok I know this is an old question but according to the culinary institute of america:
They are not completely different. Both Mascarpone and Clotted cream are made with cream, both have the SAME fat content and both are made by heating the cream. Mascarpone is curdled and sweetened, clotted cream is not. Creme Fraiche is more closely related to sour cream and is made the same way. The major difference is fat content, sour cream has less than half the fat; and cream cheese is made with milk.
what is your source for saying that clotted cream and mascarpone have the same fat content? The other answer claims more than twice as much fat in clotted cream than mascarpone.
British Heart Foundation & a tub of regular supermarket mascarpone from Tesco says they're closer than the 25% claimed above. 44% fat. Some sources of 'finer' [more expensive] mascarpone quote as high as 60%
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.604549
| 2012-03-16T10:16:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22315",
"authors": [
"Agriculturist",
"David Kaiser",
"Esther",
"Maz",
"Scott Calise McKissack",
"Srujan",
"Tetsujin",
"Walter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"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
}
|
15453
|
Is there a good way to cook a hamburger on a cast iron skillet?
So I'm trying to find a consistent way of getting good quality, medium-rare burgers without firing up the grill. The burgers always end up cooked on the outside quicker; the inside is still red (not pink).
I have a large cast iron skillet on an electric stove and usually use beef between 80 and 85%. Any suggestions?
Heat pan, add hamburger? Not trying to be flippant but was there a specific problem you encountered?
Sorry. It ends up cooked on the outside quicker. The inside is still red (not pink).
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14705/how-do-you-grill-a-perfect-burger/14707#14707
If you're trying for something really thick, you may need to do part of your cooking in the oven.
A tip. Make sure to let your patties sit and reach room temperature before cooking it. Doing this provides a more even cook.
Apply to most if not all meat-related cooking.
For all (almost) burger related questions, go to The Burger Lab by Kenji. In this case read this piece http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/02/the-burger-lab-how-many-times-should-you-flip-a-burger-while-cooking.html in which it turns out the flipping method is what you need.
The right way is simple and straightforward: preheat the skillet for about 5-10 minutes on medium, add a few table spoons of oil to coat the bottom, and continue cooking at this temperature. Flip regularly, to allow the sides to cook evenly, and wait for the middle to become fully cooked.
Now I will tell you all the ways NOT to cook a hamburger with a cast-iron skillet!
Cook on "warm" for an hour or so. Then realize it's not cooking, give up, and go to McDonald's.
Heat the skillet on maximum heat for a few minutes, and throw the burger on. Just leave it there; it's not fully cooked if there's any hint of pink or moisture left. After a while, your new charcoal-and-cardboard roofing shingle will be ready for use.
Preheat the skillet. Don't throw in a burger or anything, just forget about it until the fire alarm goes off. Now you can learn how to re-season cast-iron!
For the storming-a-medieval-castle experience: throw a mostly-frozen burger patty into a frying pan with a half inch of exceedingly hot oil. Dive for cover and a fire extinguisher as hot oil sprays everywhere. When the barrage ends, maybe the middle will be edible?
Use pan as a bludgeon and steal a burger from an unsuspecting fast food customer. For particularly inept people this may be the only way to get a good hamburger using a frying pan.
Heat a frying pan full of oil on high heat. When flames start, cook your burger over them using a metal spatula. Accept the wails of the fire alarm as a little light musical accompaniment.
Microwave it. Yes, that includes the pan. When your microwave has finished burning, surely the burger will be cooked well-done! For additional paddies, repeat with fresh microwaves.
Start cooking on high without preheating, realize the exterior is overcooking while the interior isn't done, then switch to low heat. It's still cooking too fast! Take cast-iron skillet off burner entirely, and remove burger. Allow pan to cool completely, and resume on low heat. After 20 minutes, wonder why it's not cooking at all and the pan still isn't very hot, and try jacking up the heat again. Ten minutes later, your burger is overdone outside and STILL raw in the middle. Congratulate yourself that at least you saved yourself time on all that preheating nonsense. Then look at clock and realize an hour has passed.
This message brought to you by the Hard Knocks Culinary Institute!
@BobMcGee, I find your posts tonight entertaining. However, they are different from your usual style, and include some more or less personal details. Maybe you'd prefer to party your mood away with friends instead of the computer? (You know, the Internet has the bad habit of remembering everything you ever said).
@Rumtscho: Only a little of this post is drawn from personal experience. I'm not drunk-posting if that's what you're implying, just blowing off some steam. I don't think anything said in the other answer you refer to moves beyond "funny and cautionary anecdote with a ribald twist." Maybe I'm used to the, uh "saltier" environment in a pro kitchen though, so I'll keep it a little more G-rated in the future.
@BobMcGee, I have no problem reading "saltier" texts (I even outed myself as a sometime Marduk listener in the other thread). I just noticed that your answers are unusually emotional, even without the ribald anecdote. I didn't know what caused this, but I sure know it has happened to me (for different reasons) and on these occasions, I'd have preferred for somebody to have cautioned me (and for my wooden head to have listened to them). If you are sure that tomorrow you'll still be OK with having written in this way, then by all means go on. As I said, I find it amusing, not offensive.
-1: Some great tips, but the writing style diverges from the general professional theme here.
Personally, I've got no problem with the style, or the tone or any of that - in fact I think the cautionary notes are actually pretty useful - but IMO the answer would have been just as entertaining without the obviously silly ones (e.g. alien mind control rays, using pan as a bludgeon, etc.)
@Bruce: It's a different tone, but it DOES answer the question, and I think there's room to have fun laughing at mistakes. While I may get a little silly, this also points out a few common, and not so common ways a simple burger can go horribly, horribly awry. @Aaronut: Humor is always hit or miss. shrug I'll keep tweaking it, and hope people enjoy at least part.
I quite enjoyed the phrase "storming-a-medieval-castle experience".
I thought this was good and helpful. People starting out without experience often get results that they can't explain, and I think this will help them see where they're going wrong.
If it's getting cooked on the outside too quickly, you're heating up your pan too much. Try cooking at a lower temperature.
I find it good to use a cast iron skillet under a broiler. Pre-heat the pan, add the burger, 4 minutes/turn, 3 minutes remove, let rest for a few minutes as well. This is generally good for a (thin) 1/4 to 1/3 pound patty. If you want to get thick then it is better to reduce the heat and cook more slowly, whether it is stove top or under the broiler.
I will try this and comment back.
This worked great! Good suggestion.
The first thing is to realize that there are a lot of different ways to cook a burger.
Nothing beats a grill, or even comes close. But when living in an apartment or when it's too cold to grill, the next best thing is cast iron grill pan. Don't be fooled by the cheesy clam-style George Foreman wannabes.
How I do it:
There are a couple of ways.
First is on the stove top. Not my favorite way but it works:
Preheat your grill pan until it's smoking, usually medium high, or 7 on my electric stove (if it doesn't smoke, it's not hot enough). I use high-fat meat, usually 80% lean or, if I can find it, 73%. This adds to the flavor. Have a jar ready for excess grease. There's nothing worse then a fried burger.
Leave the pan oil-free. Brush the oil on the burger instead.
Sear the burgers about 1 min per side, then put in a plate.
Drain the oil out of your grill pan and return the pan to the stove, turning the burner down to medium.
Continue cooking 3 to 5 minutes per side depending on how well-done you like it.
The other method uses the oven:
Set your pan to medium high and sear the meat as described above
Preheat oven to 400 F (200 C).
After searing the meat, drain oil and return burgers to grill pan and place in the oven, cooking another 5 to 8 minutes.
Remember your cast iron pan will be really hot. Make sure you have oven mitts on. As always, like anything else, remove the burger from the pan ASAP as it will keep cooking in the pan.
These methods also work with any copper or stainless cookware that is oven-safe.
Do not try this with ordinary non-stick cookware. You will ruin the pan and make your house smell bad, or worse, start a fire.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the question asks about using a cast iron skillet, not a "grill pan."
I wouldn't go over 80% lean. 75-80% is about right.
Don't over-work your meat. Just tear off evenly-sized handfuls, form them into balls, and then flatten into patties.
Make your patties about 3/4 inch thick, with a depression in the middle. They'll puff up in the middle, so you want the middle thinner.
Heat the pan somewhere between medium- and medium-high heat.
When the pan is good and hot, sprinkle a good pinch of kosher salt into the pan, and place the burgers on top of the salt.
Flip them when you see juices coming up to the surface, after 3-4 minutes.
Add cheese right after flipping, if you want it.
Cook for another 3-4 minutes, depending on how well-done you want them.
Placing a lid on the pan will melt the cheese faster, so that you can have melty cheese without overcooking the meat.
Add a measured quantity of water or stock to the pan before adding the burgers. Flip the burgers when the liquid is about half gone. When it's evaporated, brown on one side, flip to brown the other side, while adding cheese at this point if desired.
You'll have to experiment with the amount of water. Too much, and you will get medium or worse. The liquid helps conduct the heat to the inside.
I use this method primarily with my stash of frozen patties. It avoids the need to thaw the meat first, yet still allows short-order cooking.
I will try this and comment back.
When cooking thicker burgers, I find it best to start with the skilled pre-heated on about medium heat, with some butter and oil in the pan. Put the burgers in for a few minutes (depends on size, temp, etc) then flip and put it into the oven on about 350 degrees. The iron skillet will maintain a lot of the heat long enough to sear the other side while the oven finishes cooking the inside of the burger. You'll need to test this out to see how long it takes to cook it to your liking, but this is a general technique you can use with any thicker meats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.604779
| 2011-06-14T13:09:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15453",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Athanasius",
"BobMcGee",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Carrie",
"Doug",
"Jason",
"Loreno Heer",
"Marilyn",
"Neliza Marie Dakoykoy Avila",
"Sobachatina",
"Stuart",
"Stuart Siegler",
"The Chaz 2.0",
"Tieana Wells",
"Wernight",
"agent-j",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7715",
"rumtscho",
"sdf",
"soegaard",
"user3204763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15387
|
What features should a food processor have in order to make nut butters?
I'm looking for a food processor that I can make nut butters (peanut & almond) in. No reviews on Amazon show any promising information about being able to blend nuts to a buttery texture and the ones I've bought so far have just ground them up into dust.
Are some food processors better than others for making nut butters? If so, what makes them better? How can I choose the best one for this task?
I've edited this to be a more general question about selecting equipment; please note that this site is for Q&A - product polls/recommendations aren't allowed.
I wish you luck. I've tried 3 different food processors, and the nut butters always have small chunks in them. I'll eat it but my kids won't. If you find one that really makes smooth nut butter, I'd love to know. None of the ones that I have tried have been crazy expensive ($25 - $200), but they all seem to have about the same speed and power motors. I was thinking about trying a coffee grinder, but I think it may gum it up.
Resurrecting this thread in case people end up searching for it.
The only requirement for which food processor is that the motor is powerful. Underpowered will tax the motor too much. If the FP says that you can knead bread dough in it, it almost certainly will be fine. Run long enough with a cutting blade, and you will get a smooth butter.
Blenders mainly have powerful enough motors, but they are not shaped properly to get thick/pasty substances in contact with the blades. My Vitamix would work for a cup of nuts, but more would be too annoying.
Top end Breville FP that I have will make smooth nut butters, with the caveat that some nuts (hazelnut. Walnut) always feel somewhat “pasty” in comparison to peanuts or cashews. I don’t add additional oil, so perhaps if I did so the mouth feel would be better.
My little Cuisinart makes nut butters with just the regular chopping blade. It's not as fast as a blender would be, but if you just let it chop for a few minutes, you end up with a nice smooth product. The unit's probably pricier than you need for making nut butters. About any low speed FP with a decent sized chopping blade should work.
Same here, except that I always pulse it manually while the nuts are still pretty chunky.
You don't want to use a food processor for making nut butters; they are poorly suited to the task and you can ruin one trying.
Instead, you need to get a higher-powered device, either a Vitamix or an Indian Food Grinder, either of which have the horsepower to make a decent nut butter. Even then you'll need to be cautious and grind in bursts to avoid overloading/overheating. If you're going to be making a lot of nut butters, though, maybe you should consider actually buying a nut butter machine?
I have a Preethi Mixie grinder, and I've made cashew butter in it.
Vitamix: http://www.vitamix.com
Indian Food Grinder: http://www.perfectpeninsula.com/EcoTwin.html
I use an Oster blender. It has a specific speed for "nuts" only. Don't know how much it cost because it was a gift, but I love it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.605620
| 2011-06-11T16:33:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15387",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex Hoeppner",
"Jeanette Flores",
"Johnny",
"Kim",
"Kirk",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7166",
"karen",
"user32957"
],
"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
}
|
16117
|
Can I make sourdough starter with raw potatoes?
Looking at different websites I found sourdough starters using potatoes instead of wheat or rye. They all used cooked mashed potatoes.
I wonder if it is possible to just grate raw potatoes or other starchy vegetables and use them. I still have some self-made wheat sourdough starter at home. So I could mix a bit of that with my grated potatoes.
Has anybody here tried before?
What is the problem in cooking the potatoes? Anyway look for Rewena bread recipes. It is a super yummy Maori sourdough bread that uses potatoes.
@nico, suggesting rewena was very helpful. I found descriptions for potato only starters there. However I am still interested in raw potatoes, as this is only the first step. Later on I want to be able to make bread from different vegetables, preferably without cooking them twice. I could image, a sweet potato bread or a carrot bread from drained carrots could be possible. But I am not there yet.
Just to give a little update, using cooked potatoes worked well so far. Making a bread consisting only of potatoes did not work. I was too moist. Next, I'll try to microwave the potatoes, so that they don't have a chance to soak up water. No luck with raw potatoes yet.
Are you trying to make bread with just vegetable matter and no flour? And what is the detriment that you're trying to avoid by not cooking them twice?
In a sourdough starter, the bacteria and wild yeasts feed on starch. This is why bread is usually made from grains, which are very high in starch. Potatoes are one of the very few vegetables which have enough starch to work in a bread. So the idea for a bread from other vegetables won't work. Sweet potatoes could be OK, but definitely not carrots. You could look into the starch content of other tuber vegetables to determine if there are some good enough for your purpose.
As for the raw part, I highly doubt that it will work, again because of the starch. It is present in the raw potatoes, but it is enclosed in the cells, behind cell walls of celulose. When cooking, the cell walls soften and burst (this is why a cooked potato is soft and a raw one is firm) and the starch is released, so it is made available for the sourdough fermenter organisms. I am not 100% certain that it's impossible, but let's say 90%.
If you want to create a dough with a high proportion of vegetables, you could use normal sourdough starter as barm and when making the final dough, use pureed vegetables (raw or cooked) or a vegetable juice instead of water (after adjusting for thickness). If you think that you can get interesting fermented flavors from adding the vegetables to the starter, you can again use them as the liquid in the starter, not as the flour. But I am afraid that fermented vegetables will taste unpleasant, similar to vegetables gone bad after being forgotten somewhere. Still, it could be an interesting experiment.
In terms of releasing the starch, you might be able to juice potatoes and break down enough cell walls. This only makes sense if you're trying to avoid cooking twice for nutritional reasons.
Yes!
I'm currently attending Le Cordon Bleu for Baking and Patisserie. I'm in the breads class right now, and my text book has a recipe for a potato sour with raw potato. Here..
8 oz Bread Flour
6.5 oz Warm Water
.16 oz (1 tsp) Salt
.16 oz (1 tsp) Sugar
1 Large Potato, peeled
Mix together the flour, water, salt, and sugar into a smooth soft dough. Add potato.
Place in sterilized bowl. Cover tightly with muslin or other clean fabric so the starter can breathe. Let rest in a warm place for up to 24 hours, until the mixture becomes frothy.
Stir well and cover with plastic film. Leave to stand 2-3 days in a warm place, until the mixture becomes light and foamy. Stir thoroughly each day.
Pour the fermented starter to a glass jar and store in the refrigerator for approximately 3 days, or until a clear liquid collects on top of the mixture. This indicates the mixture is ripened enough for use.Carefully pour all the liquid collected on the surface into a measuring jug, discarding the solid mixture that remains on the bottom. The weight of the liquid should be greater than the weight of the water used, because some of the flour will be poured off with the liquid.
My mother-in-law has been baking her own bread for almost 60 years using yeast made from raw potato. She usually takes a medium-sized potato, grates it coarsely and mix it with about 3 desert spoons sugar and 1 desert spoon salt and warm water in a glass jar. This is left in a warm place until the mixtute becomes foamy. A couple of raisins could be added to speed up the process. The liquid which would serve as the yeast, is then drained off and added to the flour. The remaining grated potato should not be discarded as this becomes the starter for the next batch of bread. It should be stored in a container in the fridge until needed.
Yes, you can do it it, but you'll need to cook and mash/puree the potato first. The cooking inactivates the potato's enzymes, breaks down the potato cells, and kills the spoilage microbes present in the raw potato. When combined with cooking, pureeing finishes breaking down the potato's cells and makes their starch and sugars accessible for your sourdough to digest. Oh, and retain part of the starchy water from cooking the potatoes; you will need this to make the mixture wet enough for the sourdough, and the extracted starch gives them more available food.
As with all changes in sourdough feed, make the change-over gradually; start feeding the starter with a batch of half-flour, half-potatoes, and then switch over to just potatoes after a few feeding cycles. This will make it easier for the yeasts and bacteria in the starter to adjust to the change.
To get proper results with other vegetables, you'll need a lot of starch content. If you cannot get a flour made from the vegetable, I wouldn't expect a sourdough to live on it. Sweet potatoes and parsnips should work. Chickpeas, beans, peas, and lentils may work if cooked well (retaining as much starchy water as possible) and pureed. With all these vegetables, cooking and pureeing is suggested.
The yeasts in sourdough can also ferment sugar-heavy vegetables, such as beets, carrots, onions, or tomatoes, but the results are similar to sauerkraut or kimchee. Don't expect the starter to thrive and propagate using these foods, but it may make for an interesting experiment nonetheless.
My grandmother put a whole raw potato in what appeared to be a typical sourdough starter otherwise. She kept it in her refrigerator and made biscuits with it regularly. The potato stayed in the starter. I wish I would have known I needed to ask her some questions about this before she passed...I don't know if she switched out the potato or how often if she did, or how she fed the starter, but I do know she made some dang good biscuits.
Interesting. Was the potato completely smothered by the rest of the starter? Or was part of it sticking out above the level of the starter?
Foodgeeks has a sourdough starter recipe featuring grated raw potato. It still calls for white flour in addition to the shredded potato bits. I haven't tried it, and it's unreviewed on their site, so your guess is as good as mine about how the starter turns out.
So, to answer your question: No, it seems that nobody on here has tried it before. Try it and report back - you could be the first!
That sounds interesting. I'll mill the potatoes very finely to brake down some of the cell walls and then hope that fermentation commences.
Let us know how it goes. Good luck!
Im a little late on this debate. However, my husband tells me that his grandmother used to make her bread starter with potato peel and lemon juice. Once started, this culture used to sit in a warm place and be fed sugar and probably flour regularly. Bread was made each day for the family.
How are you going 3 years on with your experiment. I'm interested in doing something like "grandma" used.
Gwen
If you cook the potatoe you will kill the bacteria you are trying to capture. Cutting the potatoe peel is enough insult to break cells to release starch: hence why peeled potatoes turn brown: oxidized starch. I am still a staunch believer that your starter community should match the material you're fermenting: if you're making wheat bread, you want to use a starter that has captured and concentrated the bacterial and yeast community that naturally feeds off it. I think potatoe is probably only necessary if you don't have whole grain flour: refined flour has been stripped of the grain layers where the bacteria lives.
My mother used a large chunk/chunks of raw peeled potato in a jar of thin (almost water) starter as a way to keep a yeast culture long-term without needing fed. Then a day or few hours before baking she would use some of this to jump-start her actual starter. Seems like she mixed flour and water with a spoonful of her pre-starter. Seemed to be a reliable low maintenance method for someone who doesn't bake regularly. But this was 30 years ago and I lack any details.
I'm basically ignorant in most of this, but logical in other ways.
If sugar is being added to the starter mix, I suspect that defeats the idea of how the "old People" did it... their access to refined sugar would have been limited. (Especially Country folk) I know of these such instances where nothing but potato water was used to feed the starter.
Two thoughts come to my mind: 1) if sugar is used, then sugar dependent Wild Yeasts that are present in the Culture are being activated. 2) If only Starch, (not sugar) is causing fermentation then we are on track. That then suggests that an enzyme (in a symbiotic relationship with a particular Yeast type) is present. This enzyme converts the starch to the sugar that feeds the yeast.
I'm thinking this line of thought backs up the idea that the "old Folk" were using uncooked potato in the CULTURE mix. Cooking in any shape would destroy the relevant enzymes.
Summary: Wild yeast plus "Natural" enzyme plus accessible (Cooked) potato starch = The Potato Sourdough Culture everyone is after.
Therefore we should, maybe stick with the formulae using Raw potato as the basis of finding the the appropriate Bio organisms that create the majic.
Hope that all makes sense.
Bernard Clayton has a raw potato starter in his "Complete Book of Breads".
Hello and welcome to the site! You could even improve your answer if you could add your own experiences (OP asks: "Has anybody tried before?") or paraphrase the key points of the book you mention.
In the Complete Book of Outdoor Cookery by Mel Marshall, 1983, pages 95 -96, the writer discusses a sourdough starter made from 3 medium potatoes, 2 cooked in 3-1/2 cups water, the third left raw (??) but peeled and 2 level tablespoons of the pulp added to 2 cups of the potato broth in a sterile jar, then add 3 tablespoons of all-purpose flour or durum wheat flour, to create a "sourdough" starter for bread. The book also describes how to maintain the "sponge" which can be kept for years.
It adds that "potatoes stored a fungus that made an excellent yeast substitute" and that this was known in the 1800's, and even for hundreds of years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.605907
| 2011-07-13T06:16:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16117",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"Dina M Mansour",
"Felicia",
"Gail Gilpin",
"Gloria",
"Janice Congdon",
"John Higginstyne",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marian Lester",
"Mary Knak",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"WestieJ",
"hairboat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6728",
"nico",
"p1r0",
"rfusca",
"zerobane"
],
"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
}
|
28222
|
Can you make whipped cream with half and half?
Can you make whipped cream with half and half?
If you can, what, if anything, do you have to do differently?
Where do you live. What is "half and half" in your country?
What I would do differently is throw the half and half away.
Adding Lecithin will help stabilize the foam/cream. At least you can do a foam using only milk and Lecithin, so half and half and a small amount of Lecithin <1% should work also. The cream will probably be more foamy/airy and less creamy.
I have tried with 18% BF "table cream", with an electric beater, and I could not get it whipped. I ignored the "30% or more" rule-of-thumb in Kristina Lopez's excellent answer, and I paid the price.
A general rule-of-thumb is that a butterfat content of 30% or more is required to produce whipped cream. Half and half (called half cream in the UK), which is comprised of half milk and half cream has a butterfat content between 10 - and 12.5% butterfat, based on various sources discovered in my research.
That being said, I've read that half and half can be foamed by beating it and can even achieve some very soft creaminess if whipped while almost frozen. It certainly would not taste like whipped cream or have the rich mouth feel of whipped cream - at least without adding something to stabilize the mixture which is beyond my experience.
As an aside, I have a "light, no-bake" cheesecake recipe that requires evaporated milk to be beaten but it must be thoroughly chilled before it will work.
