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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21971
|
Reason(s) for not making stock with oily fish (salmon)?
Making stock from oily fish is often advised against, but what is the big deal? Does it just taste really bad?
Salmon or Tuna will make a very strong flavoured stock and will have lots of oil that coat your tongue. Not what you're looking for if you want a light brightly flavoured fish sauce.
In a traditional French kitchen you want generic stocks (fish/brown/chicken/veal) that are able to be used for a wide range of sauces/dishes so having a salmon stock around doesn't meet that criteria.
That said, I worked at a restaurant that made fish stock from salmon bones all the time as it was mainly used in a house specialty, a very robust West Coast spin on Bouillabaisse. Any true Frechman would have turned his back on us in disgust for doing what we did but damn it, it tasted great and the customers loved it! For any other fish sauces we used the traditional white fish bones.
FYI...Japanese dishes use Bonito flakes (tuna) liberally to make dashi(sp?) which is a fish flavoured broth for miso soup as well as other items.
So basically what I'm saying is if a fatty fish stock gets the job done for you and you're happy with it then go for it. Just remember that if you're trying to make a classic recipe then using a non-traditional ingredient will mess it up.
I read in James Peterson's book "Sauces" today that you can use stock from oily fish if you are making a red wine sauce.
Make stock as mentioned above with salmon or other oily fish but you will need to decant and remove oil. You will have fish stock that isn't oily and fish/salmon oil to cook with..
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.625659
| 2012-03-03T23:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21971",
"authors": [
"Community",
"cptloop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684"
],
"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
}
|
18700
|
How spicy is authentic, traditional Palak paneer?
I have heard that the spiciness of Palak paneer is regional, but I don't have any historical or geographical facts to confirm this. So, is there anybody around here that knows if a proper, old-school traditional Palak paneer is hot spicy, medium or mild, and which are the various regional traditions?
Palak paneer is originally a North Indian dish- what you get in South India has been adapted to local tastes. If you want an absolute answer - it is quite mild compared to other paneer dishes.
North Indian dishes have a base gravy made of tomatos and onions with red chilli powder and garam masala - this dish is an exception.
Hot, medium and mild are very subjective terms, which is why it is difficult to qualify regional variations in India. I have had palak paneer in north India and south India. Generally, this dish is hotter in south India. I am a south Indian, but have lived in north India for most of my life, and would call the north Indian (traditional) variety medium. Again, what I consider medium may be mild for some people, whereas for others it may be hot.
I don't see why the subjectiveness of the terms would make it difficult to qualify regional variations, in relative terms. Clearly your experience is that the southern variety is hotter than the northen varitey, and that the northern variety could potentially have been served even milder (while still being spicy). That said, thank you for your answer!
@LudvigANorin: Your question didn't just ask about regional variation; it asked how hot it traditionally is - it sounded like you wanted an absolute answer too.
Most of the north Indian dishes are mildly spicy. I have tasted palak paneer in some dhabas in north India and each one varied in flavor. But mostly it is a mildly spiced curry!
Please read this and while you’re at it, taking the [tour] and browsing through the [help] is also recommended. The link that you have been repeatedly added doesn’t contribute anything valuable for the question, so it’s considered spam by the community.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.625836
| 2011-10-31T18:31:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18700",
"authors": [
"BMB",
"Cascabel",
"Dat",
"Ludvig A. Norin",
"Murray",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7837"
],
"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
}
|
30398
|
Seasoning Chili for Young Children
We have a 3 year old toddler who is not a fan of spicy foods. She doesn't like heat of any type, and doesn't like strong flavors. How can we season a turkey chili to keep her happy, and still make it tasty for adults?
You have four immediate options as I see it:
Lightly season the chili, remove a portion for your child, then season the rest to your liking
Lightly season the chili, then serve it with additional accompaniments to adjust it to your liking (eg, hot sauces)
Season the chili to your liking, but serve it with something to help cut the flavor for the child (cheese, sour cream, mix in crumbled cornbread, rice, extra beans, honey or sugar)
A blend of 2 & 3.
I generally go with either #2 or #4 if I'm cooking for a large crowd.
... the long term solution is to try to slowly adjust the flavoring of the chili until the child's more accepting of the flavor. But remember, everyone has different tastes, and our taste buds change over time ... the child might be more sensitive to bitter or spicy foods right now, but could learn to enjoy them in the future. (I personally now love spicy foods, when I didn't as a kid ... but I still hate bitter)
You might try making a few varients, and see if there might be a specific taste that your child objects to, so that you can adjust. I assume you have the 'you must try at least one bite' rule, and don't accept the 'I don't like (whatever)' temper-trantrums.