Here is a link to a wikipedia page that includes a chart with explanations of all milk products:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream#section_3
The short answer is no, half and half doesn't have the fat content necessary. You will have to add something with high fat content. As stated above you could try adding some evaporated milk, or even clarified butter to bring up the fat content. Or a bit of heavy cream in it would bring it to a high enough fat level.
I've never tried with half and half, but you could try making it with evaporated milk instead.
You need evaporated milk whipped with 1 tsp. of lemon juice. You can also whip coconut cream for a similar substitute.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.606987
| 2012-11-04T23:06:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28222",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Brandon Kheang",
"Diane Alexander",
"Gordon Forrest",
"Icyfire",
"Jeff Roe",
"Rob",
"Stefan",
"Surobaki",
"TFD",
"colleen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64977",
"user64945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28929
|
Does marinading preserve food's freshness
I have 2 questions; 1 is very general, and one is very relevant to my current situation but both are about the same thing.
So, I defrosted a topside of beef over Saturday night/Sunday morning. It is now Wednesday night.
1) Does marinading meat (beef) preserve how long it can last before cooking, regardless of whether the meat was marinaded from frozen or fresh?
2) In my case, is it still safe to eat? It is only marinading in a batter for deep frying!
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
@derobert - thanks, but this does not cover or explain if this remains the case with defrosted food.
Most marinades aren't acidic (or salty, or sugary) enough to preserve foods. But you get 3–5 days for non-ground meat, so it may still be OK.
Time while its frozen basically does not count for food safety. So if you froze it immediately after purchase (or purchased it frozen), you still have the full 3–5 days.
I didn't feel I'd fleshed it out enough for it to be an answer...
Marination is a process defined as soaking something in a flavorful liquid to impart that flavor into the object being marinated. Marinating is really only working with the outermost layers of the food and is normally a quick process (hours). The liquid in which you are marinating is the real difference maker. A highly acidic liquid CAN have an effect on the preservation of the food and can also have effects on the texture (think ceviche). However, in most cases marination is not used as a preservation method, that is primarily done through curing in a high salt environment where moisture loss is promoted to prevent bacterial growth (i.e. charcuterie, bacon, etc.).
But as for the food safety portion of the question, as long as it still smells ok and has been kept in the refrigerator for that time I believe you should be alright.
http://www.cookinglight.com/cooking-101/techniques/cooking-class-marinating-00400000002287/
As long as the piece of meat has been defrosted and kept in a fridge below the temperature where bacteria grow and multiply (4ºc?) it should still be safe to eat.
The marinade (batter?) in this instance is irrelevant, it is not a preservative.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.607192
| 2012-12-05T17:16:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28929",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Dave Heiserman",
"ItsmeDiegow",
"Katk",
"Ryan Mortensen",
"Sandy",
"Tlrearden",
"Walter Quigley",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67034",
"rambler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30047
|
What would be good preservatives for chili to give it a longer shelf life?
Everyone says we make a great chili and I was thinking about selling it at Chili festivals etc... and was wondering does anyone have any ideas of what preservatives would make the shelf life stretch out, keep the color bright and not build a fungus?
I would prefer to use natural preservatives and not change the taste of our recipe very much. Any help in this would be greatly appreciated.
Wait - are you talking about keeping it refrigerated for longer (which almost certainly won't work) or about canning it? If you are canning, what process are you using?
Before you even consider using preservatives, have you even researched things like the health codes for commercial kitchens, and the licenses you need to produce and sell cooked food products? You would have to comply in every jurisdiction....
We own a restaurant so we have the kitchen covered, we were wanting to can it in Mason Jars, kind of a country chili marketing.
I would like to do it to where it does nto have to be fridge kept until they open the jar.
I paid $4.00 at a country store for local chili seasoning in a rustic packet. Nice Texas souvenir and easier carry-on than a mason jar.
The only way that I know to put up chili for storage other than freezing is pressure canning.
The National Center for Home Food Preservation has a recipe for pressure canning, in which they process it for 75 minutes (which doesn't include the ramp up & pressure release times), so you're looking at close to 2 hrs per batch, when you include the time to set all of the cans in the pot, remove 'em, etc.
I've never tried it, so I have no idea what pressure canning ends up doing to the texture and flavor of the chili. I also don't do pressure canning, so I have no idea what all of the issues are (eg, if acid levels are as significant as with normal canning) and thus how much you can vary a recipe without risking problems.
I wonder if that still applies if all your ingredients in the chili are already set with the proper preservatives??? Like if you used on Bush’s Chili Beans etc…. I wonder.... Do they pressure can the chili in the supermarkets?
At least in the US, in most jurisdictions, it would be illegal to sell home-canned goods.
Pressure canning can produce a safe product in shorter time than normal canning, and the equipment is pretty common in industry. I would think that many of the supermarket conserves are pressure-canned, even for food types which would work with normal canning.
@SAJ14SAJ : he gave a comment that he has a restaurant, so it's not home canning, although it's possible that there might be laws in his area that make a distinction between production for on site consumption vs. production for distribution. In my area, license normal restaurants the same as food production facilities; the only exception is fast food restaurants (where they'd not allowed to cool & reheat anything, it has to be discarded within 4 hrs of cooking)
If you have access to a commercial chamber vacuum sealer you could look into retort canning. This process is the same as the military MRE packages and the same thing they use to package those bags of tuna on the shelves of the supermarket.
Pressure canning is probably the best way to raise the durability of food without the need to add any preservatives and without the need of maintaining a specific temperature to the goods (as it applies to freezing). As most microorganisms are killed by temperature after the can is sealed nothing can go back in there until the lid is opened again.
In the industry if it contains water and is durable outside the fridge and does not contain any (artificial) preservatives it is most likely pressure canned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.607422
| 2013-01-13T20:16:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30047",
"authors": [
"Braden",
"Dentrax",
"Francine DeGrood Taylor",
"Jeffrey Levy",
"Joe",
"Karen Wolf",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sir Jones",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70289",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28380
|
Tiramisu mixture not firm
I have tried to make Tiramisu chocolate mousse from this video many times. The chocolate mixture turns out great. With the egg yolks I add grape juice instead of wine and soft cheese instead of marcarponi - which seems to turn out great as well.
What I fail to make is the whipped creme. I use Dano sterilized creme that is modified with vegetable oil (so it says on the can), fat 23%, made from skimmed cows milk and it says the milk fat is replaced by veg fat. I put the bowl and the whisk in the refrigerator, as well as the creme, but when I whisk it, it becomes more watery than fluffy.
So today I got Fostered Clark's Powder Whip Wonder Whip Topping; that turned out nice and frothy, but when I combined it with the chocolate-egg mixture, it did not turn out to be the way it looks in the video. I had to put it into the refrigerator so the mixture became a little more firm; I could barely hold a shape in the martini glasses.
What am I doing wrong?
Why don't you use proper whipping cream?
I agree with @ElendilTheTall, use real cream. It will certainly taste better than if you use yucky vegetable oil artificial gunk.
If you are insistent upon substituting something for the cream, you are probably going to need to experiment with adding some soy lecithin (to make sure that the substitute fats don't separate), maybe some cold-soluble gelatin too for added stabilization (regular gelatin that has been bloomed and added when the mixture is hot might also work), and possibly a few other gelling or thickening agents.
Look into Agar Agar flakes/powder. I think it would address the issues you are having.
But agar agar needs to be boiled, right? That would wreak havoc on a tiramisu. Could you explain, please?
Hi Stephie, I really have a limited knowledge of it's uses. But I am going to link a site for you to read through. The Author explains very well how she used it is her tiramisu. As you say, it must be boiled slightly, then kept warm until used, and will gel very rapidly, so having everything ready is a must. I think the article explains it best. Best wishes.
http://nouveauraw.com/raw-recipies/desserts/tiramisu-using-agar-agar/
@NScottMcPherson I think the agar may be in that recipe just because it's vegan/raw so there's no cream to whip or eggs to bind things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.607767
| 2012-11-12T17:22:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28380",
"authors": [
"Alexander Klauer",
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl",
"Chris22",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Kaloyan Velichkov",
"Michell Dixon",
"N Scott McPherson",
"Stephie",
"Superchaddi",
"diego",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65506"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28629
|
Chicken on a Brinkmann Smoker N Grill
I've been trying to smoke chicken for many days now, but the problem is that most of the time the chicken tastes like a match.
I've done everything, soaked the wood for a long time, cooked it with indirect heat with a pan of water in the middle. I have tried both wood chips and big pieces (soaked and dry) and, of course, all that with charcoal. Can anyone please advise me?
Welcome ChickenBBQ! Did you follow the instructions that came with your smoker/bbq or another set of instructions? Can you share a bit more information on the chicken results? Was it whole or pieces? Was it burnt or dry? How long did you smoke it? What was the temperature of the smoker? Did you bbq it too? All or any of this info will help us help you. :-)
Yes sure, it was a whole chicken, it was really tender and perfectly cooked, and by the way the skin was really not good, it was kinda rubbery. I just smoked it, didn't bbq it. the thermometer has no degrees in it, there are 3 words (Warm, Ideal and Hot) and it was almost always in the middle of Ideal.
Please don't select a correct answer too quickly, other people may have better answer, but may not answer it now
Sounds like you've may have two issues. Too much wood and incorrect expectations.
First it sounds like you've "oversmoked" your chicken. Depending on what kind of wood you use too won't need much for chicken (remember it's a lightly flavored meat.) try less wood next time.
Second that "ideal"temperature is great off you want pulled chicken but it will not do god things to the skin. Try either smoking at a higher temp for a shorter time, discarding the skin or finishing it on a grill.
Lastly if your meat had a bitter flavor it could be that you had live flames rather than embers as you smoked. Remember that you want to avoid flareups as much as possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.608000
| 2012-11-24T17:49:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28629",
"authors": [
"Creative Low Carb Fusion",
"Gary Lee Hahn",
"Jim",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Larry S",
"Maria Elena Javier",
"Nat",
"Pamala Viers",
"Peter Silva",
"Sue",
"TFD",
"chickenbbq",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66248"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28424
|
How do I reduce the acidity of homemade honey lemon juice?
I usually use 1 lemon together with 2 spoon of honey and 500 ml of water. I note that as I increase the water content, the juice does not taste as good but I would like to reduce the acidity of my lemon. So, are there other ingredients that I can add such that the taste of my homemade honey lemon juice will not be affected?
You can neutralize the acidity of your drink by adding a half teaspoon of baking soda, but don't do this. Apart from fizzing up like a volcano, your lemon drink, or what is left of it, will taste pretty awful.
What you want to do is reduce the perceived acidity. This can be done simply by adding more honey. I suggest adding a teaspoon at a time until it tastes about right. I like about double the amount of honey you specified if we're talking teaspoons.
You neutralize acid by adding a base. Generally bases are bitter tasting. Black tea is a base, as is baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). The problem is that when you add an acid to a base you get salts. What we call salt is NaCL, which is just one example of a salt, there are many others, and those salts can add all sorts of undesirable flavor combinations. So adding a base to neutralize the acid can backfire badly.
The best way to deal with the acid is either to cover it up, or not add it in the first place. You could add more sweetener as @ChrisSteinbach suggests, or you could add less lemon juice plus some grated lemon zest and maybe a little water. Lemon zest is the very outside of the peel, the really yellow stuff, not the white fluffy stuff. The zest of the lemon has a huge amount of lemon flavor with little acid content as it comes from the oils stored in the peel. I recommend a microplane grater to get the zest very fine.
The zest of lemon/lime is often more desirable in cooking than the juice. In drinks that call for a twist of lemon or lime it's the oil released from the peel in the squeeze that adds much of the flavor.
+1 Never thought that I can actually use the Lemon zest (the very outside of the lemon peel) to increase the flavor.
I use calcium carbonate here to neutralize my lemon juice, which results in calcium citrate that won't taste bad to me and at the same time it can get me more calcium.
Lemon juce is very alkaline by it's self, when you add any sweetner you are changing it to acid, pink salt is good in lemon drink.
um ... alkaline is the opposite of acidic. And lemon juice has citric acid in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.608205
| 2012-11-15T01:32:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28424",
"authors": [
"J.Chang",
"Jack",
"Joe",
"Melon Colly",
"Mümin",
"RedEyedNewt",
"Rosemary",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"SztupY",
"Vloria Hillery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91760",
"user65567"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47438
|
Does the quality of garlic degrades if I chopped, fried then use it after a week?
Here in the Philippines, most of the viands uses garlic, specially whenever we sauteing. Due to this I've found a shortcut in order to reduce the time I need whenever I cook. Instead of peeling the garlic, chopping it in bits then frying it, I've managed to do those things then preserve it.
It will look like this, then I will use it for 1 whole week, sometimes even for a month.
Question: Does the quality of a fried garlic degrades if I preserved it then use it some other day?
You say nothing about how you preserve it. I assume you are peeling, chopping, and frying your garlic first before doing something to preserve it - is that right?
No, after frying it I'll just remove the oil then put it in the container like the one in the picture. Am I missing something? Thanks!
Please refer to general food safety resources. Any cooked food, if not using a special recipe lab-tested to guarantee preservation, is officially considered unsafe to eat (at risk of giving you food poisoning) after 3-5 days in the fridge. It is remotely possible that you stumbled upon a safe preparation, if the garlic happens to dehydrate enough, but this is rather unlikely from just frying, and there is no way you can tell.
if you fried it that automatically degrades the quality of anything.
Does the quality degrade? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Garlic (like onions and other members of the allium family) begins to undergo chemical changes the moment you cut into it. It's the same phenomenon that causes you to tear up when you cut into an onion.
Quoting liberally from Wikipedia's article here...
The phytochemicals responsible for the sharp flavor of garlic are produced when the plant's cells are damaged [...] The resultant compounds are responsible for the sharp or hot taste and strong smell of garlic. Some of the compounds are unstable and continue to react over time.
Ever notice how garlic becomes sweeter and far less pungent with even a brief sautee? That's due to the instability of these flavorful compounds and how they break down when cooked.
A large number of sulfur compounds contribute to the smell and taste of garlic. Allicin has been found to be the compound most responsible for the "hot" sensation of raw garlic [...] The process of cooking garlic removes allicin, thus mellowing its spiciness.
If you're defining "quality" as how well the preserved product maintains the same characteristics and flavors as the fresh version, this is already quite degraded. It may still have its uses but don't expect this to be even remotely substitutable for fresh garlic.
Is it safe to eat after a full week? Possibly, but very difficult to verify at home. @rumtscho's comment nails it: if this was sufficiently dehydrated, it might be okay (in which case it will be even further from fresh garlic in terms of flavor and usage) but that is unlikely, and this should be treated like any other cooked food.
If you want to maximize the shelf life of your garlic, just keep it whole! Unpeeled garlic will keep for weeks if kept cool and dry, and you can break off individual cloves as you need them. All that it takes to ready one for cooking is a heavy pot to smash the clove with and a quick pass with a knife.
yep, good answer, this is all true.
This is very informative! Thanks! This is the answer that I am looking for.
Personally I would think that it would lose a bit of it's bite after a week. A day or two I would not be worried about it.
This is totally a personal preference for fresh garlic though, I have not done any sort of tests. To be honest I don't really cook things that require just garlic sauteed so I would always want to do it then with whatever should be with it, even if it's just onion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.608444
| 2014-09-26T00:15:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47438",
"authors": [
"Cary Bondoc",
"Jason Ball",
"Karen Dobbelaere",
"Lee Horton",
"Sabrina Donahue",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"joseph bedossian",
"rumtscho",
"seasoned"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50282
|
Cutting the stems of banana instead of wrapping them when preserving them
I am searching for a ways to preserve the banana, and most of the time they said that I need to wrap the stems in a plastic or scotch tape so the gas wont come, they said that this gas is the reason why banana ripens fast.
I am thinking that maybe by separating each bananas then cutting the stem of each one of them instead of wrapping them will effectively preserve the bananas? It is very time consuming to wrap each one of the stem.
From what I understand, ethylene gas is released at the stem. This causes fruit to ripen quicker. That's why you'd want to wrap the stem. If you separate them, you'd still need to wrap each one individually as gas is released there. There might be some additional benefit to separating it as, you can allow each banana to ripen at it's own rate. But if that's too time consuming, just wrap the whole bunch at once will offer some benefit. I can't imagine that taking more than a few seconds?
Cutting the stems, I imagine would only serve to speed that process up.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Keep-Bananas-Fresh-Longer-slices-too/?ALLSTEPS
I eat a ton of bananas and was excited when I heard about this...but it’s a total lie. I did it for 2 weeks (2 bunches) and saw no difference. So, I did an experiment. I did 2 with and 2 without...then took a pic...then left them untouched on my counter for 4 days. Then took another pic. The ones wrapped looked EXACTLY the same as the ones with no wrap. Both equally spotted and soft. No preserving what so ever! I’m going back to using the “green bags”. They don’t work great but definitely better than doing the “plastic stem wrap”. I don’t see an option to attach the pics here but I’ll find another site that I can.
You'll be able to include images & links once your reputation is high enough (after you've given some good answers or asked questions that people voted up). It helps to keep down on the amount of abuse that griefers can cause.
Oh ... but it's possible that your answer would've been better over at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/50453/67 ... but then again, you get some people who downvote saying that you should've left a comment to agree with someone with a similar answer (even though you're not allowed to comment yet, either)
Note that this isn't a valid test. The stem releases a gas. If you put the wrapped bananas next to the unwrapped bananas on the counter, the gas from the unwrapped bananas would ripen the wrapped bananas. To test this, you'd want to put the bananas into two separate containers so that they don't cross-ripen. Of course, putting bananas into containers would itself cause them to ripen faster, but we're looking for different speeds.
It's very likely that any benefit gained by doing this will be completely destroyed by the act of cutting into the protective skin of the fruit. Once you do this, you're exposing the interior skin and the fruit itself to microbes in the air, which will be more than happy to colonize and eat away (i.e. rot) the banana you were trying to preserve.
If you find it too time-consuming to wrap their stems to extend shelf life, you could seek out less ripe bananas so it takes longer for them to ripen, or buy smaller batches that you can eat in a shorter time so there's no need for preservation.
I just want to clarify to make sure, I mean I will cut the banana in the stem like this http://www.instructables.com/file/F1CUPQ7HCV8X5UY.
I separate them and dip each end in melted wax. Seems to make a difference.
I have a photo but don’t know how to add it.
Welcome Mike - the photo can be added by using the toolbar above the answer text box. The icon to click is immediately to the right of the curly brackets/braces {} icon and looks like a landscape with mountains and a sun/moon in the top left corner. This should give you a dropdown box that allows you to browse (click on the word browse), drag and drop or paste the image into the text. You can use the edit function on your answer here to add the photo.
Too-quick ripening is generally more of a problem in the summer. If you happen to use a fan, putting the bananas in front of or behind the fan will blow the ethylene gas away before it can accelerate ripening. Or even just in the path of an AC vent.
I cut off the stems about 1/2" above the banana fruit and it definitely helps. I would say it adds about 2 maybe 3 days slowing down the ripening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.608785
| 2014-12-03T02:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50282",
"authors": [
"Carol Grabar",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Erik Stanzén",
"Joe",
"Justine McArdle",
"Kevin Sapoetra",
"Sue Grabinger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"mdfst13",
"terri blow"
],
"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
}
|
61959
|
Are gourd leaves edible?
That is, the leaves of a gourd, I know a lot of menus include the fruit of the gourd, but not the leaves.
I am looking for a way to eat them, if possible maybe I can include in a dish or maybe a side dish? If not, can I eat it raw? Because this seems to be abundant here in the Philippines.
I'm sorry but we don't do recipe recommendations here. Please see the help on-topic pages for more info.
@Catija, oh sorry. How about if I changed the question to something like is gorud leaves edible?
That would be much better, I believe.
Done editing my question.
At least some cucurbit leaves are edible, and here.
The genus isn't known for producing toxins, but there may be a few wild cards in there.
Proceed with caution, if you proceed at all.
I'll stick with Habanero, Bell, and Jalapeno pepper leaves cooked in butter and lemon juice.
There are books with titles like "Edible Plants of the Tropics" or perhaps even "Edible Plants of the Philippines", that can probably tell you about your particular gourd, but you'll probably have to go to a college botanical library to find them.
Later, while cleaning out old files:
The book I was thinking of is called Edible Leaves of the Tropics by Martin, Ruberte and Metzner.
The third edition came out in 1998, so if your library doesn't have it, there are now lots of places to buy it.
What does pepper leaves have to do with gourd leaves?
@Catija Not much, other than it's another tropical genus which, having looked it up in "Edible Plants of the Tropics", I know the leaves of the common types are edible.
It's not even the same genus though. Gourds are in the same genus as melons and squash, not peppers. Whether true or no it's a confusing tidbit to add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.609273
| 2015-09-23T01:01:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61959",
"authors": [
"Cary Bondoc",
"Cathy",
"Catija",
"Daniel Browning",
"Escoce",
"James Miniard",
"Jennifer Laurie",
"Joanne Porter",
"Mechim Cook",
"Sean Latimer",
"Sherry Bovard",
"Simon Blaikie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"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
}
|
70966
|
stagnant water in my tumble or 1 gallon container, how many days until it becomes contaminated or undrinkable?
How many days, or even weeks until a certain water inside the container (a tumbler, or maybe a 1 gallon water container) becomes undrinkable?
Does it vary on container? If so, I am using a plastic 1 gallon container usually found in water dispenser and my thermal tumbler.
Note that the water is in drinkable state before putting it in a clean container, I've asked this question because after a month of not using the water inside the dispenser I noticed that there are some tiny black particles at the bottom of the gallon container, I'm thinking that it might be contaminated.
*The dispenser is just a normal dispenser without any kind of filter
The water dispenser looks like this
What is the source of the water, and how clean is the container?
A water is in drinkable state before putting it in a clean container, I've asked this question because after a month of not using the water inside the dispenser I noticed that there are some tiny black particles at the bottom of the gallon container, I'm thinking that it might be contaminated.
Water has a pretty long shelf life. It become contaminated when it is contaminated.
Is it an open or sealed container? Sealed containers can have a long life (especially when treated), but open containers the water gets ... stale, for a lack of a better word. Treatments also matter, as some will kill or remove microorganisms but not provide long lasting protection (eg, ozone treatment, reverse osmosis)
Does the container involve a carbon filter (one very common source of "black particles"); is it open to the air to be used as an insect breeding site (another source...); or to collect dust (a third source?)
I am not aware of any official guideline on storing drinking water, probably because people just don't do it usually. But for other purposes of water storage (humidifiers etc.) the rule of thumb is that water which will sit around for more than a week has to be treated.
If anything, the rules for drinking water should be shorter (because you can have amoebas and other stuff, not just the legionellas risk from humidifiers) and not longer. So a week would be the upper limit, but shorter is better.
Actually it dependence from various others factors.
For example water the chlorination of water. How much chorion are in.
Then from the area that is bottled. What kind of microorganism are in
the air and or the bottle.
From the time of the year. Winter or summer. Summer is hotter so more and faster growing microorganism.
From the type of the bottle. If it dark or transparent.
From where it would be stored. It would be sunny? The average temperature?
And last how much air you would trap inside the bottle.
As you can understand there are so many factors so you can't have a specific
number.
Food safety does not try to predict when food will spoil. It just tells you a specific (conservative) number before which it cannot have spoiled, worst case assumed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.609478
| 2016-06-27T01:05:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70966",
"authors": [
"Cary Bondoc",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64486
|
What is the approximate shelf life for herbal infused olive oil, coconut oil, glycerin, or vinegar?
What is the estimated shelf life (assuming you keep it in a dark place) for:
1)herbal infused olive oil? coconut oil?
2)herbal infused vinegar
3)herbal extract made from 50% glycerin in water (and would you refridgerate it to prolong its shelf life?)
3)does food grade beeswax even have a shelf life?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Update: Thank you! I should have specified olive oil infused with dry herbs, not fresh-- I think it keeps for significantly longer, especially in the refrigerator, on account of the neatly absent water content. The herbal academy of ne site says to use only dry herbs because of the risk of mold, and to discard it after a month. I thought that might be excessively careful, but I guess not. By the way my main focus is not cosmetics, but rather "dietary supplements " for health purposes, made from edible ingredients and foodstuffs. If they taste, smell, and look good, so much the better!
Hello Janice, we are a strictly food oriented site. So we cannot really discuss the glycerine here. The others should be OK, even though I suspect you are going to use them in cosmetics :)
@rumtscho Glycerin is actually an ingredient used in foods including fondant, processed fruits, jams, and energy bars. Here's one reference: http://www.nutrientsreview.com/carbs/edible-glycerin.html
@ElmerCat Good point! I guess it gets used in food sometimes after all. Although I have never heard it being used as an extraction agent for food purposes. If you have an idea of the shelf life of the glycerin mixture, please answer, because I have no data on that.
Also, I will use the occasion to mention that we have a proposal for a new site for crafters, http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/77518/arts-and-crafts. It needs more supporters, and once it opens, it will be a great place to discuss questions like this in depth.
@rumtscho It's in the category of food chemicals called Polyols, or sugar alcohols. The refined, pure product probably lasts for centuries, but I wouldn't want to wager on shelf life for the OP's question. You are most correct in that the herbal infusion will be the greater factor, and likely be highly variable. Another reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_alcohol#Sugar_alcohols_as_food_additives
@elmercat If 50% solution gives it enough water activity for standard bacterial growth, it will be standard "danger zone" product again, 2 to 4 hours at room temperature. But seeing that glycerin is extremely hygroscopic, it might be bacteria free at that concentration, at which point the plants don't matter. They only matter if the solution is perishable, but the plant itself contains a preservative, like the japanese honeysuckle, but then it would be hard to find out if the concentration of the preservatives is sufficient, as it will vary not only with method, but also with plant charge.
To your update: yes, infused oils is really unsafe after 2 hours, because if it has botulism, you will poison yourself. It doesn't matter that it looks and tastes fresh. See the link I posted in my answer for more explanation.
For 1), it is 2 hours. See Infusing olive oil with herbs: infused olive oil is not a shelf stable product and the same rules as cooked meat apply to it. 2 hours on the shelf, 3-5 days in the fridge. The type of oil doesn't matter. As soon you have plant matter where the oxygen is cut off, you risk botulism (can be deadly even if treated properly).
For pure coconut oil, look at the date stamped on the package. This is what is relevant for food safety purposes. If you are asking "when will it go rancid", there is no way to predict it. Just smell it before use.
Herbal infused vinegar will last the same as other vinegar. It is safe for years, unless you notice signs of spoilage (mold).
Pure beeswax also lasts for years without becoming unsafe.
All of this is for each of the exact products you mentioned above, unaltered in any way. For example, if you were to emulsify together the infused vinegar, the beeswax, the coconut oil, and some water, the resulting shelf life would be again 2 hours outside of the fridge, after which it would be unsafe for consumption. Or, to say it another way: the storage lifetime of a prepared food is not determined by the storage lifetime of each ingredient. You can learn some more in our tag wiki on food safety: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info.
What is it that makes a difference between infusing in olive oil and coconut oil? Knowing that would probably help people wondering about other kinds of oil.
@Cascabel there is no difference. No matter which oil is chosen, a herbs-in-oil infusion harbors a botulism risk and cannot be made shelf stable.
Right, that's what I thought. I think the OP was asking about infusions in coconut oil though, not just plain coconut oil? So that bit of your answer sounds like it's saying there's a difference.
@Cascabel OK, now I looked at the question again, I might have misunderstood it. Added a bit about infusions with other oils.
Straight 100% glycerine AKA glycerol will last decades on the shelf. It contains no water, and does not tend to pull water out of the air (hygroscopic).
50% glycerol with water will have a water activity of around 0.8 (Fig. 1) At 0.8 you likely won't get pathogens, but will get molds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.610060
| 2015-12-16T21:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64486",
"authors": [
"B Dill",
"Cascabel",
"Christy Pham",
"Elena Loukina",
"ElmerCat",
"Jennifer Bourque",
"Michael Quada",
"Nitin Dadar",
"Vicki Graves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"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
}
|
61543
|
Does a silicone cutting board really work well?
I tried a silicone cutting board, and I noticed two problems so far.
First, it had a strong smell, it only disappeared after two weeks of use. Second, I noticed scratches after chopping on it.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of silicone boards when compared to other cutting board materials?
Hello Ankway, and welcome! Your question wasn't especially clear. I turned it into the most general interpretation I could come up with, if you wanted to ask something more specific, you can edit it again. Also, please don't ask for personal experience, we are a site specializing in more objective answers.
I would expect a silicone board to be quite keen on scratches as it's soft. The same applies for plastic ones.
I've found the best chopping boards are those made of wood. They are also safer.
Some kind of woods, like bamboo, are natural antibacterial:
https://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/BioRes_08/BioRes_08_4_6501_Xi_Qin_Antibacterial_Perform_Natural_Bamboo_Fiber_4310.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405000.2011.614742#.Ve2BQBHBzRY
The food safety of wooden vs plastic vs boards is speculative at best. Research claiming the same for any other material is widely available, and from reputable sources too. I do prefer a wooden one, but food safety is not one of the (or my) reasons. I just like wood, and I like the weight and massiveness of my board, something that no other board has been able to give me.
@WillemvanRumpt I agree, wood feels much better. Do you have any reference for the safety of plastic boards?
I'll try to dig something up. I remember doing the research last time (and relatively recently) I needed (well, wanted, really) to buy a new cutting board and decided to do my due diligence regarding safety. Mixed advice was the result. IIRC, all of them had certain benefits depending on what you cleaned it with, how you cleaned it, and then those two in combination with what you actually cut on it (read: meat).
Well, not much to show for, I'm sorry to say. Here's one in Dutch, stating there's no verdict out there, supported by University of Wageningen (specializing in food and agriculture (not web design, as you'll see from the page)), and a bunch of other universities, but the website doesn't scream "reputable" to me. In Iowa they apparently prefer plastic. Most other (government) sites don't even bother to mention material, but just focus on the method of cleaning.
I used to live near a very traditional butchers, that used and displayed large, deep wooden chopping boards, that had acquired deep, smooth eroded curves, probably from years of very frequent use. Despite the lack of distinct form, they clearly suggested the iconic shapes of very large cuts of meat.
I like the silicone board more than wood or bamboo. From my point of view, silicone boards are easy to clean and dishwasher-safe, protect the environment, are non-slip and non-germ.
I was used to use the wood & bamboo board. After only several months the board was dirty and full of the scratches. Now I'm trying the silicone cutting board and I'm much happier with it.
This is just my own opinion.
I have to disagree on the "environment-friendly" bit. Silicone is non-recyclable and no-biodegradable. Bamboo grows really quickly and the harvest has a low impact on the environment: in fact, the plant is not destroyed and grows again.
A cutting board is not the same as a chopping board. Silicone cutting boards do not cut readily but chopping will damage the surface. There has been controversy over the last decades about whether plastic cutting boards were safer than wooden from a bacteriological standpoint. In the end, what matters is that you thoroughly clean the cutting board with soap and hot water after each use. I switched to silicone cutting boards because I have back problems and they are significantly lighter. The only thing I do not like about silicone cutting boards is the kindergarten primary colors. I would prefer muted wood-like browns.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.610527
| 2015-09-07T08:35:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61543",
"authors": [
"Athena lois Arrieta",
"Belle Craig",
"Charlotte Mccomas",
"David Williams",
"Gail Engelkens",
"Hari Nair",
"Laura Mahnken",
"Patricia Weiser",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"alan2here",
"algiogia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
}
|
73806
|
Regarding cutlery and industrial dishwashers
This question I recently got a variety of cutlery for my school's cafeteria. However, after purchasing the cutlery, I realized that it may not be able to be washed by an industrial dish washer. These are for a relatively large school, and so, I assume, that an industrial washer is used to clean the countless spoons, forks, and knives. My only concern is that once they come into circulation, they may somehow deteriorate after being washed, or taint the food that is being eaten. Do I need to be careful as to what kinds of cutlery I buy, or are all metal cutlery okay to use?
The dishwasher shouldn't be a concern - if anything it will be a little gentler on your cutlery.
Industrial washers work on a very short cycle (~2mins vs 2 hours). Although "industrial" they actually clean a lot less than a domestic machine - home users expect to put things in filthy and come out spotless and dry-ish. In a restaurant dishes are pre-cleaned.
That there's only about 20 seconds of cutlery sitting in salted water and steam(vs20-30min) makes a big difference.
Additionally, domestic powders often have abrasive agents, while this is uncommon in commercial kitchens where liquid-based systems are the norm.
The operating temperature is only about 5c higher so won't make much difference.
The main difference with restaurant grade cutlery is that it will be guaranteed to last a certain amount of time and manufacturers are careful about this because a restaurant is definitely going to look for their money back.
I'm no professional, but I have heard, mostly through family and friends, that anything with wood, because porous and can crack, warp and deform, should not be washed in a dishwasher. My mother says no pots and pans or professional knives. However, I got a nice set of pots and pans and they are holding up nicely. I would put them in the dishwasher for several washes and just take a look.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.610883
| 2016-09-08T04:23:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73806",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63284
|
Cooking Potatoes
I'm having a problem cooking potatoes using a slow cooker recipe. I'm using russet potatoes. Recipe did not specify what to use. Recipe said "thin sliced". Used mandoline to crinkle cut 4.5mm thick (more surface area). Recipe said done in 4hrs on high. It's now over 6 hrs and potatoes are still raw. Everything else is turning to mush.
Question.. Did I use the wrong potato? Is there a different potato I should have used that would cook faster?
They were washed. If I cannot pierce them easily with a fork, when I have to bite down hard, I consider them raw. Raw=uncooked=hard=not soft=raw!
I'm 62yrs old. probably been cooking longer than you. Allow me the courtesy of knowing a raw potato when I bite into one.(and I still have all my teeth.)
Commenting because I'm not an expert but that doesn't seem right -- are you sure they're "raw"? Also did you wash them out before you started cooking to get the starch out? Not sure if either of those have anything to do with it.
I second what @aug said. It seems highly unlikely that they are still raw. I think that would break several laws of physics after 6 hours in a slow cooker. How did you determine that they were raw? Have you tried tasting one?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12432/67
Walter, I added your answer/comments into the question for you, but Catija is right, you should have been able to do so yourself.
Hello Walter, your answer and your question are posted when you were logged in with the same account, we cannot see a problem with your logins so far. If we misunderstood the problem, or if it happens again, you can explain it in more detail on our [Meta] site. It is the place where the support questions go. Just open a new question about your login problems there, like you opened one about potatoes here.
Were there other vegetables in the slow cooker with the potatoes? Or was it just meat and potatoes? Meat can turn to mush at a lower temperature than vegetables. So, if the slow cooker isn't reaching an adequate temperature to cook the potatoes, it could still turn certain types of meat (fish, chicken, low collagen cuts of beef, etc.) to mush. That might indicate a defective slow cooker. If, on the other hand, you have other vegetables (especially hard ones like carrots) in there that are cooking properly, then I'm baffled.
What recipe did you use? I also assume there wasnt anything weird in it (e.g. layer potatoes at top)?
I have actually frequently had problems in the past with potatoes taking a lot longer than expected to seem cooked. To avoid this, I frequently steam them lightly first, as others have suggested. I also think russets take longer to cook than lower-starch potatoes.
Sorry for the late answer. I would say that you did NOT use the wrong potato. In my experience russet potatoes end up MUCH softer than waxy or yellow potatoes, after cooking. That's the reason I only use russets when making mashed potatoes.
I ran into a similar situation not too long ago. In this case I was using a mixture of russets and yellow potatoes, but close enough.
What else were you cooking in your crock pot? This is a very important question. For example, if you were making something with a lot of liquid (like soup), the heat should have been evenly distributed and you should not have run into this problem. On the other hand, if you were making something with very little liquid or very thick liquid, I can see this happening. In my case, I was making "cheesy potatoes", which starts with a really thick cheese sauce.
Here's the problem...the atoms of the thin liquid move around a lot easier making a sort of current throughout the pot, distributing the heat to all the food. A thick liquid or insufficient liquid won't do that, so the stuff towards the middle don't get as much heat at the stuff at the bottom or sides of the pot. A "fix" would be to stir everything about once an hour. I know that you don't want to take the lid off the crock pot and lose the heat, but the heat needs to be distributed throughout the pot somehow.
Anyway, that's my guess of your problem. Hope this helps.
"wrong potatoes" would have been my first suspicion too ... had exactly that happen to me with simmered dishes and ignorantly using "festkochende" (german designation for very,very waxy types) potatoes... I would assume that uneven heat distribution through the food, though, is exactly what will NOT happen in a slow cooker or long simmer... unless whatever process turns the potatoes cooked is extremely endothermic (can a chimist cheme in here?), it would be strange if even whole potatoes weren't heated to the core in 2hrs ...
Thank you. I was making a slow cooker cottage ham recipe I found online. And you were right, not much liquid in the pot. It seems they were trying to steam themselves which wasn't working very good.
@rackandboneman Sorry. I wasn't being too clear. If there isn't enough liquid, or if the liquid is too thick for convection to happen, the food may not cook thoroughly/properly because the heat from the walls cannot be distributed.
If I am not wrong meat has a tendency to acidify the cooking juice, making the issue even more pronounced. If there was enough water this is likely the cause, you can try to add some baking soda too to reduce the acidity if the potatoes are still too firm. Or add green peas or other alkaline foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.611062
| 2015-11-08T19:38:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63284",
"authors": [
"Anne Nash",
"Escoce",
"Ian mcdowell",
"Joe",
"Macromika",
"NBenatar",
"NadjaCS",
"Richard Herron",
"Robert Harris",
"Robin Bell",
"Sharnt",
"Sivasankar Kara",
"Walter Grzelewski",
"aug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65960
|
How can I get the smokey flavour in Hor Fun?
I made Hor Fun (not the linked recipe in specific) the other day for my girlfriend who loves the dish. However, her critique was that it lacked the distinctive smokey flavour of the dish.
When it's made traditionally it's done over a massive fire and this gives it the smokey flavour.
In a standard kitchen the gas burners are far smaller than that, so how can I achieve the same smokey flavour for this dish?
To add smoky flavor, you can add a drop of liquid smoke.
Do it drop by drop - be careful, it's easy to use too much and not be able to taste anything else. Liquid smoke is actually made by distilling smoke and it really does add a flavor much like putting the food in a smoker (or a big fire).
This sounds great! although it looks like it's gonna be a bit hard to get my hands on.
@Aequitas Can you order from Amazon? There are many brands that are pretty much the same thing.
I would much rather a physical store in my area but yeah it looks like online will be my only choice, have you tried several before would you have a recommendation as to brand/type?
@Aequitas Not really, I buy hickory just because I always have. The brands are pretty much the same. Renesis brings up the possibility of a stove-top smoker too, which would also work but might be a bit more than you need to spend unless you will use it for other purposes too. That's something too that you could hack if you're so inclined.
BTW. Personally, when I want to smoke something on the stovetop, I use this sort of 'hacked' method: http://www.saveur.com/article/Video/VIDEO-How-to-Make-a-Stovetop-Smoker
The only things I do different are that I soak my chips for 20 minutes or so & wrap the rim of the pot with plastic wrap before placing the lid on.
@Aequitas Not sure where you live, but at least in cities in the US, that's pretty easy to find in grocery stores. In more rural areas I suppose it might be harder to find - but some Wal-Marts carry it, at least.
@JoeM I live in Melbourne, Australia and have never seen or even heard of this stuff before, but then again I've never been looking for it. I tried searching some of the big shops online for liquid smoke but couldn't find anything.
@Aequitas Interesting. This is apparently not a common thing in Australia - to the point there is a reddit thread on precisely this topic!
Another option is Smoked Paprika. As Jolene wisely cautions, those liquid smoke products are very strong. And even though it might be "natural" smoke flavor, it can lend a "synthetic" taste to delicate foods.
Smoked Paprika has a much more subtle smokiness. Of course, it will also add color and additional flavor of its own. It sounds to me like this would work well with the recipe you linked, but you might try adding it first to just a small amount of your dish and see if you like the taste.
In any case, Smoked Paprika is an inexpensive addition to your spice rack that can be used to enhance many foods with a bit of smokey flavor.
The flavour of smoked paprika is nothing like what you get from good ho fun cooked in a very hot wok
While the some of the other answers point to liquid smoke or actual smoke,
I would suggest that the flavour doesn't primarily come from the smoke generated by the fire/stove, but by the wok, the oil and technique itself. Real smoke penetration is a inherently slow process. Stir frying is an extremely fast process. On one of those woks as pictured in your image, the food is cooking in seconds. Having grown up with the dish, I've had plenty of it that was cooked well but not done on a professional wok burner. I can also guarantee you that none of it ever had liquid smoke, paprika or coffee. I think what you'd lose from changing the dish's flavours would be worse than the added "smokiness".
If you do have a good wok and stove, you want to get it screaming hot. If your stove doesn't get hot enough, and your wok is oven safe, you could try preheating it in the oven (Chef Ming Tsai demonstrating this solution).
If you can't do any of the above, I would try a flat skillet as the closest western equivalent. You want to get it really hot and recover the heat quickly while you're cooking. A skillet will be better for that than a wok and a under powered stove.
From there it just comes down to finding the right balance of sauces, seasonings.
This is the only answer, imho. The smokiness is nothing like that of smoked paprika or other smoke flavourings. It is from charring the noodles,a dn can only be done with a very very hot pan
I would suggest either using a commercially available liquid smoke product added after the stir-frying stage. The proper proportion would require some experimentation.
Or you could try using a stove top smoker to smoke the meat & (dried) noodles beforehand, (perhaps something par-cooked similarly to the way instant ramen noodles are so there is fat in the noodles to hold the smoky flavor).
For what it's worth, if you cannot easily obtain a commercial liquid smoke, there are many results found on google with instructions on how to make it yourself.
I may try to make my own it should be simple enough. Not gonna spend so much money for a stove top smoker I won't use very often. Hopefully mine turns out alright otherwise I'll just buy one. Thanks for your answer
You're welcome. I've never actually tried making it myself as it has always been readily available in my grocery store, but I had heard that there were some pretty easy ways to do it.
Here’s what I do:
Once you finished cooking, put the noodle in a dish and separate about a 1/4 in a separate bowl. Then wash the wok.
Heat the wok dry to super super hot. While it's heating combine 1/4 cup of oil (peanut, ricebran, whatever...) and combine with a teaspoon of sesame oil.
Toss it into the piping hot wok, then set it alight with a stove lighter (or if you’re good tip the wok to the flame to set it alight), and immediately put the flame out with the 1/4 bowl of noodles.
Keep stirring and add the other 3/4 of the noodles.
It's almost authentic in smokiness.
You left out the oyster sauce.
If you can't buy liquid smoke locally there is no way you bought oyster sauce. I think that is the flavor she is missing. You could call it smoky but it is more than that; it dense, dark and really good.
Instead of ordering liquid smoke order some high end oyster sauce. If that is the flavor she likes, it is good in lots of other things too. A spoonful of oyster sauce makes lots of things good. Try it in barbecue sauce!
Another, non-commercial option is to add a bit of strong coffee. I learned that trick making chili-con-carne. You wont have to buy it in, and it will not add a strong additional taste like smoked paprika (which will alter the taste of your dish quite substantially...).
Now, if you like the taste of paprika, you can use fresh sweet peppers, roast them in the flame of a gas burner until they are black, peel them and add them to your dish. That will give a fresh paprika and smokey taste, much more vibrant than using powder. But you will change the dish, of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.611635
| 2016-01-28T02:39:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65960",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Allie Payne",
"Amy Tran",
"Ana Munson",
"David Simpson",
"Davin Hahka",
"Eve Fitzpatrick",
"Joe M",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judy Pennington",
"Karen Ouderkirk",
"Kathy Allen",
"Marina Age",
"Maureen Lister",
"Sell My Motorcycle",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"karen tomkins",
"renesis"
],
"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
}
|
28194
|
Which is better, baking in glass or metal?
How does baking in glass differ from
Baking in metal?
You should probably rephrase your question because "better" is subjective and could mean pretty much anything.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5117/baking-in-glass-loaf-pan
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24769/baking-time-difference-in-pyrex-versus-metal
There is no "better", the choice depends on what you are baking, and in what kind of oven. And the difference in result between a given metal pan and a given glass pan can be smaller than the difference between two metal pans made from different metals with different thickness and coating.
Because glass is an insulator, it takes longer to heat up, but then stays at the temprature longer. Metal heats up quicker but also doesn't stay warm for as long a time. Here are several interesting links that are helpful for deciding what to pick for each situation.
chow.com: Rushing says glass is best for foods like cakes, which
bake for a relatively long time at lower temperatures. As in a thick
cast iron pan, cornbread baked in glass will brown more evenly than if
you use a thin metal dish. However, glass bakeware cannot be made in
large sizes and is generally unavailable with a nonstick
coating—Teflon is very hard to apply to glass. Other disadvantages of
glass are that it is more expensive and much heavier than metal, and
it can shatter if its temperature changes too quickly.
yumsugar.com: According to Lauren Chattman, author of The Baking
Answer Book, clear glass, much like dark metal, absorbs heat, making
it ideal for crisp-crusted pies but much less so for bar cookies,
quick breads, and fruit crisps, which can easily become burnt.
Yeah, this is definitely one of those "don't believe everything you read" subjects, which makes ehow especially bad.
Thx for the input, I removed the ehow link. @TFD
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.612215
| 2012-11-03T13:39:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28194",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Dashgreg",
"Liz",
"Susan MacFarland",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65011",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user64926"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28150
|
Egg yolks vs Whole eggs
I'm about to make cinnamon rolls & one recipe calls for 2 whole eggs. The other recipe calls for 3 egg yolks. Which one will give me a moist, soft, cinnamon roll?
If you want soft and moist, you need egg yolks. Their emulsifier and fat content makes dough pliable, soft and smooth, and retains moisture.
Egg whites dry out a dough. This is sometimes desirable, e.g. in pate a choux. Eclairs made with whole eggs often have wet planes in the middle, resulting in an underbaked impression. If you remove some yolks from the dough and use a mixture of whole eggs and egg whites, you get a firmer, drier dough. But in many cases, people want softer, moister end products, and in such cases, recipes which increase the ratio of egg yolks to egg whites (by using more yolks than whole eggs, or yolks only) will give you a better result.
But what if I whip the whites?
@Agos - if you whip the whites, your result will be fluffier and perhaps taller, but still drier than if you used egg yolks. Whipping adds air into the whites, making them light and airy, but the egg white proteins will still set stiffly once cooked - it will neither make your rolls soft, nor moist the way the fats in egg yolks will.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.612398
| 2012-11-01T12:02:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28150",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"BearSquared51",
"Megha",
"Nb KFG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64823",
"user259366",
"user64753",
"user64756",
"user64823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29636
|
Where should I store my cakes?
Where is the best place to store cakes?
I usually store them in a normal, plastic box but I had an idea to store them in a freezer. Would that be okay to store cakes there? Could it degrade the flavour and the taste?
I'm asking because I don't want to throw away cakes which are both chocolate and ribbon, if that matters.
see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14016/how-to-properly-freeze-cake
Thanks @rumtscho that is a much better answer you linked
Most cakes freeze extremely well--especially cakes that are not iced, such as bundt cakes.
Wrap the cake in plastic wrap, then aluminum foil, and freeze. For cupcakes or slices, you can put them in a freezer bag.
If you are going to freeze a whole cake, it is better to frost it after thawing, as the icing can be tricky.
If you have icing, you can put the cake in the freezer long enough for the icing to br firm, and then wrap and freeze--however, thawing can be tricky as you might get a bit of condensation, which can affect the texture of the frosting.
EDIT in response to question about a plastic box, and why the double layering:
Boxes consume space extra space, often at a premium in a freezer, and offer air gaps in which freezer burn is more likely.
Not all plastic is food-safe.
The food-safe plastic wrap is for direct contact with the cake but is gas permeable. I suppose you could just go directly to foil, but things are more likely to stick to it.
The foil provides a gas and moisture barrier (and light, but that is less of a problem in the freezer).
The direct contact with the with the cake eliminates the air gaps, making freezer burn much less likely.
Wouldn't an air tight plastic bag or plastic box be better than plastic wrap and aluminium foil? What purpose doe that aluminium foil perform?
@TFD See edit in answer, as it was too much to address in a comment.
Sorry, load of rubbish SAJ, any domestic plastic packaging is food safe. Some plastic may not be ideal when heated, but that is fuzzy science still
How will plastic wrap make an airtight layer? It can be air tight over a smooth glass bowl, but not over a crumbly cake! Use a closable plastic bag and vacuum it if worried about a little freezer burn (unlikely if only a small gap). Foil will not provide a seal, unless glued closed. Freezer burn is the result of changing dry air every time the freezer door is opened
@Tfd I never said the plastic is air tight--in fact, it is gas permeable. You asked why this method, I answered. Is it perfect? No. Is it the only possible method? No. Is it the method of choice you will find if you google the question? Yes. Is it effective? Yes. Please go ahead and provide another answer with a another perspective if you feel strongly. And please address the ideas, but saying "load of rubbish" borders on personal and adds no value. Your point would have been just as clear if you left that part out, or simply said "I strongly disagree".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.612535
| 2013-01-01T15:46:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29636",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"Jim Perris",
"Patty",
"RosiPosi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"Vyndicu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68972",
"lizzlockett89",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27484
|
Clarification on the process for making fudge
OK, so I'm trying to make fudge. The recipe which I'm following doesn't give all that much in the way of directions. So I'd like clarification of a few points, so I know what I'm aiming for.
Am I right in thinking that the objective is to heat the mixture as slowly as possible, and then cool it down again as slowly as possible?
Some sources seem to claim that you want to stir the mixture until everything disolves, and then stop stiring it and just let it boil. Is that correct?
The plan appears to be to heat the stuff until it hits the magic temperature of 115°C or 116°C (depending who you ask), and then stop heating it and let it cool down again. (?)
How crucial is it that it's exactly 116°C? I mean, obviously if it was way hotter or colder, that would be bad. But what kind of tolerance are we looking at? Is 2° either way going to matter, for example?
The recipe talks about letting the mixture cool for a while, and then stiring it "until the gloss finish disappears". Is it crucial exactly when you do this? Does it have to cool to a specific temperature or something? (I've seen recipies that seem to suggest constant stiring all the way through, and others that say to only stir once cool...)
In the past, I've bought fudge and left it unwrapped, and it dries out and becomes inedible. How do you stop this happening while you're waiting for your freshly cooked fudge to cool down? Should it not be a problem?
Flavourings should be added at the end. (?) Should it be while the mixture is still hot, or once it cools down a little? (Currently I'm using vanilla essence, but obviously I'd like to try some other things - if I ever get the fudge itself to work...)
I guess that's quite a lot of points for just one question, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to answer them all in a fairly short answer.
Your questions seem to be all related to general candy-making concepts, for example - the temperature relates to the mixture reaching the "soft ball stage" which would be good for you to understand before beginning your candy-making. Here's a link that should answer your basic questions. Maybe you can bring specific questions after you've done the research and tried again, using your new-found knowledge. Good luck! http://candy.about.com/od/candybasics/a/candy_beginners.htm
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27468/how-hard-is-it-to-make-fudge
I like Kristina's suggestion that you research some of the basics of candy making. I'll answer those questions only briefly.
Generic Candy Questions
You don't need to heat particularly slowly
This is not like an egg custard where the speed of heating will affect the curdling temperature. You're just trying to get water out. Just don't heat it so fast that you burn the bottom or overshoot the target temp.
Temperature range
The different candy stages have about a 10F range. 2-5 degrees isn't going to make much of a difference but 7-12 will start to.
Adding volatile flavorings to candy
Many flavorings are lost to heat. Such flavorings are added at the end because if they boiled the entire time they would be gone.
Fudgy questions
Stirring
Stirring isn't required. The syrup won't burn unless you have the heat too high and are using a very cheap pot. Additionally, the syrup absolutely should not be stirred in the final moments of boiling because a sugar crystal might fall in that doesn't get dissolved. During cooling stirring would destroy the fudge because it would all crystallize.
Drying out
This is not a problem. The fudge will not dry out in the time it takes to cool.
Losing the gloss
As I wrote in the other answer, the syrup is concentrated and then cooled to a super saturated state and not allowed to crystallize. When it has cooled sufficiently it is mixed like crazy to form your crystals all at once. When this happens the shiny, glossy syrup suddenly fills with crystals and becomes thick and loses the gloss.
It is important that the syrup be cooled enough that it is ready to crystallize at the drop of a hat. Again- if you stir it early, as it cools, you will end up with rock candy (more or less). I just leave my candy thermometer clipped on until the target temperature is reached. Make sure the thermometer is clean- one stray sugar crystal can ruin the batch.
Great summary. I would always suggest med-low, med temp for beginners, as it only take a small distraction to burn a load of sugar. Especially with tests, as you tend to use small single batch recipies
@TFD- Good point.
"End up with rock candy" appears to be what happened to my most recent batch, sadly. (Although it still tastes good.) You don't say what the "target temperature" for cooling is...
Thanks for spanning the gap, Sobachatina! Hopefully we're all a lot more knowledgeable on fudgemaking now. My last attempt at maple fudge resulted in a gritty block of rock candy with 2 cat hairs stuck in it - just to add insult to injury! Lol!
I'll do a later post about the benefits of pet hair in candy making.
@MathematicalOrchid- Cool to 110F.
The way I've made Russian fudge I've started stirring it with an electric beater as soon as I take it off the heat, and I continue to stir until it starts to thicken (ie it's nearly set), at which point I pour it. The constant stirring seems to meant that the crystals that form stay very small, and the result is very reliable (no worrying about stray crystals).
It is my opinion and experience that you never stop stirring before or after boil, and yes I do bring it to a boil slow, on med heat. Then I stir boil for 4 minutes. Fight the urge to go to high heat. It'll be worth it. Also a small invest in candy thermometer will help you remove it from burner at the perfect time, to add the chocolate, vanilla and marshmallow cream. After the stir ins, it goes into my buttered/greased pan to cool and firm beautifully.
With proper fudge making even the humidity of the day can affect crystallisation and setting. It is a science and an art.
On the other hand, there are plenty of very nice 'fudgy' candy making recipes that are much easier such as the 'Carnation Condensed milk' recipe that relies on the solid chocolate bars for setting. Icing sugar is added in the end to give it the crystal texture people associate with fudge. I find this fudge very good to keep and cut, though a little bit too chocolatey if there is such a thing!
Any 'fudge' that has lots of solid chocolate added is actually more of a chocolate recipe to soften that chocolate, by adding butter or condensed milk to make it like fudge.
Also look up Marshmallow Fudge. Some people like it as it is completely smooth and silky, but others find it a bit sickly or chemically tasting. That might depend on the brand of marshmallow used.
Clarifying 'Fudge making' vs Candy-- Giving people options to try different things if actual fudge making is too technical. At least I did not tell off the poor person asking for not knowing enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.612803
| 2012-09-30T11:01:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27484",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Highly Irregular",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MathematicalOrchid",
"Membio ",
"Micer",
"Oli",
"Patricia Vahcic",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"sucCes Fulofyes"
],
"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
}
|
27555
|
Are refried beans supposed to be slimy and nasty smelling?
I found a recipe in the local newspaper to make refried beans. It said to soak them for 36 to 48 hours, draining and using fresh hot water several times. After the time frame, the beans were so slimy and nasty smelling, I just threw them away. The slime was so thick that I could hardly get them rinsed. What did I do wrong, or is this way they are supposed to be? If so it was disgusting. This was my first time, so I need all the help I can get. Thanks for any help you can give.
I hesitate to ask, but just to narrow the possibilities down, you did use dry beans, right? Not canned?
did you start with dried beans, or canned?
They are supposed to be slimy, yes. They shouldn't stink, but are you sure you didn't just catch the slight non-cooked beans smell (which doesn't smell too foodlike, to me it is neutral) and perceived it as nasty in conjunction with the slime? If it was really rotten, you did right to throw them out, but this shouldn't happen normally.
Note that direct sunlight during soaking will also hasten spoilage by a good factor. I have also never had to soak anything for more than 12 hours at most.
Soaking in hot water would definitely speed the growth of bacteria. On top of that 40+ hours is an abnormally long soak. Beans soaked that long in hot water could definitely spoil.
I soak mine under refrigeration. It's become habit from some places I've worked. Maybe try again soaking just overnight in cold water.
Soaking beans is a normal practice. While 36 to 48 hours is unusually long, they normally shouldn't spoil in this time.
Assuming that your beans did indeed spoil, there are different explanations possible.
you misunderstood the recipe and used canned beans instead of dry beans. You can use canned beans for refried beans, but then you have to leave out the soaking and cooking steps.
you added something to the beans which bacteria could feed on, for example sugar. While a recipe which recommends this would be an incredibly dumb recipe, there are all kinds of recipes out there, and maybe your paper just printed a bad recipe without testing it.
you somehow created favorable conditions for bacterial growth. I am not sure if this can happen, but maybe leaving beans out for that long can lead to spoilage if other factors come into play, for example a very hot kitchen.
If the beans were really spoiled, but you didn't do any of the things above, it is very probable that it was a fluke. Try again, and you can reduce the soaking time. 12 to 24 hours is normal for beans.
It is also possible that your beans weren't spoiled. When beans are soaked, they can produce both slime and froth. This is a perfectly normal chemical reaction caused by complex molecules found in the beans, and it is not a sign of spoilage. A really strong stink will indeed mean that they were spoiled. But if you are not accustomed to soaking beans, maybe you assumed that something is wrong when you saw the slime, sniffed the beans and noticed their normal smell. It is faint, and to my nose it isn't offensive, but it is different from the smell of cooked beans, so maybe you associated it with "not normal" and therefore classified it as "nasty". I can't tell if that happened or not as I can't smell your beans, but if it happened, don't worry. There are lots of things in the kitchen which seem strange the first time. As for throwing out rotten-smelling food, I'd say better safe than sorry.
They can definitely start to ferment if it's hot enough and they're left ~ 12 - 24 hours. Usually you see a foam and a strange smell. Doesn't get slimy and nasty though.
...and the OP said the recipe called for hot water to be used for the soaking.
As others have asked, you did use dried beans, right? If you use canned beans, no soaking is required. Just drain and rinse.
But soaking dried beans in hot water is very strange, and 36-48 hours is an excessively long time to soak them. I wonder if the hot water and prolonged soaking led to spoilage. Soaking in cold water overnight is sufficient. Then drain, rinse, and cook according to the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.613370
| 2012-10-03T12:14:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27555",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fatrisha Nazarudin",
"Henry A.",
"KangarooWest",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kermit Bias Jr Tunes",
"Kristina Lopez",
"PieGuy128",
"Yucsal Ansr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62239",
"ian-campbell",
"johnmiles",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"silpertan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28064
|
What's a good choice of steak to use for a steak pizza?
I'm planning to cut into small cubes and place raw on the pizza before putting it into the oven. I wondering what cut of steak would be good for this purpose.
Any meat that is good for fast cooking (BBQ, frying, grilling etc.) will be suitable for this. Do not use meat that is normally casseroled or slow cooked. For beef this is the non-exercised top parts of the cow. Typical western cuts are called sirloin, rump, and fillet
You need very thin slices of meat more than cubes if you want any level of browning and cooking to be achieved
The easiest way to do this is to partially freeze you meat for one to two hours in a normal domestic freezer. A slab of meat with a profile of around 30 x 80 mm (±50%) is the easiest to handle. Use a sharp chef's knife or meat cleaver and slice it into 2 to 3 mm thin slices which will cook very nicely on a pizza
A well marbled (mixed fat content) cut would work better, like in this picture
Thanks for the very detailed response. What does the freezing do? I was worried that with thin slices, the meat would overcook. I normally cook my pizza for 5-6 mins at the maximum temperature (250 degrees celcius) of a normal domestic oven.
@deltanovember If it's partially frozen, it's easier to slice. If it's completely frozen it's too hard, and if it's not frozen at all, it's squishy and really difficult to cut straight.
@deltanovember As Jefromi says, easier to slice if partially frozen. It would over cook if it wasn't sitting on a cold slab of pizza dough coated in sauce, cheese, etc. Same way a slice of salami doesn't burn on a pizza. If the meat slice are on the top of the pizza you should have a nice grilled top, with a medium rare base in the slices
If you live by an Asian grocery store you might find frozen thinly sliced beef usually for hot pot...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.613825
| 2012-10-27T23:18:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28064",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Howard Katman",
"JUDITH LAKE",
"TFD",
"TinaMcClelland",
"deltanovember",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64539",
"user1066381",
"user23512"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20205
|
Why would rasagullas break while cooking?
My latest batch of rasagullas were a disaster. As soon as I dropped them into the cooker, they started disintegrating. I realized the entire affair will turn out to be a super waste of effort and time.
I did cut some corners last time:
1. Did I not dry the curd enough?
2. Did I not knead the curd enough?
3. Was the sugar syrup used for boiling not saturated enough?
Any clues?
Can we get the recipe you used? What corners did you cut?
it might be due to you may be using paneer made from buffalo's milk,for making softer rasagullas you should use paneer of cow's milk.
@rfusca, the not-drying-the-curd-enough and not-kneading-the-dough-enough corners might have been cut...
@Sunishtha_Singh, I am not sure if I am using cow's milk, but have used the same milk earlier, and have dished out excellent (from my perspective) rosogollas...
I think the water content of the rasgullas cause it to break.
To make sure that they're ready, after you drain the water from the paneer, take a bit of paneer on your palm and knead it with your thumb for about 40 seconds. You should be able to roll out a firm yet smooth ball off it. If you can't form balls, it means you will have to squeeze out more water from the paneer. In the end you should have something like a soft dough.
It takes a while to get it just right. If you can't make perfect balls in your first few shots at it, you can make rasmalai/ kheer/paneer pedas out of it, so it won't be a wasteful disaster after-all.
Refer to these articles/videos:
Sources :
1, 2, 3, 4
The paneer was probably too watery. You can try drying it with a fan for 4 minutes.
Hello! This space is reserved for new answers. I wasn't sure if you are suggesting drying with a fan as a new answer, or complaining that you are still unable to form balls and requesting more answers. If the second, then I'm afraid that writing a new post won't really help, so I would have had to delete it. So I chose the first interpretation and edited it, making the fan-drying you suggest an answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.614020
| 2012-01-05T19:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20205",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"CMR",
"Chloé C",
"HipsterRules",
"Jodi Davis Gonzales",
"Jonalyn Casal",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"ag14",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5187",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"xxfelixxx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16948
|
How do I color an egg black?
My friend and I are trying to make 'ninja black eggs' which are essentially hollowed eggs filled with powdered material.
We have two questions:
Is there a way to thicken the egg shell? My current idea is basking the eggs in some-sort of calcium. Would this work, or is there a better way?
How can we make the eggs black? We've tried making egg dye; and we have used 1 tsp of red, and 1/2 tsp of blue, but somehow the eggs turned brown.
because red and blue yield brown (last sentence of this section)
I thought they make purple... Maybe I suck at art..
Ninja black eggs? For IRL Angry Birds, perhaps?
@James: Nitpicker, i thought of red and cyan, as they should ideally mix to black, but will mostly result in some brownish color.
For thicker egg shells -- use smaller eggs. (for chicken eggs, at least ... if you change species, this might not hold true)
I'm closing because this has nothing to do with food or cooking.
But I do have a suggestion. Forget the egg shells. Fill a balloon with your powder and inflate to appropriate size. Then cover the balloon with your material (wet clay, paper mâché, melted chocolate, etc.). then pop the balloon with a pin s your coating sets. Fill in the pin hole if needed. Then you can make your "egg" from whatever you want. Use black spray paint to make it black.
Check out UkrainianGiftShop.com for all sorts of egg dyes, including black. (Note that their dyes are not food-safe, though, so you'll have to discard the innards after dyeing the eggs.) They also sell gadgets for blowing out the eggs through a single hole.
Why do you need to thicken the shells? Some bird's eggs have thicker walls than others, and it also seems that younger hens form thicker shells than older ones. However, it is doubtful that a thicker eggshell is available commercially. Your best bet may be to poke holes in the eggs, let them drain and dry, and then paint them with a strengthening varnish. A water-based polyurethane maybe? You should probably color them first, and then varnish them.
You can buy black food coloring. Buy it online if you haven't seen it at your local stores. You will probably have to use more than suggested to get full, deep color coverage. If that doesn't work, you could try clothes dye, Rit is a good brand, but I don't see evidence it is recommended for use on eggs. However, since it appears you won't be eating the eggs, just throwing them at each other, it is probably safe, and you could dye a bunch of eggs at once.
You can't use different colors to make black. If you combine the primary colors, red, by blue, and yellow you will get brown, but black is the absence of color. Try black egg dye.
The problem I think is that the albumen of the egg is a translucent material and adding food coloring is also a translucent material. So effectively you are going to get a strong yellow color from the opaque yolk, and that is what will be predominant, so it makes sense you are getting brown. Adding translucent colors to opaque yellow will get a brown. Think about adding milk to coffee. If you add whole milk, you get a lighter brown. If you add skim milk, which has more water, you get something akin to gray.
So what you want is some sort of additive that is opaque. Maybe squid ink.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.614232
| 2011-08-18T12:23:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16948",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Flatlyn",
"Jack",
"James Litewski",
"Joe",
"Judy",
"Marti",
"Martin Eden",
"Steven Shaw",
"Tgwizman",
"flying sheep",
"hairboat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7105",
"jmindel",
"rhondaroberts",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17147
|
Dutch oven cooking
I'm looking to improve my dutch oven cooking skills. What is the best source for proven recipes and good dutch oven techniques?
I'd like to know some good uses for a dutch oven as well... people tend to swear by them, but I can't find anything but braising which cannot be accomplished more effectively with other cookware.
@BobMcGee - Well its one of the easiest ways for a home baker to get crusty,crisp bread. Other methods kinda work, but DO bread is just easy peasy.
A cassoulet
I love the Almost No-Knead Bread recipe from Cook's Illustrated as an example of baking in a Dutch Oven.
I like to use my Dutch oven for pot roasts, for New England Boiled Dinner, and for all sorts of soups and stews, and for making chili. Anthony Bourdain's Les Halles Cookbook has a Dutch Oven recipe for Gigot a Sept Heures (Seven hour Leg of Lamb) that is FABULOUS.
The main advantage of Dutch ovens are their versatility. There is nothing special about a dutch oven that you can't get from a combination of other pots and pans. Aside from using them as for boiling, frying, and braising, their thick walls provide a great way to bake.
You will find the best Dutch oven recipes in camping cook books because camping is where you need the versatility of a single cooking device. For example, you can bake bread during the day and then cook a whole chicken for dinner using the camp fire.
A quick search on Amazon will reveal a number of (based on their ratings) good books on Dutch Oven Cooking. If you have access to the "FoodNetwork" (or care to watch them via YouTube) there are any number of episodes that will feature Dutch Oven ideas and techniques. Alton Brown did an episode called "Going Dutch" that would be a good starting point, but everybody else from Bobby Flay to Melissa D'Arabian have episodes out there that Google can help you find.
Beyond that, if you have any 'more specific' questions (How do I spin straw into gold in a Dutch Oven?) you will likely get a better response from those questions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.614552
| 2011-08-26T04:16:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17147",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Maria Conte",
"Roo",
"Vatsal Manot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20714
|
Why is my first polenta not easy to cut?
I've cooked my first polenta.
it was too dampish, without shape, but also not easily sectile: it couldnt be easily cut.
What should I do better next time?
How much water or cornmeal did you use? How long did you let it cook?
Were you following a recipe that gave directions about how thick it should be before trying to shape/cut/further cook it?
@Jefromi How can I shape it?
Like this: http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/07/polenta__1851179761.JPG
As your question stands, the possible answers are essentially:
You used too much liquid or too little cornmeal.
You didn't cook it long enough.
You didn't cool it enough for it to firm up.
Polenta is the sort of food that you should make by trusting your senses over a recipe. You should be able to tell, with a little bit of experience, whether it's too thin and wet after cooking for it to set once it cools. If it is, you can cook it a bit longer on low heat to get more water out of it, and the next time you can compensate with more cornmeal or less liquid.
Also, since I don't know what recipe you used, do note that there are also recipes out there for soft polenta (usually described as such), which is intended to be served soft, not cut.
I see... I will give a try daily to get experienced. Another question is: how do I shape it? I mean.. something like this: http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/07/polenta__1851179761.JPG
@Patrick: That looks like it was shaped just by pouring/scraping into a broad flat pan, chilling, and then cutting into rectangles.
Mhm, does that mean that after cooking it, I should lie it on a pan and work its shape ? Do I miss the last step ?
I meant exactly what I said: while it's mushy, transfer it into a flat pan, chill it (in the refrigerator) to get it firm, then cut it. There's no "working" unless you mean using a spatula to smooth out the top.
So, i do need to chillmit in a refrigerator to get a smooth shape ? For how long?
@Patrick: Comments aren't really meant for extended discussion - if you have a lot more questions, just ask another question about it. Yes, you pretty much have to chill it to get it to set; it's not safe to just leave it at room temperature for hours. And how long? Until it's ready, until it's a bit cool, until it's firm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.614780
| 2012-01-23T20:06:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20714",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Di Wilson",
"HerbN",
"Mien",
"aneuryzm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7229"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17862
|
Do you season a cast iron waffle pan before using?
I just bought a cast iron waffle pan. I've seen conflicting advice about whether it should be seasoned. I have several old cast iron pans and my instinct would be to season it but I've also read that in a waffle pan the seasoning will get gummy and the waffles will stick to the pan. Some sites recommend just brushing the pan right before pouring the batter in. What are your thoughts?
I see no reason that a cast iron waffle pan should be treated differently in regards to seasoning than other cast iron. Since it won't be cooking anything with significant fat in it naturally, if anything it may be more important! Seasoning is both for non-stick reason and non-oxidizing reasons.
Season it well on your own, then use it with some fat (of some kind) very lightly brushed on to keep it well. Only brushing right before use will keep one good likely, but would take a long, long time to naturally season since a large portion of the fat will immediately get used by the food.
Cast iron gets gummy if you either 1) season with a spray like Pam consistently or 2) don't cook your seasoning long enough and/or high enough. Use a fat, bacon fat, would be great here and season away - properly. In regards to seasoning, I recommend checking out this question, as its unneeded to replicate detailed information elsewhere in the site.
First, it's possible that you may not need to season the waffle pan because it's pre-seasoned. Most new cast iron you buy today from major US cooking stores comes that way. It could also be enameled and/or non-stick cast iron, in which case the same would apply.
If it's not pre-seasoned, you most certainly do want to season it. Waffle irons are notoriously sticky. I suggest that you take a look at the latest science around seasoning cast iron; might as well do it right if you're going to do it at all.
Based on personal experience using a civil-war era cast-iron waffle iron (yes, really), you'll also need to grease the pan with a lot of butter each time you use it. I suggest keeping a dish full of softened butter and a pastry brush next to the iron when making waffles.
No seasoning on any cast iron should ever get "gummy"; if it does, that means it was seasoned incorrectly. Given that some web pages I find recommend seasoning it with unsalted butter, I can guess what happened to those people.
I've not found a new cast iron waffle maker that is preseasoned - unless you're buying it used (which is certainly possible). Lodge, unfortunately, isn't making one yet :(. So, that and her asking about it, odds are it isn't pre-seasoned.
Thank you. The pan is not pre-seasoned. All of my cast iron pots are old (some of them were my great-grandmother's!) so I season it myself (with flaxseed oil, as recommended in the link posted above) and I will season this pan, too.
Rfusca, they don't? Huh. Not like Lodge to miss a trick that way. ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.614980
| 2011-09-19T23:03:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17862",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Linda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7272",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22933
|
What can I do about excessive lime flavor in a pork roast?
I marinated a pork roast in lime, garlic, oregano and a little olive oil. The flavor of lime is over-bearing. Is there anything I can do to counter the lime taste?
You've heard of margarita chicken? Add salt around the edges and call it "Margarita Pork"?
Since I assume it is too late to do anything to take the lime away, undermine excess flavor of lime with roasted peppers. They will bear a pleasant complement to the tartness while adding rich, smoky notes. Hotter peppers will further distract from the excess lime. A sweet corn salsa would also add sweetness to anchor the lime.
Yes, too late -- it is fully cooked now. I had already thought of corn as a side dish, will just turn it into a salsa and will roast some peppers as well. Thanks for the help
Salt balances with sour flavors really well. There's still an upper limit on how much salt or lime can be considered enjoyable by most people. I'd start with salt, ideally in a marinade, to take advantage of the acidity unless it's already pretty salty.
If that approach is taken to its limit and it's still too sour, the only route I see is dilution--reduce the amount of pork going into anyone's mouth...shredded pork in soft tacos or wraps comes to mind. Thin slices would also work in a sandwich.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.615246
| 2012-04-10T15:45:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22933",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Cheri",
"Cos Callis",
"Maryellen",
"Pamela Gilbert",
"Vanguard3000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9857",
"user2812396",
"willseward",
"wizkyd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23106
|
Why do English recipes of “sauce marchand de vin” call for Worcestershire sauce?
The “sauce marchand de vin” is a French red wine thick sauce typically served with meat. Its recipe in my French cookbooks call for two main ingredients: red wine and brown stock. It also uses shallots, butter, flour and black pepper, but I understand the two ingredients cited previously are the main ones.
However, many recipes I can find online (here and there, for example) on English-speaking websites add Worcestershire sauce. Not all of them do, but I still wonder: what purpose does this extra Worcestershire sauce add? I'm not too familiar with it, but if I understand it might bring some spiciness (already somewhat covered by black pepper).
So, what do you think it brings to the recipe and overall taste?
Worcestershire Sauce is added where the recipe wants a fast way to develop or add savoury richness, umami.
It's often used where umami would develop over time with slow careful cooking (and heavy bottomed pans). Adding this extra ingredient is a good cheat where you just want that kick without the wait.
But isn't that somewhat redundant with, say, brown veal stock, which is most often used in this recipe and which I understand is rich in umami?
It's certainly not necessary to add Worcestershire Sauce. If you have a really good stock and are willing to let the flavour of your shallots develop I'd say leave it out as it would mask some of the more delicate flavours. If however you get to the point where it's nearly made and you ever think... "this needs a little something" then you know what to add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.615390
| 2012-04-16T21:33:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23106",
"authors": [
"F'x",
"Fogmeister",
"Sad gobbler",
"WhiskerBiscuit",
"derekml",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9940",
"peggyh",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94145
|
How to make safe sushi
I'd always assumed that if you start with safe fish (appropriately stored/frozen), stay with "normal" fish (i.e. don't try to prepare poisonous puffer fish at home), and follow normal food hygiene practices, it was "safe".
And indeed, for years I've been going to the local Japanese market fish counter, and asking for "fish for sushi". The gentleman behind the counter then recommends some fish, optionally slices it for me, wraps it up and I take it home and make various types of sushi.
Is this correct, or am I missing something? Is there some special technique that I need to follow at home to make safe-sushi?
To be clear, I'm not asking about the safety of the fish itself, I trust the Japanese market fish counter to sell me sushi-safe fish.
My question assumes the fish is "safe"... I'm nore interested in what the "way more to sushi safety" is.
That's why I asked. As I said, this point was added as a comment in another question and got 4 upvotes so there are apparently at least 5 people that agree that there is way more to sushi safety so it requires a Japan trained sushi chef to prepare safely.
the word "safe" has two separate meanings. One of them is that food meets all regulations mandated by an official body such as the FDA. The other is that people feel emotionally safe eating it. Our site explicitly does not deal with the second one, since it is terribly subjective. Questions on safety are always interpreted as having the first meaning, and answers about the second meaning are removed. The post you are referring to was a comment, so it was not moderated. Nevertheless, I am 99% sure it is based on a personal feeling, which would make your question off topic.
Should it have been related to a regulation, then answers should be posted under the existing, older questions about sushi safety we have. So I am going to close this as a duplicate. To be completely fair, I think I will edit a sentence about the safety of sushi beyond the fish source into our canonical sushi safety question, which will be the duplicate target.
I don't understand how that's a duplicate when the accepted answer on that "duplicate" only addresses the safety of the fish (as do the other answers). I don't understand why you'd edit the question to address general sushi preparation safety 8 years after the question was asked and answered when that question was very specifically asking about the safety of the fish. I tried to be clear here that I'm not asking about fish, this question is about general sushi preparation safety.
Your whole question is based on the premise that there is something about sushi that goes beyond the combination of 1) traditional food safety rules and 2) ensuring that the fish is safe. There is nothing in sushi safety regulations beyond that, meaning that the expected answers would concentrate on subjective criteria - something that we most certainly don't want. I would have closed the question as opinion based, but for the tiny chance that somebody comes up with additional regulations - then it is better that they come under the canonical question. I could close it as a dupe ...
@rumtscho - sounds like that's the answer then -- you can just post a summary of these sushi regulations. Since there's no other question that addresses general safety or these regulations (except for the one you edited after it's already been answered), this question is not a dupe. Though I still don't see how you can edit an 8 year old question that's already been answered and then claim that it's "canonical".
... of one of the many "how to make safe sushi" duplicate questions we have had in the past 8 years, then the wording of the duplicate target would be more suitable, but people would have to click through once more to arrive at the one question that has answers. Or, if you prefer, we can reword your question such that it does not attract subjective answers, and then I'll post the answer "there is nothing you are missing" with a link to the FDA sushi regulations for businesses (there is none for home use), and you can see if somebody digs up something else.
It seems our comments crossed - I call it "canonical" because until now, we have closed multiple "how to make safe sushi" questions with that one as a target. Everybody perceives them as equivalent, because they happen to be equivalent in reality.
OK, reopened and answered. But I also edited, else people would be tempted to give answers explaining the comment you were referencing. That's what I mainly wanted to avoid by the closure.
The safety of making sushi at home really boils down to
Ensuring that your fish meets the criteria for sushi-suitable fish, and
Following standard food safety practices for everything else.
There are regulations meant for businesses which confirm that, you can find them under Guidance for Processing Sushi in Retail Operations. You cannot apply them 1:1 as a consumer (for example, I don't know of a way to ensure that your fish was not "harvested from known or designated areas that are problematic for ciguatera"), but they give you a maximum framework you can try to reach. You can see that there are no gotchas there, just what you'd expect for any food, plus fish advice.
For getting fish that is as safe as possible, please refer to this question: Can store bought salmon be used for sashimi?. For standard food safety practices beyond that, pleases see our writeup on food safety, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info.
There is one deviation which is allowed by the guidance above: if you are willing to measure the pH of your rice-and-vinegar mixture, you are allowed to keep the rice inside the danger zone. However, this is not an extra safety restriction, but rather a kind of special dispensation - if you refrigerate the rice promptly as per standard food safety rules, it becomes irrelevant. For home cooking, there is no need to keep a tub of rice on the counter all the time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.615554
| 2018-11-21T22:44:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94145",
"authors": [
"Johnny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31093",
"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
}
|
51835
|
How do I prevent grainy fudge?
I want to make peanut butter fudge. My dad can make it perfect by just eyeballing it and dropping a spoonful in cold water to know when it is just right. but I have never been able to do it that way. I have also tried it using a candy thermometer, and i know the soft-ball stage is between 235 deg and 245 deg, but it always seems to come out grainy. I also know that the outside/inside temperature plays a role in how it turns out as well. I make several batches of caramels every December and they turn out great using my thermometer when cooked to 239 deg, sometimes they are a little softer than other times, but always within reason.
Can anyone tell me the best temperature to shoot for with a thermometer for peanut butter fudge?
Update
Actually the recipe does call for marshmallow creme, in addition to evaporated milk, granulated white sugar and peanut butter. Additionally, something I forgot to mention before, the fudge sets up very fast, like when I am pouring it into the 8 x 8 pan to cool. Most of the time, when my dad pours it into the pan, it is like like cake batter, the top surface will be smooth, whereas when I do it, I have to spoon it out (like brownie dough). Mine, you can't really pour it out. If I could get it to pour out like cake batter, cooling wouldn't be a problem.
The directions say to stir the milk/sugar mixture constantly until it reaches the soft-ball stage. I could try the buttering the side of the cooking pan. I remember Dad saying that the recipe calls for a tablespoon (or maybe a teaspoon) of butter, but he never uses it, and I don't remember him ever saying that I am to use it to butter the sides of the cooking pan.
For marshmallow fudge, don't worry about buttering saucepan. The marshmallow will prevent re-crystallization. Butter adds flavor and contributes to consistency: 2 to 4 Tbsp. I boil the condensed milk, sugar, and butter until the temperature reaches 235 °F. Then remove from heat and add the marshmallow (I go with 3.5 or 4 oz. - either half a jar of marshmallow creme or straight-up marshmallows) - stir to melt and incorporate. Then add your peanut butter (I go with 8 to 10 oz.) - stir to fully incorporate and pour immediately into your prepared pan. It'll be stiff but not too stiff to pour.
If you use vanilla, add that with the peanut butter (last). And I think I overstated the pouring issue in that last sentence above - it will be stiff like stiff cake batter and you'll need to use a spatula to move the fudge and scrape the bowl - but it should still be movable without needing to spoon it out. It will set-up very quickly though - getting pretty firm before it is cool.
possible duplicate of My Fudge Is Crunchy! Where Did I Go Wrong?
With the edit, I don't think it is a duplicate.
Fudge is technically a crystalline sugar candy so a true fudge should have have the feel of tiny sugar crystals when you bite into it, but it should not be grainy. Controlling the grain in fudge is a matter of controlling three things: the temperature that you cook your mixture to (the soft-ball stage you referred to), the way the mixture is cooled, and the addition of certain crystal interfering agents (e.g. corn syrup, fats, marshmallow).
I, personally, believe that controlling temperature is far superior to the drop-and-mash test from which the "soft-ball stage" inherited its name. I also have had better results with the lower end of the range (235 °F) than with mixtures that have approached the higher end of the range (245 °F).
Marshmallow fudges, in my experience, rarely have the micro-crystal bite of fudges made without marshmallow. Marshmallow fudges are sometimes called creamy fudges to denote their more-creamy/less-fudge-y mouthfeel. Most marshmallow fudges don't really need careful attention to the cooling stage like fudges made without marshmallow. I assume you are making a peanut butter fudge w/o marshmallow?
Now, having said that, for fudge that I make without marshmallow, I use a little bit of corn syrup (1 Tbsp. per 2 cups sugar per 5 oz. condensed milk - plus the chocolate or peanut butter or whatever) - I heat my mixture to a boil, then I allow the mixture to boil without stirring until the mixture reaches 235 °F, then I remove the pot from the heat and allow the mixture to cool undisturbed until the temperature lowers to 130 °F (keeping the thermometer in the mixture). By doing this the goal is to create a supersaturated sugar solution - a mixture that is holding more sugar in solution than it normally should. At this point I stir the mixture as vigorously as possible until it loses some of its gloss and it becomes increasingly difficult to stir - then transfer it into a heavily buttered pan to cool to solidify. Losing the gloss and changing consistency are two signs that the sugar is re-crystallizing out of the supersaturated solution - the vigorous mixing should prevent larger sugar crystals from forming in the fudge (and prevent graininess).
It is also important to prevent stray sugar crystals from "seeding" your mixture and bringing crystals out of your supersaturated solution prematurely and creating a grainy fudge - people usually control for this in one of three ways: by buttering the sides of the cooking pan, by briefly covering the boiling mixture so that condensation drips from the lid onto the sides washing them down, or by brushing down the sides of the pan gently with water.
As a short summary - I shoot for 235 °F and focus more on the cooling of the fudge to prevent graininess.
Actually the recipe does call for marshmellow creme, in addition to evaporated milk, granulated white sugar and peanut butter.
When a mixture is hot, its molecules are moving very fast; as the mixture cools, the molecules slow down and it’s easier for them to join. Cooling plays an important role in determining the number and size of crystals that will ultimately form, and that affects the texture of the final candy.
When you make candy, you first have to increase the concentration and the temperature of the sugar syrup so the molecules are packed close enough together. If you agitate the mixture slightly at this high temperature, whether by shaking the pan or even by just removing the thermometer, any undissolved sugar crystals on the side of the pan or on the thermometer could drop into the mixture. These few crystals (called “seed” crystals) would quickly attract more molecules and grow into big crystals, and the candy would be grainy. On the other hand, if you let the mixture cool undisturbed, the molecules will have slowed down considerably. If you stir vigorously at this point, you’ll get millions of baby crystals all at once. The more crystals that form, the smaller they will be (because there are fewer remaining free molecules to go around), and the smoother and creamier your candy will be.
So, the key to smooth yet firm fudge, pralines, and fondant is to first bring the mixture to a high enough concentration and then let it cool off somewhat before starting to stir. And once you do start to stir, stir fanatically and without stopping for the finest, creamiest texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.616334
| 2014-12-21T22:39:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51835",
"authors": [
"Cecily Bolden",
"Debbie",
"James Gallant",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lou Wellesley",
"Michelle Howell",
"Nihjer Richardson",
"Peggy Mueller",
"Sherry Fraser",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31140",
"jessica farquhar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27449
|
Mozzarella. Obtaining buffalo milk from whole milk and heavy cream
I am trying to make mozzarella using rennet, citric acid and milk. However, having read on the Internet about this process, I've found out that the best mozzarella is produced from buffalo milk.
I only have whole (3% fat) milk available and I was wondering whether I could approximate buffalo milk by adding in heavy cream (30% fat).
Is this possible and what is the ratio of milk / cream to obtain a similar consistency? If this is not possible do you have any good tips on creating a good curd from whole 3% milk (pasteurized) available off-the-shelf?
According to Wikipedia, buffalo milk has 8% milkfat by weight. Cow's milk is listed on that same table as 3.9%, so I'll use that figure for consistency, though the number does vary both from cow to cow and by breed.
So, you need to figure out the portions in which you'd mix together whole milk and heavy cream to reach the same fat content as your buffalo milk.
What you want is a formula in which the amount of fat from the whole milk plus the amount of fat from cream equals the amount of fat from buffalo milk. The amount of fat from the whole milk would be 0.039x, where x is the amount of whole milk, and the amount of fat from the cream would be 0.3y, where y is the amount of cream. And finally, the amount of fat that you would have from the same quantity of buffalo milk would be 0.08(x+y). Putting it together you have 0.039x + 0.3y = 0.08(x+y)
Solve for y to get y=0.18 x, or 18% as much cream as milk. If your milk truly is 3% fat, this would be closer to 22%. Lets meet in the middle at 20%, since it's going to vary anyway.
What this boils down to is that, to approximate the fat content of buffalo milk, you'd use about 200mL cream for 1L of whole milk.
Do you know if the fat ratio is actually the important part, or if there are other characteristics of buffalo milk that contribute to good mozzarella?
The question seemed to be focused on the fat content, so my answer was really addressing that. That said, there are surely other differences as well--buffalo milk, for example, has more protein, which will certainly affect the product.
Buffalo milk has a different chemical and bioligical composition, so there is no way in which cow's milk mozzarella will be exactly like buffalo milk. The asker seems to realize this, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.616903
| 2012-09-28T12:13:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27449",
"authors": [
"CakenGifts",
"Cascabel",
"Corey Sean Knapp",
"Denis de Bernardy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ozone",
"Ray",
"Tony Delaney",
"Victor Dodon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"stopkillinggames.com"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32126
|
How can I make low sodium (140mg or less per serving) pancakes / waffles?
I work with heart failure patients who have to limit their sodium intake, but still would like to enjoy some of their favorite foods. How can I reduce the sodium (to 140mg or less) in pancakes and waffles?
salt is for flavor in these recipes so you can leave it out altogether. They're not going to taste the same but that's a different question.
Reduce or leave out the salt. It is not essential to the chemistry of the recipe. I will not speculate on salt substitutes, as that is a health and medical issue, off topic for this site.
The pancakes will then not taste as good, but that is unavoidable. Perhaps you can serve them with a highly flavorful accompaniment, like a reduced peach chutney or similar, to make the entire dish more interesting.
Not sure what kind of advice you expected.
Edit: Based on the discussion of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) usually used in pancakes: as Kate Gregory points out, there may be alternate chemical leaveners.
Another possibility is to use mechanical leavening, by beating the eggs, fat, and any sugar well until they reach the ribbon stage (probably more than necessary, per Harold McGee, but still a clear indication); at this point they will have the maximum amount of air incorporated. This batter cannot be held, but it should rise reasonably well, even without baking powder.
There are also recipes that use whipped egg whites to leaven pancakes, but they produce a different, fluffier product that may be called Fluffy Pancakes or Swedish Pancakes depending on the recipe.
What about the baking soda--sodium bicarbonate--used to make the products fluffy?
There are also recipes for yeast raised pancakes (sourdough are especially delicious!) which would be another way to leave out the baking soda.
A random web site I have no reason to trust claims that half a teaspoon of baking soda contains 616 mg of sodium. This more reputable site says 150 for 1/8 tsp, which pretty much agrees, and also says 100-200 in 1/4 tsp of baking powder. Let's take those as correct for now. My favourite pancake recipe uses 2 tsp of baking powder to make about 12 pancakes, so that's 800-1600 mg, meaning a person could have one (or possibly two if the sodium content is more to the low end) of those pancakes and meet your requirements, assuming you didn't add any salt.
If you would like to serve them 2 or 3 pancakes (which I think is a more reasonable serving size) then you probably want to look into low-sodium and sodium free baking powder and baking soda. Discuss with the pancake-eater's dietician whether the substitute is actually ok or not, (sometimes low-sodium also means low-bunch-of-other-stuff) but that same Low Sodium FAQ lists several brands of baking soda and baking powder with no sodium at all. Using those brands would let you serve all the pancakes you want!
If you can't get low-sodium baking powder, you may want to consider alternate leavening methods, such as an eggwhite foam or sourdough.
This is a good point. I have no problem with the taste of pancakes made without salt (I have generally observed that the idea of "add a pinch of salt to everything or it will taste bland" depends a lot on the usual amount a person likes in their food, which is a trainable taste). But sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is an obvious source of sodium. A good alternative may be ammonium-based chemical leavener (hirschhornsalz), if the eaters are OK with the taste it introduces.
I agree with SAJ14SAJ. You can leave out the salt or use a small amount of it, without a problem. What you can add to minimize the loss of flavour, is a pinch of vanilla (for neutral-tasting pancakes) or a different aroma, for instance almond extract (for a variation).
My husband has had a low sodium diet due to kidney and heart disease since 2008 and I've faced this challenge already. Baking soda is the culprit - not added table salt. There are several low or no sodium recipes online for pancakes but be sure to select using a no sodium baking powder. One of my favorite websites is lowsodiumcooking.com. There is a no sodium / gluten free baking powder online called Featherweight Baking Powder by Hain Foods. I purchase mine on Amazon as I cannot locate it in the Boise area. In the past I've tried to use a product found at Walmart - Rumford Reduced Sodium Baking Power but the content is still quite high for our needs at 35 mg per 1/8 teaspoon. Most pancake recipes call for a minimum of 2 t of powder which equates to 280 mg per serving size. With syrup is added to the equation it just adds up too quickly for us. If kidney disease is also an issue, do not use a salt substitute as the potassium levels are increased.
You can buy no sodium baking powder and baking soda as far as salt goes I just leave it out but I do whip my yolks and whites separately.
Assuming you are making savoury crepes/pancakes/waffles then missing salt could a big compromize on the flavour/taste. There's no substitue for salt but low-sodium table salt(that contains Potassium chloride). (So I still prefer sea salt). Lemon juice activates the same taste receptors as sodium, so adding a spritz of lemon to your food in place of salt makes biological sense. Anyway it's not a substitute. However for savoury bits, if you can use very little portions (puree) of herbs (e.g. tamerind) that could save the palate...with that sour-saltyness. I use this herb and some others with absolutely less salt to even marinade fish/meat, make pickles.
Low Sodium Salts:
* Morton Lite Salt, 50% less sodium than table salt
* Diamond Crystal Salt Sense, 33% less sodium
But hey! For Sweet pancakes, salt is not a must. Infact never used. As everyone else pointing out you may leave it out for sweeties.
To expand on the lemon juice idea -- other tart or tangy flavors would help to offset the blandness from lack of salt. Sourdough, buttermilk or sour cream pancakes might be good alternatives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.617130
| 2013-02-22T13:00:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32126",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Diana Chapman",
"Ekim",
"Hermit",
"Jacky Vandenburg",
"Joe",
"KDY",
"Linkin",
"Ray",
"Rudolf Adamkovic",
"Sonny",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74041",
"rumtscho",
"user73921",
"vasant"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33094
|
Is it safe to use a propane torch bought at a Hardware store?
I've come across recipes that involve the use of a Butane or Propane torch. Is it safe to use a propane torch bought at the Hardware store, or is there something different about the torches and/or fuel that is sold at a culinary store?
Possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6899/blowtorch-hardware-store-vs-kitchen-store-is-there-a-difference
I don't think that this is a duplicate. The other question does not address food safety concerns specifically.
Propane and butane are pure alkanes. They don't produce anything nasty when burned. The worst you could possibly get should be carbon monoxide (and I am not even sure it can be produced in a torch, the dioxide ifs much more likely), but it being a gas, it won't stick to your food. The complex molecules you get from heating the food itself have more potential for being harmful than the combustion products of a propane butane torch. Ago yes, it is food safe.
Another matter of safety is that it is easier to cause a fire with a hardware store torch, because it has more power than the kitchen ones. But a sensible adult should be able to handle the thing safely.
I agree with the above, just make sure your torch is burning efficiently, i.e. producing a blue flame, not an orange flame, or you may end up with a slightly propane flavored meal.
Might manage to get a little butane monoxide and other such traces, but that's true for the cooking models too.
@Didgeridrew good advice. Of course, good torch in good condition shouldn't even allow inefficient burn.
You will achieve the exact same results and save yourself considerable money getting your propane torch at the local hardware store.
That said, depending on what you are attempting (Crème brûlée, for instance) may take some practice to get it right, but a generic propane soldering torch is fine.
Most generic propane torches from the hardware store are better than those awful butane "crème brûlée torches" you find at kitchen stores, which take forever to do even a single serving.
Yes, you will be just fine food safety wise. The Bernzomatic heads available with the triggers are best for convenience. I actually recommend you look for MAP/MAPP gas which will lessen your risk of "torch-taste" but as was mentioned earlier the food safety issue is not a problem, it's the same propane that your grill uses.
A few tips, always start your torch facing away from your food. There will be a small puff of gas initially that you don't want to hit your food. Keep a nice blue hot flame and wave your torn like you were painting brush strokes on a canvas so you don't get hot spots.
I would be careful with MAPP gas torches. First of all, MAPP itself (metylacetalyne propadiene) is actually no longer produced in the US and most things labeled MAPP are in fact MAPP substitutes. Secondly, all those double and triple bonds (propadiene, acetylene, respectively) are going to produce very unpredictable combustion products. I wouldn't want to eat them. Although its burning temperature is lower, propane torches are likely to be somewhat safer because the combustion of pure alkanes is very clean and usually almost all CO2 and water (maybe a little CO).
pretty much every trusted source I've come across has recommended MAP/MAPP or it's newer equivalent over anything else. Their arguments are actually counter to yours, namely that they burn more completely then butane or propane and will lessen the risk of torch taste. I tend to trust the sources I've come across but to each his own.
That's really interesting! Please do point me to anything you find--I'd love to use the hotter flame. :-)
there's a nice thread on this here http://forum.chefsteps.com/discussion/comment/2082/#Comment_2082
I have worked in the metal industry with both products a map gas seems to me more of a mix of what we concidered waste gas where propane butane are as they said a clean burning natural gases I would use and think would be more safe for direct cooking. Also will get you out of a fix when you have left your lunch and have nothing more than a can of soup. Punchure the top and heat. Hell ive even cooked bbq shrimp for the whole crew with nothing more than aluminum foil and a rosebud hook to a propane tank. Got funny looks while doing it but a whole lotta thank you afterwards and when ya gonna do that again? ....."remember cooking is like sex more imagination you put into it the better it is".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.617613
| 2013-03-29T05:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33094",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan",
"Didgeridrew",
"DxMinds Innovation",
"Erik P.",
"J Grant",
"Jeroen",
"ManifestStefany",
"Mołot",
"The Brain Grow",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"YWILLS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76659",
"jbeldock",
"katherine frank",
"rumtscho",
"sipho Mokoena ka Nodada"
],
"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
}
|
15854
|
Which kind of cream do I use for creme brulee?
I'm following this recipe to make cream brulee: http://www.masterchef.com.au/creme-brulee.htm
I'm a little confused over the correct type of cream to use. They list "thickened cream" but because this mixure will be heated, should I be using "cooking thickened cream", and is it possible to use a light version of the cream, or will this alter the cooking process?
What you want is cream with 35%-40% milkfat, and no gelatine or other stabilizers for whipping. If you use a lighter cream, then it will not have the rich, creamy texture, and evenly thick consistency you seek. In fact, if you use a light enough cream, it will not thicken properly.
Now we enter the murky realm of regional naming differences, trying to find the appropriate kind of cream!
In Australia, this would be called pure cream (35-56% milkfat)... which might be the same as "cooking thickened cream." Read the label and make sure it is just cream, not gelatin or foam stabilizers like "thickened cream". It could also be labelled "single cream" too (~35% milkfat).
In America, we call it heavy cream, or heavy whipping cream, and it is defined as 35%+ milkfat, and is generally around 38%.
In the UK, a recipe I found the uses a mixture of milk and "double cream" (cream with 48%+ milkfat). They mix 100 mL whole fat milk + 426 mL of double cream. The final milkfat content is somewhere around 40%.
In the rest of the EU, the same procedure appears to be the best bet, since I can't find clear names for heavier creams besides double cream (which appears to be the same as the UK).
Edit: You may also be able to get a good result using straight double cream. I'm looking at a French recipe that uses it. The catch is, of course, that while the minimum fat content is specified, actual fat content in double cream can vary considerably, potentially giving erratic results.
I can complete for Italy and France. Double cream is used in both countries (respectively as crème double and panna doppia) for cream with >48% fat. Lighter creams are panna da montare/crème entiere (whipping cream/full cream) with >30% fat; panna da cucina/demi crème (kitchen cream/half cream) with >20% fat. Finally panna da caffetteria/Crème à café (coffee cream) has >10% fat.
I'm in Australia so "cooking cream" sounds like the way to go. Thanks
In Germany, there is double cream (Sahne Doppelrahmstufe or Konditorsahne), but it isn't available for consumers. The whipping cream seldom reaches 35%, it is 30% to 33% depending on brand.
I live in Oregon, USA and can buy whipping cream with either 4 grams fat or 6 grams which is heavier and when used in baking takes longer. The 6 grams also whips much faster and needs less stabelizers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.618025
| 2011-06-30T03:16:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15854",
"authors": [
"Christine",
"Chuckleluck",
"ForeverDebugging",
"Matt Thomas",
"Ron Trunk",
"Steve",
"bfoste01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6629",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25498
|
Can I use gelatine in Creme Brulee
I'm having trouble getting my creme brulee to thicken up. I'm wondering if I should add a little gelatine to the mix.
I had a look around the net and couldn't see anyone doing this, which makes me wonder if it's possible or not. I've a little about gelatine and it seems like it would survive the heat of the oven.
Is there any reason this wouldn't work?
Of course, it wouldn't be Crème Brûlée anymore. The Wikipedia has a decent recipe
Just guessing but I think you are probably not tempering the eggs properly. When you add the hot cream to the eggs you maybe 'cooking' the egg and preventing it from properly thickening the custard. Alton Brown demonstrates a proper creme brulee on Good Eats that may help you get it right rather than finding a fix for doing it 'wrong'.
I agree with @CosCallis, custards should not need stabilizers. I've made dozens of batches of both crème brûlée and crème caramel and have never even once worried about whether or not they'd "survive the heat of the oven".
You can use gelatin, but you then would have to change the process slightly. For a start, you wouldn't bake the custard. Instead you would essentially be making an egg-enriched panna cotta.
You would hydrate the gelatine with cold water, make your custard, then add the gelatine, mix and portion, then set in the fridge. How much gelatine you use depends on how much liquid you are trying to set - using powdered gelatin, one sachet usually sets 570ml.
Of course, that is cheating and you should really bake creme brulee with no gelatin. If you're having trouble getting regular creme brulee to set you may have a bad recipe - try another!
Wouldn't the gelatin react poorly to the heat of the torch when adding the sugar? Causing the top of the creme brulee to liquify and letting the sugar soak in rather than form a crisp crust?
Anything that doesn't survive the 150° C oven is not going to survive a 1500° C blow torch.
Gelatin has a melting point of about 35° C, maximum. It is a thermoreversible reaction, unlike the coagulation of eggs, which is thermoirreversible. Eggs set well in an oven, which is why they are used in so many baking recipes; gelatin does not, which is why it is almost never used in baking recipes (except as a stabilizer for fillings after the baking process is done).
You are definitely barking up the wrong tree here. If your custard is melting as opposed to setting in the oven, then there is something seriously wrong with either your technique or your recipe. The addition of gelatin is unlikely to help and, as stated above, even if it does help the custard set firmer, it then essentially becomes a panna cotta and you will not be able to caramelize sugar on top of it.
Summary: Don't pursue this. Find out where/why your custards are going wrong, and fix it.
Absolutely (future curious people)! Aaronut doesn't know it's usually served below 35 C? Gelatin is compatible with all the ingredients and properties of a custard (it's not acidic and the eggs/diary positively interact with it). It's used in pastry creme, panna cotta, etc. You will have to be mindful of gelatin's gelling requirements: use either instant-disperse kind or follow a blooming procedure (let sit in a minimal amount of cold water for 10 min then add to your other liquids that'll reach 50 C/160 F, e.g., milk/cream). I would start out with 1% w/w of total weight and think about reducing yolk content. Make sure your brulee reaches 176 F, no higher than 185 F (this is done be placing your ramekins on a rack into an open, glass waterbath).
and then what happens when you torch sugar on top, to make a creme brulee?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.618306
| 2012-08-06T05:35:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25498",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bryan",
"CakenGifts.in",
"Claudia Lima",
"Cos Callis",
"Esther",
"Lynn V.",
"Michael Sayapin",
"Tech One",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"zeynel"
],
"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
}
|
15864
|
Why do gazpacho recipes have you put garlic and salt together, then mash with an egg?
Why do gazpacho recipes have you put garlic and salt together, then mash with an egg?
What is the purpose?
Salt acts as a mechanical agent to help you make a paste out of the garlic. It prevents the garlic cloves from slipping against the mortar walls, and helps with the grinding and mashing. Salt+garlic is a common start for a number of mortar/pestle recpies in Spain.
Traditional Gazpacho doesn't have boiled mashed eggs in it
Salmorejo does, it is sort of Gazpacho with eggs and ham
Salmorejo is creamy and mostly blended, but the chopped or coarsely mashed eggs and their flavouring (garlic and salt), and the chopped ham are added last to give a chunky texture
People seem to use Gazpacho to refer to any cold soup?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.618773
| 2011-06-30T23:37:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15864",
"authors": [
"Marco",
"Mario Zharkov",
"decaf",
"helloworld",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33753"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16194
|
Why do you need to cool the filling of a meat pie before adding to the pastry?
Sometimes I don't have time to cool the mixture before adding to my pastry but I can't see a major difference in outcome - the pastry does seem to be a bit more soggy when the mixture is not cooled first.
I'd love to know the specific reasoning behind it.
As you said, the pastry becomes soggy.
You may already know that pastry making requires everything to be cold - the fat, the water, your hands, the board, everything. This is to prevent the fat from melting into the flour prematurely, which results in cardboard-like pastry. When the fat remains cool until cooking, it melts into layers in the pastry as it cooks, making it nice and flaky.
If you put hot filling into your pastry case, you will melt some of the fat prematurely and so the pastry won't be as good as would be if you let it cool.
I +1 but note that if you cook your pastry blind first (without filling) you can then fill immediately with hot filling.
As you can see from the above answers - it depends on the type of pastry you are using.
When you are using a flaky pastry such as puff or rough puff, make sure the filling is cold when you fill it, otherwise the heat of the filling will melt the fat and destroy the layers of fat and gluten and your pastry won't be flaky.
Short-crust pastries will be more forgiving of a warm filling before baking, but it is best to blind bake the shell and work quickly so you don't get a "soggy bottom"!
I don't cool it at all.
I work fast, have everything ready, roll my pastry out, fill it and into the oven. No issues at all.
I blind bake the pastry if I am cooking a custard based product. But for the most part, I keep everything as hot as I can. I fill it, egg wash, and into the oven. I also ensure the baking sheets are hot as well.
Pastry turns out excellent.
I’ll challenge the accepted orthodoxy on this one. Provided your oven is hot enough and your pie dish is shallow the puff pastry will expand even if filling is hot.
Alternatively it is possible to cook the puff pastry separately and when almost done put it over the filling. A lot of commercial kitchens do this.
Your 2nd paragraph assumes that they only want a pot pie, but the question implicitly (adding filling to pastry, not the other way round) wants a proper pie with pastry all round
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.618882
| 2011-07-16T09:53:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16194",
"authors": [
"Asa Molloy",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris H",
"JustAGuest",
"Lucian",
"Nate",
"Rincewind42",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615"
],
"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
}
|
17399
|
Baking two loaves at one time (from Artisan Breads book)- need to change amt of water added?
I'm following a recipe from the Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day book and want to bake two loaves at the same time. For one loaf, you are supposed to add one cup of water to a container in the oven, which steams the bread while baking. If baking two loaves, do I have to increase the amount of water or should one cup be enough?
The water is used to create steam used to promote crust on the surface of the bread. The only reason you would need to increase the water for steam would be if you started using a larger oven.
I have done this a few times already. You may need to adjust baking times slightly. But otherwise it works just as they say. Just make sure you have enough room on your stone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.619125
| 2011-09-01T23:01:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17399",
"authors": [
"Jennifer",
"Leo Lindhorst",
"Panos Kalatzantonakis",
"gaurav parajulee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37417"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21052
|
Easiest way to strain fry oil?
What is the easiest way to strain fry oil?
I strain fry oil so it can be reused.
I've been using cheesecloth put inside a funnel.
It works but it's a bit messy and a hassle. Is there a better way?
Can you use a coffee filter or something like that?
You can buy really large filters for this purpose. It's how some restaurants filter their fry oil on the cheap. We had two conical strainers and put the huge coffee-like filter between the two so it wouldn't slip down as much, also so we could skim out the large bits easier. If you have a laddle you can sorta force it through faster by agitating in a plunger like motion but be careful the oil isn't too hot because it will splash at you.
Places that do alot of frying have a machine that will filter the oil while still really hot and pump it back into the fryer.
For home use I use coffee filters, the biggest I can find, and have a plastic 4 litre storage tub for holding the oil. It takes awhile for it to pass but it keeps it cleaner than a cheese cloth I find.
The more particals you filter out the longer the oil will last before you have to toss it in your diesel truck ;-).
This is accurate as to the best known practices (improvement: could suggest to filter hot oil, not cold). Unfortunately state of the art easiest as well stated here is not easy at all.
Try straining it through tights. That's what my dad used to do when he ran a chip van.
Usually, clean up happens soon after cooking.. meaning hot oil. Wouldn't that melt tights?
The melting point of nylon is 428°F, how hot is your oil exactly?
just take a netted cloth with small pores and strain the oil
Put an ankle high white cotton sock in a bowl with water and microwave to a boil to sanitize. Carefully remove sock and hang to air dry completely. Stretch the DRY sock over a gallon jar (4"+- mason jar type) and secure with a couple of rubber bands around the rim.
Yep, strains it in no time.
I use an old coffee can for the paper towels, sock etc. Put on the top and throw away.
Say "yuk" if you want but it works, it's sanitary and most importantly for me, SIMPLE.
Is that simpler than a cheescloth or paper in a funnel/colander? I think not!
Bud, welcome to Seasoned Advice! As for all new users, let me recommend our [tour] and our [help] as a good place to get started and learn more about this site. And reading your answer, I guess you might also like our sister site Lifehacks, which also appreciates the kind of lateral thinking you showed here.
I use a cheesecloth and a mesh strainer on top of the funnel, and just pour slowly to avoid messes.
Carbon Range Hood Filter $10-$15.00.
I drain my 2 gallon deep fryer into original oil bottles. Next I rinse and wash the deep fryer with hot water.Then I place a metal mesh/carbon filter on the fryer and pour the oil through it quickly and easily. Then wash the grease filter in my dishwasher after rinsing with hot water.
I use a fine mesh metal sieve with a paper towel lining it. I pour into a gallon glass measuring bowl to cool and then into mason jars. In a pinch, I have also used a clean flour sifter. Mine almost fits in the mouth of the mason jar, so I have to be careful not to make a mess.
For some reason, Sunflower oil behaves really well when handled this way, and resists going rancid when I am frying vegetable chips and french fries. It seems to last longer than Soy oil. Maybe it's just me
I bought the Chef's Planet Multipurpose Filter Funnel. It is the best filtering system I have ever used. Will clean over 1 gal of oil in less than 5 minutes with no mess. When finished, throw it in dishwasher and it's done. Is also great for straining stocks.
http://www.chefsplanet.com/multipurpose-filter-funnel-set.html
I use a nylon cloth meant to go over pool skimmer baskets. They are called "Filter Savers" They are strong, reusable, and can be purchased in most swimming pool equipment stores or online.
I filter oil through a piece of paper kitchen roll. It's much finer than a strainer and cheaper than a coffee filter (or my wife's tights!). Place the kitchen roll in a mesh strainer to support it and prevent tearing when you pour on the oil.
I know the question is old. But I don't see this answer there. I recently bought a deep fryer, and wanted to strain & reuse oil after cooking chicken with flour breading. To strain it, I used a simple funnel, cheese cloth, and binder clips. The binder clips secured the cheese cloth to the top of the funnel. I doubled the cheese cloth. The outcome? The strained oil had a used appearance (Not crystal clear) but there was no sediment in the strained oil. And it was fast. My first attempt was with paper filtering in the funnel. Which was not exactly fast. A high capacity fryer was completed in less than five minutes.
Four yards of cheese cloth cost less than seven dollars.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.619250
| 2012-02-04T04:24:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21052",
"authors": [
"Corina Serer",
"Dan Gianella",
"Daniel Mayer",
"Marc Luxen",
"Paulb",
"Shanka Patil",
"Stephie",
"WONDO ARIS NURWANTO",
"awiebe",
"howard gee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63342"
],
"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
}
|
17546
|
Is smoked beef cooked 100%
For the first time in my life I tasted smoked beef. It tasted mostly like ash. It didn't have any raw taste but just wondering when meat is smoked, does it get cooked thoroughly?
If the smoked beef you tried tasted of ash then it was not done right.
If done correctly and cooked to a safe internal temperature then, "YES" it is 100% cooked.
You should note that it is the internal temperature and not just "smoking" that is the rule for "doneness". Smoking can occur at a lower temperature. Smoking can be used to "cure" or preserve beef, as @TFD & @Aaronut point out. These process yield a product that is 'ready to eat' so I would say it is "100% cooked".
Many people don't like their smoked beef "cooked", and it is common in many parts of the world to cold smoke red meat and fish. The smoke chemicals are powerful preservatives, so it does not need to be cooked
Yes, @TFD is right - smoking is more like curing than cooking, which doesn't require heat. It can also mean different things in different places.
@Cos_Callis "cooked" usually refers to heat, especially the characteristic change in proteins. Cold smoking does not in anyway do this, it is purely a surface preservative, the food is still very raw, though somewhat dryer. It is not uncommon to cook cold smoked products before consumption if they have not been cured with salt etc. before smoking. e.g. traditional bacon
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.619677
| 2011-09-07T11:00:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17546",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ina",
"NisplayDame",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jmk",
"pyb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24662
|
Why do steamed avocados taste like eggs?
Today, I was steaming some kale, and decided to try steaming some avocados as well, so I added them for the last 2 minutes of steaming (out of approximately 6 minutes).
To my surprise, the avocados came out tasting exactly like the yolks of hard boiled eggs. The texture was mushier, but the taste was the same.
Does anyone have a good explanation for why this happened?
P.S. I poured a good amount (enough to give a light coat) of extra virgin olive oil onto the kale before steaming.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. As this is a Q&A site, rather than a discussion forum, please try to keep your questions concise and specific and avoid expressions such as "bonus points" (we have a voting system that is tied to actual reputation points).
Fair enough, I suppose if I amass 29k rep then I shall tell stories undisturbed (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4292/is-it-safe-to-eat-a-cooked-steak-that-briefly-touched-the-plate-that-was-holdi)
@MikeK. There's not really a ton of extraneous detail in that question. (Plus it was written two years ago, well before Aaronut had anything close to 29k rep.) But you're of course welcome to edit your question further if you feel Aaronut didn't preserve important aspects of it.
No it's fine I was rambling while still in shock from the avocado. Though having your voice stripped from your question is somewhat disheartening.
If it's any consolation, the most common problem with new-ish members is too little detail, which usually leads to closes, not edits. Plus, you got a few upvotes after the edit. It's fine to add a bit of personality, just don't let it bury the actual question - otherwise your question won't get answered due to the "tl;dr" effect (we know from experience).
If you look around cookbooks you'll find very, very few recipes that involve cooked avocados. They get weird when you try, as you've found out.
@Aaronut - Thanks for the edit, I was just in a grumpy mood yesterday. Pointy - Yea I was actually wondering why no one ever cooks avocados..
Thanks for posting this. I never had any idea what happened if you cooked avocados heavily ... now I know not to.
fascinating. I want to try this now.
It boils down to chemical make up. Avocados, like egg yolks, contain a decent amount of fats, carotenoids, and sulfurous compounds. Avocados are one of the most concentrated fruit sources of fats and fatty acids. Both egg yolks and avocados contain carotenoid phytochemicals like lutein, zeaxathanin, and a-carotene. In avocados the sulphur is mostly in the form of glutathione, would likely break down into its cysteine during steaming. Cysteine is one of the primary sulphur sources in eggs as well.
http://www.avocado.org/new-research-from-ucla-shows-california-avocados-contribute-additional-beneficial-carotenoids-2
Great answer. But I suppose that steaming it together with kale had the most impact. Avocados don't have that much sulfur, while kale is full of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.619840
| 2012-06-24T04:13:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24662",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Mike K.",
"Pointy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7633",
"rumtscho",
"standgale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28444
|
Can I freeze my selfmade focaccia?
In my family I am well known for baking a great focaccia bread, but soon I won't be able to bake for some time, so my idea was to bake a big batch and put it into the freezer. Will that work or will the texture and taste of the focaccia change big time?
I know some people freeze their bread, but the one time I tasted such bread (wholemeal) it wasn't that nice, but I am not sure if it was because of the freezing or because the bread was just rubbish. Also, a focaccia is not a wholemeal bread, so I guess any conclusions based on that experience would be wrong.
Do you have enough time before your bread-baking prohibition starts, to bake a few loaves? If so, you might experiment with various wrappings and combinations of wrappings to find what protects it best. I'm sure the loved ones who appreciate your talents would be happy to help dispose of the experimental extra loaves while waiting for your (hopefully very soon and relatively pain-free! :^D ) recovery.
You can freeze (as < 0 °C / 32 °F) bread and it will last longer. As @FuzzyChef answered, there's even a whole "just baked bread" industry using that method.
The main problem with taking a piece of bread at room temperature and freeze it, is that it must go through the 0~5 °C / 32~41 °F zone. That is the temperature at which bread stales faster (as starches degelation). So, one should try the bread to be at that temperature the least possible time (maybe having small pieces of bread, or having a freezer at the lowest temperature as possible).
The same applies when you defrost the bread. Luckly, that degelation is, up to a point, reversible: If heated above 60 °C / 140 °F it will gelate again. So, better than letting warm up at room temperature, you can put it in an oven or a toaster.
Side note 1: remember to cut the focaccia before freezing it.
Side note 2: frozen bread industry helps itself with this.
I wrote the verbs gelate / degelate, although I'm not very sure if it should be gelatinize / degelatinize.
probably gelatinize/degelatinize. I looked up your links and found them to be very interesting. I learned something new about bread. Thanks!
JAIL, wow, I knew that bread thawed in a hot oven tasted fresher, but I never knew why. Now I know! (and knowing is half the battle)
I'm glad this knowledge opened your mind as it opened mine when I got it. :-)
What's the reason for cutting focaccia before freezing?
@DanielLubarov Cutting frozen food is hard. Having it pre cut before freezing helps you not having to unfreeze the whole focaccia if you only want a bit.
Almost any kind of bread freezes well. Foccacia is no exception, and if your recipe has a high olive oil content, that will even help it resist staleness from freezing and thawing. I suggest that you underbake the loaves you plan to freeze slightly (such as by 5 minutes). This allows you to reheat them by baking them at full temperature. This is called par-baking, and bakeries which ship frozen bread (such as La Brea Bakery in Los Angeles) use this technique to ship fresh-tasting frozen bread. Also, make sure to wrap the bread tightly to minimize ice crystals.
The best way is to par bake the bread (until it's solid but not browned - about 50% of the cooking time) then freeze. If you let the par baked bread cool to room temperature and then freeze it unwrapped until it is hard. Once it's frozen wrap it in cling film (plastic wrap) and aluminium foil
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.620098
| 2012-11-15T22:54:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28444",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Boris Pavlović",
"Daniel Lubarov",
"Drag and Drop",
"FuzzyChef",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MargeGunderson",
"Tai",
"Tammy Seymour Dillingham",
"Yevgeniy Afanasyev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jim Flanagan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75504
|
Nut/sunflower butter and cocoa
A family member mixed sunflower butter, cocoa, sugar and a bit of milk (stirred in, not thoroughly mixed in) and left it in the fridge for quite a long time, a month or so. I want to wash it out but this isn't any sort of botulism risk is it? If it is it would be very hard to clean and I would rather throw out the bowl. I still am confused about leaving something fatty with something else and thinking that it's coating whatever it's mixed with and getting sort of anaerobic. I don't understand why nut butters don't have a problem either but it seems they don't. I know there are commercial chocolate nut butters but I assume they are pasteurized and processed together making them safe.
I did read this question but am still confused. Chocolate and oil mixed
Thank you!
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you concerned about the health risks from washing out the bowl?
Basically yes, as it would be hard to be sure it was all gone off of the dishes, sink, etc. (being greasy). And would there be anything there to be concerned about in the first place or not with foods like nut butters mixed with other substances? Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.620408
| 2016-11-15T06:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75504",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49499
|
Raw chicken 2 hour/4 hour time
I left raw chicken in my car for just under two hours at 11 degrees Celsius (51.8 F) by accident. Apparently this is safe (?) as it is under two hours and the temperature outside is not high. I put it straight in the freezer and then the fridge to cool it quickly. Does this mean I have to be extra careful with this particular piece of meat as there is the four hour total window and two hours is already used up? Thanks!
Edit: The answer to this question helped me. How many times is it safe to reheat chicken?
The "danger zone" is 4.4° C - 60° C, so it was in the danger zone. It should not be left there for more than a total of 2 hours - and yours was 2.
On top of that, freezing does not reset this countdown, it only stops it temporarily. You probably shouldn't eat this piece of meat, it isn't worth the risk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.620545
| 2014-11-03T22:16:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49499",
"authors": [
"Alona Cochran",
"Bengt Sundberg",
"Connie ferris",
"Polly Pozdeev",
"Robert Beeson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118269"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36944
|
How to preserve and ship home made mayonnaise
I am trying to preserve home-made mayonnaise so that it can be shipped to family and friends, without the hassle of putting it in dry ice packs or the like. Is there a way to preserve it and ship the bottled mayonnaise by regular mail or courier?
Might I suggest an alternative course of action? You can save yourself the risks, mess, and shipping weight by mailing your friends and family a packet of seasoning along with simple instructions. You could even pack this in a jar for a fancy occasion. Assembling mayo isn't that difficult and by including the spice mix you give your own personal touch.
Nope. The only way you can really preserve things at home for room temperature storage is by canning in a boiling water bath or pressure cooker, and the heat from that will break the emulsion of your mayonnaise, completely ruining it. On top of this, mayonnaise will also tend to break at room temperature, so it won't work even if you make it safe.
Commercial mayonnaise uses pasteurized ingredients (in particular the eggs), and presumably the manufacturing process takes additional steps to avoid recontamination before it gets sealed up in jars. It also has additional stabilizers to keep it from breaking while sitting around at room temperature. The result is apparently shelf-stable, but even if you add emulsifiers/stabilizers to yours and get it to not break during shipping, I would be really hesitant to assume you've gotten it as bacteria-proof as the commercial stuff.
Commercial mayo is, from a safety standpoint, actually shelf-stable, even once opened. See, e.g., the the last question here (well, maybe it'll eventually grow mold). And the big thing keeping it from separating is precise ratios and very good emulsifying.
... or here is another source saying Hellman's is shelf-stable: http://www.sandwichpro.com/NewsTrends/BuildingTheBiz/Keep-It-On-The-Table!.aspx ... note that appears to be by Unilever, who make the stuff.
@derobert From what I understood, it can still break sometimes, and the ones that hold best are the ones with more emulsifiers than you'd probably have in homemade mayo. I suppose if you add those, and your mayo is sufficiently acidic (I guess that's what keeps it from growing stuff?) it might just survive? But I'd be pretty nervous about it.
Sure. Commercial ones can probably break, and no doubt you can add things to prevent it... Especially if you want to save money on eggs. I'd be really hesitant to assume my home-made mayo was shelf stable, too. At least not without a lot of research.
I am getting ready to send home-made mayonnaise to my daughter in college. My only option, it seems, is to send it over-night. More expense yes, but mayonnaise will last with no problem for a short amount of time out of the refrigerator.
Are you including cold packs to keep the mayonnaise from separating? My homemade mayo always breaks if it sits out for too long.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.620652
| 2013-09-19T15:36:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36944",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Lekhana Lokesh",
"Preston",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29810
|
Vodka for crispy wings - substitute?
This Korean fried chicken recipie uses vodka to prevent gluten formation in the batter, which results in a thin and crispier crust. vodka is expensive. Are there any substitutes?
Will a beer batter do the same thing? Does beer prevent gluten formation?
I can't imagine you would want to use good vodka to make fried wings. And cheap vodka is pretty darn cheap. I can get like 1.75 liter of cheap vodka for like 10 dollars.
Agree with @Jay. Vodka can be incredibly cheap in quantity. You won't get the same effect with a less-alcoholic substitute. The idea is to replace water, which enables gluten formation, with "not water". There's a possibility that a flour-water mixture that's allowed to sit for 24-48 hours will have a similar effect, as the amylase enzymes in flour will weaken gluten or break it down. It just takes a lot longer than making a instantaneous batter with vodka-water-flour.
I'm thinking of this from a business/mass production point of view. Using Vodka would be considerably more expensive. Alton Brown's hot wings didn't use Vodka. He baked them -- and they did come out crispy. However, he also steamed them a bit to render the fat before baking. I didn't like the resulting flavor profile.
Given the science as Kenji Alt explained it in his article, the key fact of the vodka is that it is 80 proof, or 40% alchohol.
So beer, which usually is on the order of 4 to 6 percent alcohol (yes, there are outliers) will not have the same level of inhibition of the gluten formation.
The vodka is not the only factor in the recipe leading to crispiness and good crust, so you will probably still get very good results with the beer, assuming you like the flavor profile it brings to the wings, but it won't be quite the same.
If you use another liquer that is on the order of 80 proof, again assuming you like the flavor profile, you should get quite similar results. This would include mixing grain alcohol with water or orange juice or whatever to the appropriate ratio.
Other than some white wine for cooking, though, I don't buy spirits so I don't what would be more economical--and that might vary from region to region.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.621011
| 2013-01-07T01:00:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29810",
"authors": [
"CookingNewbie",
"Jay",
"Nneka Nneky",
"SwadeshBD Int'l Ltd.",
"Thomas",
"Tspoon",
"ali",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"penny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25977
|
What does kansui do to dough in noodle making?
I'm trying to understand how to properly prepare hand pulled noodles. I've read about Kansui and Lye water and in some instances I've read that they serve a similar purpose. However, after some reading, it seems that kansui could potentially affect the dough differently than lye water. Some expert insight into this would be appreciated very much.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9072/what-flour-and-technique-do-i-need-for-hand-pulled-noodles
What is kansui?
The link TFDs comment explains kansui. Thank you for the link TFD I'll review
Kansui is a mixture of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate, both alkaline. Since lye is also alkaline, it could serve a similar function in the dough but it would depend on the relative strengths of their alkalinity.
Specifically, alkaline water interfere with enzymes in the flour and thus inhibit the development of gluten, allowing for the dough to be stretched more readily. That being said, you need some gluten development or else the dough won't form.
Alkaline water also will change the color yellow and make the noodles slippery on your tongue. This reaction is the same one that would take when you combine soap with water.
Harold McGee wrote an article in The New York Times about the effects of alkalines.
All this being said, I've only made ramen style noodles, not the hand pulled ones. Your best bet would be to try both and see whether there truly is a difference or not... but I imagine the most traditional method would be to use kansui or jian.
In accordance to this page the lye water only has a minor effect on the ability to pull the noodles:
http://www.lukerymarz.com/noodles/ingredients.html
Lye water is supposed to be the secret ingredient in hand pulled
noodles. I've tried recipes with it and without it, and it does not
make the dough any easier to pull. In fact, if you use too much of it,
you'll make the dough IMPOSSIBLE to pull. Something about the basic
nature of it causes the gluten to tighen up.
Adding lye water or baking soda at about 1% (more will ruin the dough) will adjust the texture of the noodles a bit. The flavor is supposed to be slightly different, too, but I haven't noticed a difference.
Your question is from 2012. What did you learn from your experiments? :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.621216
| 2012-09-04T09:22:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25977",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Drake",
"Cynthia",
"PoVa",
"TFD",
"Theorian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66323"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22003
|
My butterscotch pie filling curdled?
I was making a butterscotch pie for the weekend, by following a recipe from the net. The ingredient list was
1 cup dark brown sugar
1/4 cup cornstarch
1/4 teaspoon salt
4 cups half-and-half cream -- (used UK double cream)
5 egg yolks , seperated slightly beaten save whites for Meringue
1/4 cup butter , sliced up
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
I followed the instructions (I think correctly).
In saucepan combine brown sugar, cornstarch, and salt. Whisk in half & half.
Whisk constantly over medium heat till mix is thick and bubbly.
Cook an additional 2 minutes. Remove from heat.
Gradually whisk about 1 cup of the hot mix into the egg yolks, whisking all the time.
Add this back into the rest of what is in the pan.
Bring to a gentle boil. Reduce heat and cook and whisk for an additional 2 minutes.
Remove from heat and whisk in butter and vanilla till well mixed.
Let cool a bit, whisk and pour into pie shell and set aside.
Just after the last remove from heat and just before whisking in the butter, I needed a call of nature. When I got back the mixture had separated into what looked like curdled milk and an oily fat like substance. I tried just whisking the lot, but it refused to recombine, so I poured off the oil. The remaining substance (with a little oil) whisked fine when reheated slightly, so I added the butter and vanilla and carried on.
The pie came out tasting fine. But after the pies had been topped and cooled, there was a slight layer of oil onto of the set butterscotch, but beneath the meringue. Pouring the oil off the pies gently, got rid of that problem.
This is the first time that I have had such a monumental departure from a recipe I have been following (probably luck so far). But can anyone see anything wrong with either the recipe / instructions or suggest what I have did wrong.
I would think the likely problem is that you used double cream, so the butterfat content was too high. Half and half cream is more like UK single cream.
Sounds reasonable. I will have to make another one and try single cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.621418
| 2012-03-05T10:30:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22003",
"authors": [
"Andrew Norman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7640"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17192
|
Best way to reheat pizza
Whats the best way to reheat leftover pizza? We usually use Boboli Crust with our own toppings, or sometimes we have frozen pizza.
Oh you're missing out -- cold leftover pizza is quite the treat! In fact, I look forward to having leftover pizza just so I can eat it cold the next day.
@Cos is right, a pizza stone is great - so is a pizza screen in the oven.
If I don't want to heat up the oven (big oven, little piece of pizza aways seems like a waste), then a cast iron pan over medium heat on the stove with a lid does pretty well.
definitely like this idea for small jobs (1-2 pieces)
I have always had the most satisfactory results from preheating the oven to 400F with a pizza stone and then setting the cold pizza on the hot stone for 8 to 10 minutes?
Since I prefer thin crust pizzas, oven re-heating often results in something resembling a burnt cracker with some half-cold toppings on it.
To avoid this, I "fry" leftover pizza to reheat it: I place a tiny bit of oil or butter into the bottom of a non-stick skillet, add slices of pizza, cover, and place over very low heat until the cheese is re-melted.
This method allows the pizza to warm and steam gently, while also ever-so-slightly frying the bottom of the crust, so one ends up with something very near the consistency of a fresh slice rather than a dried-out, inconsistently-warmed leftover.
This technique works with everything from thin crust to deep-dish pizza; only the reheating times are different.
If you just want to reheat a slice or two, you can warm it in the microwave for 30 seconds to a minute and then put it in a toaster oven on toast or a hot oven setting for a few minutes. It's best in the toaster oven if you put the slice(s) on the broiling rack on top of the baking sheet.
I'm going to heartily recommend against the microwave. Seems to make the crust chewy.
@philosodad: the toaster oven more or less cancels out the chewiness that the microwave would add. The microwave/toaster oven approach is definitely about balancing convenience with quality. The toaster oven alone gives a somewhat better overall result but takes longer.
@amcnabb You are right. The combo of both the toaster oven and the microwave is key (microwave alone means it comes out chewy and soggy, toaster alone is either burnt or not heated all the way through) - together the microwave quickly warms it and the toaster oven undoes the sogginess created by the microwave - making it golden brown and delicious.
I like to put a heavy sheet pan in the oven and preheat it to 350°F. Then I just slide my leftover slices onto the hot pan and bake for 5 minutes. The hot pan crisps up the bottom of the crust and the hot oven does the rest. Does a nice job of bringing a good slice of pizza back to life.
I found that a short burst in the microwave heats up up the whole piece. Then, you have to immediately put it into a very hot oven to get it crispy on the outside. (You said "the best way", not the most energy efficient.)
I use an oven at 250°F for a longer period of time--usually about 15 minutes, with the pizza either in or on tin foil. This seems to work well, it heats the pizza but doesn't toast the crust.
I hope you mean 250 F, not C.
With a waffle iron!!!
Leftover Pizza + Waffle Iron = Delicious Crispy, Gooey, Cheese-Stuffed Snack
For larger amounts of leftover frozen thin crust pizza- Line a medium/large baking pan/sheet that has at least 1/4 inch vertical sides on it with tin foil. Use middle rack. If two baking pans are used, use rack positions 1 and 4. 1 being the lowest rack, 4 being the higher one. Preheat oven on Convection/Bake at 425F to 450F. After preheating oven, place frozen thin crust pizza on baking pan/s. Put pan/s in oven and heat for approx 30 minutes. Check at 20 minutes to make sure not to over cook. Enjoy!
Pizza stone on 350 for 10 minutes. Or if your lazy and don't own a pizza stone, like me, toaster oven on toast for however long it takes too heat, crisp up and not burn.
Welcome to the site! It seems your answer doesn't contain a new suggestion - if you agree with what others wrote, you would upvote their answer(s), not repeat it. On the other hand, if you can explain in your answer why your approach is the best, it might be interesting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.621606
| 2011-08-27T18:59:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17192",
"authors": [
"Anderson Tsuma",
"Camera Mike",
"Cos Callis",
"DavChana",
"Elin",
"Jhonatan Puerta rendon",
"Jill Thomas",
"Mark Joseph Izon",
"Maxine Piggott",
"Mint-Trip",
"Rose Shoestock",
"Sleepy Hollow",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"Taylor Rhoades",
"WetlabStudent",
"amcnabb",
"ddrace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9482",
"immaculate",
"lash",
"philosodad",
"rumtscho",
"user71935"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14127
|
Fiddlehead toxicity
I'm curious if anyone has some experience with fiddlehead toxicity. Wikipedia has it listed as "may harbour microbes, and should be washed and cooked before eating."
Most reports I'm reading online say they should be washed well and cooked for at least 10 minutes.
Now I used to eat these raw, or at most, just sautéed a little. I had a few sautéed lightly last night without any ill effects as well.
I've never been one to shy away from food just because I might be ill. After all, being ill is just part of trying new things. Still, I'm curious what the community has found.
The Source (you know which it is, right?*) says that toxicity has been proven - for a single species of fern. The exact quote is
A common species especially enjoyed in Japan and Korea, the bracken fern Pteridium aequilinium, has been found to contain a potent DNA-damaging chemical. It should be avoided. Stalks of the ostrich fern, varikous species of Matteuccia, are thought to be safer to eat.
and on another page
Bracken-fern toxins caise several blood disorders and cancer in animals that graze on this common fern (Pteridium)... Matteucia... are thought to be safer... but there's little solid information about the safety of eating ferns. It's prudent to eat fiddleheads in moderation...
So if you believe him, make sure you know they come from the correct kind of fern. I guess this isn't a problem with supermarket bought vegetables.
Nowhere (or in no location mentioned in the index under fiddleheads) does he mention an unusually high contamination of microorganisms. But if you are afraid of them carrying dangerous agents on the outside, I think that they, when grown in the wild, will harbor the usual suspects carried by animal waste (E. coli, parasites like liver flukes or tenia). But I doubt that they will be higher than from other vegetables picked from the countryside (nettles, sorrel, dandelions).
*McGee on food and cooking
I've never heard of them containing any sort of special microbe. They're just plants, and, since they tend not to be grown in gardens (which, by their nature, often have more weird bacteria/chemicals/etc) I'd think they would be less likely to be toxic.
Unless your woodland is near some sort of environmental hazard, I wouldn't worry about any sort of toxicity. Gathering has a bad reputation in the US: we like to think food should come from the store.
There have been reports of toxicity, however they haven't been able to identify any agent, and the incidence is vanishingly small. To me, that just suggests that a wild boar look a leak on some of them, and they weren't well washed. As far as I'm concerned, this is in the category of salmonella in eggs: I'm not going to stop eating caesar salad (or chocolate mousse!) because of a half a percent chance of getting a bad egg (and the odds of getting salmonella are vastly higher than whatever this is).
+1 good point. i'm amazed at how few people know what is / isn't edible in their area.
@Stephano I don't know anything about fiddleheads to be honest, but I agree that so few people know what is edible around them. So many people would starve without their Walmart super grocery. Too few of us take the time to learn what's around them. I am constantly identifying everything as I walk around and if I don't know what it is, I find out. Good for you on that, seriously. I tell my girlfriend, if the lights go out you want me around cause we'll always have food. It may not be ribeye and mashed potatoes, but you'll never go hungry.
Being familiar with the native edibles will not prevent mass starvation, as the population density in most places is simply too high. Even the very sparse native populations in the U.S. sometimes experienced periodic famines.
Bracken Ferns have a well identified carcinogen that can cause esophageal cancers. We tend not to harvest these in North America.
Fiddleheads (properly, the Ostrich Fern) tend to grow in wetlands which are subjected to spring floods. If there is any contaminate in the floodwater (think cattle operation upstream) then the fiddlehead would be exposed to that contaminate.
Fiddleheads should also never be picked near a roadside, train tracks or hydro line. In fact, no wild foods should be taken from these areas ever!
If you are confident of the area you are foraging in or have purchased from a reputable company like Norcliff, the fiddlehead can be eaten raw after normal washing.
I was just looking up this post because last night I was up for six hours on the toilet after eating a pound of fiddleheads.
I have eaten them since I was 5 or 6. I have always loved them - well cooked with a little butter, lemon and salt. A delicacy. I live Southern Ontario and ours come from the ostrich fern which appears shortly after flood waters recede on the Ganaraska river. I was fishing and picking and eating them raw last week end - no problem. Last night I ate too many, there is no doubt. I think the vast quantity just set off a gastro reaction. I don't know where these ones came from - they were purchased at a farmer's market.
I usually eat 3 - 5 cups of raw veggies each day. So, I don't have a problem with raw veggies.
So, I chalk it up to experience - moderation in everything.
Tapio
Moderation indeed. I've had these again from my local grocer recently. Again, ate them raw, and again, no problem. That being said, I can't say I've ever consumed more than a dozen or so. GI problems are no fun. Hope you're feeling better!
My husband, myself and my son all developed terrible sickness within 4 hours of eating lightly cooked fiddleheads. We now have been diagnosed with blood parasites which will take a good month to clear. We will never eat fiddleheads again.These were served in one of Canada's top restaurants and after contacting the restaurant were telephoned by government Food and Safety people. This was taken very seriously by all concerned.
Hello and welcome to the site! You could lend credibility to your post by adding the name of the "blood parasites". (No, we don't need the name of the restaurant.) Hope you'll get well soon!
All raw foods can harbor toxic microbes, especially those that grow underground. The antidote is a "kill step" of heat or irradiation. Since most of us don't irradiate foods at home, simply cooking raw products to 165F interior temp for 7 seconds will kill most pathogens. The notable exception being botulism spores which are common in soil, but they will not hatch and grow in the presence of oxygen so there is little risk. As cooks experienced with sous vide cooking know, you can pasteurize foods at lower temps if they are held there for long periods of time. I like to boil fiddleheads for about 3 minutes to paseurize them, shock them in ice water, and then sautee with butter and serve on cheesy pasta, especially primavera. Never eat them raw. The risk is too great.
Apart from the risk of bacteria and fungal spores that may be lurking in the tightly curled fronds of the Fiddlehead ferns (this means ONLY ostrich ferns - no other kind).
There are many soil and waterborne parasites that may also be there due the nature of the sites where Fiddleheads like to grow. If you like playing roulette with your health you may not die from eating them raw, but it truly is not a good idea.
Welcome to SA! You're responding to a topic that is over 10 years old, and already has an accepted answer. Maybe try answering some more recent questions?
I agree with Satanicpuppy. I've lived in Maine and harvested them there without an issue. I also didn't get them near factories or paper mills... just near my house. That's the best advice I could give you as far as gathering them.
As far as if you got them from a store, well, probably a slightly higher chance. I've eaten them raw from the store as well and never had a problem. However I do know one woman who got sick after eating them from a grocery store. That being said, I also know at least half a dozen people who've gotten sick from eating raw seafood from a grocer.
I'd be interested to know if the community here has any idea why these plants can harbor microbes so well. I've searched around the internet a bit and can't seem to find any serious tests or studies. This leads me to believe that when more than 1 person gets sick from eating something, people suddenly think it needs to be cooked until tasteless :) .
+1 ha ha, indeed. I've been sick at least 2 or 3 times from raw seafood, and I'm not stopping anytime soon :) .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.622016
| 2011-04-18T21:03:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14127",
"authors": [
"Barbara",
"Escoce",
"FuzzyChef",
"Herb",
"Ian",
"John Peterson",
"Jon",
"Nate Lambert",
"Pamela Hilbert",
"Stephano",
"Stephie",
"William K.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94239",
"kay",
"kreemoweet"
],
"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
}
|
42454
|
Should I add salt to my sauerkraut recipe if I add vegetables?
I am following a sauerkraut recipe which calls for a specific amount of salt. They say I can add other vegetables, like carrots. Do I need more salt if I add more vegetables?
Are you making sauerkraut from scratch (fermenting it)?
If you are fermenting sauerkraut, then you should keep the salt content the same if you add other vegetables. The salt helps keeping undesirable bacteria in check, so you probably don't want to "dilute" it. Increase the amount of salt so the ratio between cabbage/vegetables and salt stays the same.
TL;DR: Treat any additional vegetables like cabbage when calculating the amount of salt.
The salt amount usage will depends to the weight of the vegetables and water.
For example, if your current recipe calls for 2 lb. of cabbage, but now you are planing to do less cabbage and substitute that amount with carrots, then you don't need more salt.
However, if you would use 2 lb. of cabbage (according to recipe) and wish to put 1 lb. carrots into your mix, then naturally, you will need more salt, since you have to use more water to cover the additional vegetables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.622903
| 2014-03-02T19:11:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42454",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"Nicholas G",
"Q Q",
"Questnex Technologies",
"Spammer",
"Trish Hill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99184",
"richard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20524
|
Are stainless steel frypans oven safe?
I have a Cr-Ni stainless steel frypan which I'd like to toss in the oven. It doesn't have any plastic/wooden components ; the whole thing is SS including the handle.
Is it oven safe?
Typically "oven safe" indicates that none of the components will break down in high heats. As there are no plastic or wooden components, and the utensil is all metal, it would appear that it is oven safe. Assuming there are no other chemical compounds used in the fry pan that would break down you should be good to go and toss it in the oven as long as you wear a mitt when you pull it out.
In addition to wearing a mitt when you pull it out, as soon as you put it down (especially if it's on a burner to make a pan sauce), stick a mitt over the handle (as though the handle was a hand). This prevents you grabbing the hot metal 15 seconds later when it's being an ordinary pan on a burner/counter that you have seen many times before and that never has a hot handle. (BTDT got the burn.)
Or get one of those thermal handle socks, Lodge makes them to resist temperatures up to 450'F and proof against steam burns
Teflon, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon#Safety , is prone to releasing highly poisonous gases once heated to above 260°C (which ovens can pull off easily).
@Mischa There's plenty aroundabout Teflon's (+/-)safety and although I refer to "chemical compounds" generally, I do not think that by virtue of the pan having a Teflon coating it should be deemed necessarily "unsafe for oven use". Also, that is 260'C (500'F) with nothing in the pan. Per the answer to the second question, you can probably create a nice toxic plume, but you'll also be violating common sense and destroying the pan. Don't heat it above 500'F
@MischaArefiev: This isn't a non-stick pan, so I'm good
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.623039
| 2012-01-17T14:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20524",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Jacob",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Valentina Varga",
"Vitor Borges",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41663
|
How to bake a sponge cake in a grill microwave oven
How can we bake a sponge cake in a grill microwave oven where there no preheating functionality? It's an Electrolux grill microwave oven. Is there any substitution to the preheating process?
If you are sure that your oven can turn the microwaves completely off, then use it like any other toaster oven. Turn the microwaves off so only the heat elements are on, turn to the temperature you need, let it "bake" for 10 minutes without anything inside. It is preheated. Bake the cake as usual. Be aware that, if the heating elements are on top only, you probably won't get a good cake. Cakes can be made in toaster/grilling ovens, but need heat from both below and above, or in the worst case from below only.
If you don't have temperature controls for the grill, you can risk a try, but it is unlikely that the temperature will be suited for a cake.
If you can't turn off the microwave function (and sadly, there are even some ovens which have a button for it but still use microwaves when it is selected), there is no way you can bake cakes with it. You need another oven for any dough then, your options start with toaster ovens at ca. 50 Euros.
I have Electrolux grill microwave. But I can bake with this microwave its amazing I can make tandoori food soup boil reheat steam I can make pizza also with this microwave I can make cookies also with this microwave if you want to bake I think that I can help you if you want to make pizza press combi mode for 10 minutes if you want to bake cake the same thing you can do it for 25 to 30 minutes to make cookies press grill but don't use any grill tray place the Cookie dough on the microwave glass plate for15 minutes off the microwave turn the cookies and on microwave grill mode for 6-8 minutes and then on micro mode maximum for 1 minutes and cookies are ready if you want to want to preheated the oven you can press grill or micro mode
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.623229
| 2014-02-01T13:48:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41663",
"authors": [
"Geo Angelopoulos",
"Spammer",
"Yan",
"ayse aks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97212",
"Мария Сенченко"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1854
|
What to do with seized / split chocolate?
My kids love making brownies, but every now and then the water gets into the bowl while they are melting the chocolate. The chocolate then seizes or splits, and you have a sodden mess.
Can this chocolate be used for anything?
At the moment, it just goes in the bin.
If you're not talking about very much water getting into the bowl, then these techniques should help.
Remove the bowl of chocolate from the heat source.
For every ounce of chocolate, add one tablespoon of one of these: warm water, melted butter, vegetable oil, hot milk/cream.
Stir or whisk until smooth. Add a bit more liquid if needed.
Use the repaired chocolate for sauce, frosting, or a batter (like for your brownies!). It won't work well for coating candy.
You may also want to check out this discussion on how to melt chocolate without getting it wet.
If it was just a few drops of water, keep mixing for two or three minutes while keeping the chocolate warm. The water will evaporate and the chocolate will remix. If it is more water, use it as @JustRightMenus suggested.
At the very least, put it in a sauce pot with some milk for killer milk chocolate. Or:
Eat it right out of the bowl.
Put it inside a rolled up puffed pastry/pie dough for a homemade strudel/thingy.
Mix with eggs, flour, oil, and milk for chocolate cake.
I found this thread looking for a solution to the sample problem... Over cooked my whitenchocolatE. From advice of the entry regarding adding water and oil, I mixed In peanut butter. The mixture softened up and coated some crackers quite well! It was for eating, not for selling so I can't say how it turned out for presentation, but it was delish. Thanks for the hints folks.
A tiny small amount of thick coconut oil works perfect. Stick in microwave for 15 seconds at a time mixing it thouroghly each time till you get the desired meltyness. Use for whatever.
My ganache sauce split (chocolate and cream) as I overheated it. I put it into my Vitamix and blended until smooth again.
It was PERFECT again!!!!! Sacher tort looked amazing with shiny glaze.
Homemade Cadbury Flakes
Cadbury Flakes are a chocolate bar that is made from a thin layer of seized chocolate curled and twisted up into a bar shape. This is why they burn rather than melt, and crumble in your mouth.
Here is a video by a food scientist discussing the method by which she reverse engineered this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdaKrT9x1Zc&t=902s
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.623511
| 2010-07-18T22:07:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1854",
"authors": [
"Kamiel Wanrooij",
"Mnementh",
"Paul Wagland",
"akond",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6353"
],
"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
}
|
10992
|
How long will a sourdough starter last between feedings?
I'm using a sourdough starter from the recipe in Peter Reinhart's Artisan Breads Every Day and I have gone through several of the rebuilding cycles with it. It's been working fairly well for me and I have been refreshing it every week. It is stored in an airtight container in the fridge.
How long can the starter be left in the fridge without being refreshed before it's un-salvageable and would need to be thrown out?
How much starter do you have? I imagine this will influence the length of time it can last
According to Reinhart's Whole Grain Breads, you can pretty much always refresh a starter, it just takes more work after 2 weeks.
I would be concerned about storing in an "airtight" container. To the best of my knowledge, the lactic acid bacteria in a sourdough are aerobic. If you store in an airtight container, you risk growing anaerobic bacteria -- which produce toxins that remain after cooking. My personal favorite was a glazed stoneware crock with a loose-fitting lid. And a box of baking soda to keep down nasty odors in the fridge.
The following is paraphrased from Andrew Whitley's excellent book Bread Matters
Wheat leaven
If you intend to use within 2 days, store the it at ambient temperature
For 2-14 days, store it in the fridge. Optionally refresh it before use.
For longer, refresh then freeze. Refresh again after thawing.
Rye sourdough
0-3 days -- ambient temperature
3-30 days -- fridge, no need to refresh
Longer -- refresh then freeze. Refresh again after thawing.
Whitley describes "constructive neglect". He keeps a rye sourdough in his fridge that's several months old, so that he can demonstrate to students how easily he can take 50g of it and produce a lovely sourdough from it within 16 hours.
It's a great book.
+1 for 14 days as the upper limit in the fridge, but I'd say you'll definitely want to refresh before trying to make bread with a culture that old. Or you'd need to allow more time for the initial rise. I'd say after 14 days on a bread or A/P flour starter you're more in the area of risky neglect than constructive neglect. You're not risking that all the yeast will die as much as you're risking an infection of bad bacteria or mold.
I've had mine sit for six months or more without feeding and still have life in it.
Don't use such an old one for bread though. Do a thorough wash of it first. Otherwise it'll taste like poop in a gym sock.
How do you wash a starter?
Take a little bit of the starter, add flour/water, and toss the rest. Do it 2+ times before using. Refreshes and strengthens it. By the time you're done the old:new ratio should be enough to remove any bad characteristics from super-old, over-fermented starter
How do you know what poop in a gym sock tastes like? Just kidding! I agree whole-heartedly. I can take mine out of the fridge after months of neglect and have it back in shape within a day.
It should last for a couple of weeks without feeding. You should feed it at least twice before using it again though. Probably the safest thing to do is take a little of the starter and use it as an experiment; keep one bit for a week without feeding and see if it works, and another bit for two, etc.
In the fall, I made about five loaves of sour dough bread with a starter a friend gave me. Over the holidays, the starter was in the fridge for about five weeks without my using it. Then, after feeding it twice, it seemed to be back to normal and I made a standard sour dough white bread. It rose beautifully and looked great. However, it did not taste great. It was not bad, but nothing special. I'll make another loaf soon and see what happens. AL
According to thejoykitchen.com , it can go at least a month. I have had excess starter that I made in the refrigerator now for 4 weeks, took some of it out, stirred in the 'hootch' on top, lightly fed it some very thick 'dinner'...(nearly as thick flour to water ratio as I could mix together and still have it look like an extremely way too thick pancake batter), and put it back into the fridge. It bubbled slightly, but not enough to overflow the container.
I have also read that even at some months, it is still totally salvageable, though I have yet to try it. I will be testing my starters saved in different containers in the fridge to verify what to do when. You can also dry your starter, and I have ordered parchment paper to do this on. Hope that helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.623745
| 2011-01-13T10:09:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10992",
"authors": [
"Bruce Brenda Mizera",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"Edward Strange",
"Hans",
"Matt",
"Matt Harris",
"NBenatar",
"Nathanael",
"Pia",
"Salami King",
"Todd Hunter",
"beast666",
"erickson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67218",
"justkt",
"kdgregory",
"user22543"
],
"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
}
|
18732
|
How does the number of eggs affect a cookie recipe?
If a chocolate chip cookie recipe calls for two eggs and I add three eggs, what will the effect be on my cookies?
Likewise if it calls for two eggs and I only put in one egg what will the effect be?
Eggs contribute to better texture, leavening and they extend shelf life. More eggs = moister (sp!) cookie. Eggs are also crucial in building structure. They are about 75% moisture, 12% protein, 10% fat and 2ish % sugar.
The white provides strength, stability and moisture.
Yolks, where all of the fat is in an egg, increase richness, tenderness and flavor.
Therefore, if you put an extra egg, you will get a chewier cookie. I do it all the time. If you put less, you will get a more crumbly cookie.
Another trick is to use extra large or jumbo eggs, even though most recipes call for large. There is only about 10-15% more egg 'stuff' per egg, but it can make your baked goods a little moister without making the dough too gooey. My mother does this all the time, and we all know Mom's cookies are the best. I usually just have large eggs around the house for various reasons, but using larger eggs has never been a problem in my experience.
My take is that eggs will promote a SOFTER cookie, not necessarily a CHEWIER cookie. Soft cookies and chewy cookies are not the same. Soft means a slightly more cake-like texture. Chewy has more substance to it; takes longer to chew! Neither is crumbly or hard. I wonder if others agree.
I think if doubling the batch of chocolate chip cookies, one should also add egg whites to lend stability and hold cookie together. Too few eggs will make dough crumbly.
The more eggs, the more cakelike a brownie or cake recipe will become.
The less eggs, the more moist and dense it will be.
Eggs cause fluffiness.
Nope. Whipped egg whites (or even whipped whole eggs, to some degree) add fluffiness, sure. But just stirred/beaten into the other ingredients? They add fat and moisture, and they're not adding any air. They're not going to make a cookie fluffy.
and generally in cookies, flour contributes to a cake-like texture. Whole eggs generally make a cookie chewier.
This is not a forum, answers should be standing on their own ground to the original question, not interjections against other answers.
@LarsViklund Yes, it starts with "wrong" and obviously was replying to something. But it also makes a specific claim about what the answer to the question is (eggs make things cakelike and fluffy), so it is also certainly an answer.
Perhaps editing to remove the "wrong" portion would be appropriate? That would make this a stand-alone complete answer. pdavidson could then separately "Reply" with a Comment to the answer he thought was "wrong".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.624135
| 2011-11-03T01:13:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18732",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Cascabel",
"Fer",
"J.Mike",
"JSM",
"Jay Sidri",
"Kim Smith",
"Lars Viklund",
"MoxieB",
"Paul",
"Puzzle84",
"SherylHohman",
"SourDoh",
"Steve Edgar",
"Zaeem Murtaza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91507",
"trippt02"
],
"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
}
|
20704
|
Mushy sushi surimi texture?
I've noticed a difference between most places when I go out for sushi compared to when I make it myself.
The crab sticks / surimi in maki rolls when I go out seem to have a much more mushy texture - however, I haven't found much information on what to do differently to achieve this.
Could it be that they chop it up and mix it with mayo or something?
You can kind of knead them a little with your hand. Just roll them on the board to break up the "fibers"
Since surimi is made of finely chopped fish reassembled and kept together (usually with additives), I suppose you can blend a few sticks and then recompose them, maybe adding a natural thickener like egg or cornstarch.
Please note that crabmeat and surimi are very different, the first is actually crab while the latter is white-flesh fish shaped to resemble something else, e.g. a claw or a shrimp's tail.
By the way, my suggestion here is to use real raw fish, your sushi will taste great.
Using raw fish comes with a whole host of safety concerns that making veggie and cooked-fish sushi does not, first and foremost being the need to source your fish appropriately. For that reason, many people only eat raw-fish sushi that's been prepared by a professional even if they make their own sushi at home.
I usually do use raw fish in addition to surimi :-)
@Yamikuronue I wasn't aware of that. In Italy it is perfectly normal to buy and eat raw fish, of course while keeping in mind safety concerns about parasites and bacteria.
RasmusKL, that's a great suggestion to keep the bill low :)!
@m.bagattini Most fish sold in US and UK markets isn't sushi-grade, and thus can't be confirmed safe for raw consumption, like most other meats. For me, I'd have to mail-order flash-frozen fish, overnight delivery in a refrigerated container, from a sushi supply place online, which gets pricy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.624404
| 2012-01-23T15:37:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20704",
"authors": [
"Phyllis",
"RasmusKL",
"Yamikuronue",
"aashii",
"ccalboni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"user45512"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18777
|
How to transport several pies?
I want to bring 6 pies to work. Last month, I thought I found a solution - a 3-tiered plastic pie carrier. Now I can't find it online anywhere, though I could swear it was on Target.com. Anyone have any ideas? I live in NYC and don't have a car. I'm thinking I'll take a cab, but getting them in and out in one trip (stacked somehow) would be nice.
Note: I have found double pie carriers, but am looking for triple since I have 6 and only two hands.
I may not get a vote for this (hell, possibly a downvote), but....
Can't you just buy some bamboo steamer baskets from a chinese grocery and figure a way to stabilize them while they are stacked together? They are available in many sizes, and I am sure this little hack would work just fine.
Also, having checked google, there are very few inexpensive options.
PS I like your name, it's spelled the cool way, just like my wife.
That's a good idea, one of Martha Stewart's I think. You could stack 3 and duct tape them round to keep them together.
Oh God, I'm channeling Martha Stewart now. That would explain why I feel this sudden surge of power....
Don't forget to file your tax return...
And dominate male staff memebers...
You can get 6 pizza boxes and use them to transport the pies.
This is probably more expensive than you want to go, but Peterboro Basket does a rather nice three tier pie carrier, recommended by NYC's own piemasters, Bubby's:
http://www.peterborobasket.com/p-950-peterboro-3-pie-solid-lid.aspx
If you're on a budget, perhaps try getting 6 regular pie/cake boxes and 'lashing' them together with string (2 stacks of 3), using the string to carry them.
Links dead now!
Here's a stackable pie carrier that will carry up to four pies or 1 cake and 1 pie.
http://www.amazon.com/Fresh-Keeper-Dual-Food-Tote/dp/B0039MDTDG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hg_1
My husband made a "pie box" one weekend for me when I was going to a cottage for a girls weekend and the only access to it was by boat and I had 5 pies to bring, it is made of wood, but looks great and works wonderful!
Editor's note: the OP never returned; we think maybe something like this:
tldr: boxes from cake shops, then different ways (bags, straps, string) & considerations for carrying them (if all going to one place or multiple, if you're carrying other stuff, too)
...
Cake shops, if they sell supplies, will sell boxes of various sizes. Get 6 of them just large enough to fit your pies (meringue or other tall pies will need a taller box). Once the pies are in boxes things become much, much easier. You might have a gym bag that's large enough to fit them all laying flat. You might have some large grocery bags where they can safely fit flat for you.
If you can't find anything suitable, you can stack them up and tie them together. Make sure to leave enough string to tie loops at the top as carrying handles (and make sure they're well-tied). Things fare much better when held like a pendulum -- if they get bumped, they swing rather than smashing up against the box. I've also been known to put a square of anti-slip shelf liner under cake boards when transporting them, to lower the risk
Load the pies into the boxes, stack them up, and tie them together. Once it's tied well, use the excess string to tie loops for a handle at the top, and make sure it's tied well on both ends.
Depending on the weight of the pies, and what else you'll be carrying, you might want to tie them into one large stack, but when carrying things, I like two even stacks, so you're well balanced. (if you're carrying other stuff, the other stuff might balance against the one big stack).
The smaller stacks can also be useful if you're going to be dropping off things at two different locations.
If you're dropping each one off at a different location, then are much easier than tying. If you have to use string, you may want to bundle up a single box with carrying loops, then tie in the second box below it, and then a third box. You might also be able to use a yoga strap or something similar to attach the lower boxes to the top that you can re-adjust without too much difficulty. (It might also be able to tie a loop in it, but it depends on the length of the straps that you have available).
If you're going to be doing this a lot, I'd recommend looking at grocery stores that have the re-usable bags and if they have large enough ones, get one or two. (IKEA has huge bags for under $1. BJs also has some larger bags (not as large as the IKEA ones. I suspect other warehouse type stores would have some, too).
If you're going to be carrying larger things, and don't have an IKEA nearby, you might want to consider something like the Velcro All-Purpose Strap with Handle, which lets you cinch the strap around something to be carried, and then has a built in handle. (they used to have padded handles, but it doesn't look like it from that picture ... I guess it might've been a different brand). They do have a minimum size that they can go down to, though. (a little more than 1/2 the maximum size. At 1/2 maximum size, only 1/2 of the velcro is making contact).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.624597
| 2011-11-05T18:39:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18777",
"authors": [
"Bulk fame",
"Carolebrix",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gym Asad",
"Joep",
"Nagora",
"Philip Schiff",
"Tom",
"gbdoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96036",
"mrwienerdog",
"slm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19109
|
Why do sauces thicken as they cool?
Why do sauces thicken as they cool? This happens for things like puddings, white sauces, jello, and gravy.
I looked around a little and maybe the reason is different for each of those different things. For some of them it makes sense that the fat would become less viscus as it cools and maybe that is the same for the geletin. But that doesn't really make sense for the white sauce because I thought the thing that makes it thick for white sauce is the gluten. Does anyone know a general scientific reason?
As they cool, many proteins go from long, flexible and un-entangled to short, rigid, and entangled. For all of those, the basic thickening is due to protein structure. The proteins in question are
puddings - albumin (egg) (Note: egg is complicated, and can be made to entangle at many temperatures, e.g. souffles, meringues)
white sauces, gravy - gluten (flour)
jello - gelatin (from a variety of sources, could be either animal or vegetable)
Similar protein processes also explain the various cooking levels of meat (rare, medium rare, medium, etc.), and the various ways of cooking eggs.
Don't forget that starches also add to the thickening process, not just proteins. This is why pure corn starch thickens so well, or why you can thicken a chowder with potatoes. A better example chemically is there is less energy moving them around.
Do you know if starches act the same way? Going from long and un-entabled to short and entangled? Or do they change in some other way?
Starches are generally always long rather than tangled up. Proteins resemble a rubber band ball made from a single strand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.625009
| 2011-11-24T03:30:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19109",
"authors": [
"Beth Lang",
"DraxDomax",
"Hannover Fist",
"JesseTG",
"Jon Lund Steffensen",
"Justin Thomas",
"anna",
"asuka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8116"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19529
|
Is it possible to prevent a japanese cheesecake from deflating or sinking?
A japanese cheesecake is basically like a cheesecake fused with a spongecake.
When i beat the egg whites they peak perfectly then i am required to get 1/3 of the egg white mixture and fold it into the cake mixture then fold in the rest of the egg whites. Then i pour it into a pan and place it into a baine-marie and bake it for about 1 hour and 10mins at 180 degrees celcius.
In the oven it raises perfectly and looks beautiful, then when i take it out of the oven to rest it slowly starts to shrink and is no longer tall but rather about 1-2cm shorter (20cm cake pan).
Can anyone please help me? Anyone have any suggestions or any techniques on how to prevent this from happening?
Try letting it cool in the oven.
The tip is from the blog "The Little Teochew", which writes:
Leave to cool in oven with door ajar, about 30mins to 1 hour. Sudden changes in temperature may cause the cake to cool too quickly and collapse.
Further tips can by found in the blog post: Japanese Cheesecake
This tends to be the case with almost any baking recipe using beaten egg whites as a leavener or stabilizer. Unless the whites are permanently stabilized (e.g. an Italian meringue), they'll break apart and deflate if cooled too fast.
Aaronut, what kind of stablizer would be suitable and how much do I put in? I've heard people use gelatin in souffle
Just as with souffles and angel-food cakes, the rise of your cake depends on steam-filled bubbles lifting the batter while the egg proteins set. The trick is, you don't want to overcook the batter, nor do you want to have dramatic swings in temperature, which might deflate the bubbles before the proteins have set. So, you need to do a staged baking process.
First, preheat the oven to 180C (350F) for at least 30 minutes to be sure the walls of the oven are hot (if you simply quick-heat the oven, all you've heated is air, much of which will rush out the moment you add your cake). Put the cake pan in the bain-marie, place the bain-marie on the oven rack, and then add the boiling water. Bake for 15 minutes, then lower the temperature to 160C (325F) and continue to bake until the top turns lightly golden (about 25 minutes, depending on your oven -- but don't go strictly by time during this phase). Finally, turn off the oven and leave the cake pan for another 40 minutes to an hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.625195
| 2011-12-09T15:03:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19529",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Karen Hatch",
"Kris Grainger",
"Pieter B",
"Thansenhhh",
"Will",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8265",
"issy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22657
|
What is meant by "place 4 inches apart on cookie tray"?
Does this mean place some cookie dough every 4 inches (i.e. 4 inches center-to-center), or have a 4 inch gap between each cookie?
Wow how big are those cookie(How much is each ball of dough)? 4 inch buffer on every side? That's like a 8 inch diameter cookie.
Mom would only allow me one cookie at a time when I was a kid, so I would present her recipes for big cookies. Seriously though, I suspected it would refer to the gap so I made the size suggest it was center-to-center.
It means to have a 4 inch gap between each cookie. Of course, if you use less dough per cookie, you can put them a bit closer together.
Normally, if you put cookie dough on the tray, the surface of the cookie won't be very big (perhaps an inch). So it would not make a very big difference if you would've placed the cookies 4 inches apart center-to-center. Just be careful during the first batch. If you see you have a lot of space between the finished cookies, you can put the dough closer together for the next batch (if you use the same amount of dough per cookie).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.625426
| 2012-03-30T07:37:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22657",
"authors": [
"CyberianRat",
"Jan Vinter",
"Jay",
"The Dry Gourmet",
"Veronica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"kasi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.