My mum did 1. when we were kids. She added the spices that are for flavor rather than heat then divided 1/3 off for the children and made the rest spicy. We then as we got older mixed the two to make a medium one until we all wanted the hot.
Chili flavor doesn't necessarily mean heat, there are varieties that are mild but won't add heat. What is sold as chili powder in most places is medium heat variety, but you can use any ground chili. Paprika is a chili powder, as are ground chillis of any variety such as ancho, chipotle, tabasco, hungarian wax pepper, etc. So you can make chili with whatever one you like. You can also add chilis whole and then pull them out without breaking the skin, which gives you the flavor without the heat
I have a 3 1/2 year old as well, same problem. But he loves chili! I use a small amount of paprika or another mild chili and add other flavor layers like lots of cumin and my secret ingredient which is a teaspoon of unsweetened cocoa powder. These make for a flavorful chili without the heat.
+1 For cocoa powder in chili. A little cinnamon is also very interesting. I use 4-5 different varieties of whole dried peppers in my chili. It is very complexly flavored but isn't spicy at all and I have to throw in some canned chipotles to bump up the spice a little for myself.
Chocolate Chips as a topping help a bit too. How I miss Chili My Soul...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.626022
| 2013-01-25T13:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30398",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Don Cheechako",
"Josh Williams",
"Joshua Drake",
"MNitaC",
"MTJ",
"Sobachatina",
"charlestoncrabb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9172",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29187
|
Chocolate bars - Actual shelflife vs expiration date
The owner of a local chocolate store made me an offer I actually can't refuse: For a price that's really a bargain, I get one bar of every bar chocolate he as on stock - that would be about 40 bars.
I know how to store chocolate for baking (mostly Callebaut callets) and from my own experience I can tell that when stored in an airtight container in a dry, dark and cool place away from things with a strong smell (e.g. coffee) most chocolate can be used even after expiration date (only for private use of course).
But what about chocolate bars - is it the same?
I don't care about blooming, I just don't want the the chocolate goes bad before I can try them.
It depends on the mixed-in ingredients, but for dark chocolate you should easily get a year in a cool, dry, dark place, unless there are quite perishable mix-ins. Milk chocolate is somewhat more perishable, but will still last for months, again depending on the mixins.
If you're okay with a certain amount of quality loss in favor of food safety you can always freeze a number of them for indefinite safe storage.
Do you know anything about the filling?
Yes, it varies. Some bars are plain dark or milk chocolate, others have stuff like caramel, sesame or nuts in them.
If we're referring to plain chocolate bars, I say go for it. Plain chocolate (unsweetened, milk, or dark) lasts, if unopened, for years. The most that will happen is that the outside turns whitish in color, but this does not affect taste or quality. If there is any sort of filling, though, I, personally, would not eat it more than a month or two past the expiration date.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.626280
| 2012-12-15T18:01:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29187",
"authors": [
"Emily Anne",
"Mien",
"Nishi Enterprise",
"Rafael Evangelista",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sven",
"Tony",
"Vincent ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67752",
"kaplan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36528
|
Pineapple upside down cake alteration
I'm planning on baking a pineapple cake for my husband's birthday and the only recipes I find are for pineapple upside down cake. Can I use a pineapple upside down cake and just add the pineapple on top to the batter instead? Has anyone tried this before?
Not to be a snark, but there are plenty of regular pineapple cake recipes that aren't for upside-down cakes. It's clearly not the most popular of cakes, but you're usually better off finding a recipe for what you actually want rather than trying to make changes to a recipe you've never even tried before.
As Aaronut said, it'd definitely be best to just find a pineapple cake recipe.
But if you have a pineapple upside down cake recipe that you're really attached to, you could always just try it, presumably cutting the pineapple into smaller chunks. Depending on the batter, though, the pineapple may tend to either sink or float.
Its moisture may also throw off the ratio of the batter, changing the required baking time, the final texture, or both.
@SAJ14SAJ true, though hopefully not too too much given that it was going to be in there anyway!
Pineapple upside down cake doesn't usually have pineapple IN the cake, just baked onto the bottom.
@sourd'oh I understand that, but still, the pineapple cooks, and releases liquid, which does partially mix into the batter. The gooey stuff on the bottom doesn't have anywhere near all the water that was originally in the pineapple. I know it's not the same, but you at least have a chance.
@Jefromi I don't know how the liquid released on the bottom would mix into the cake batter...
@sourd'oh I think it sorta steams up as the cake cooks. I'm not saying it mixes in, but I don't think it all stays in the pineapple either.
A pineapple upside down cake is normally just plain cake batter baked on top of a layer of sugar and pineapple. The sugar and pineapple (which also has a lot of sugar) form a caramel from being in contact with the hot pan, thus making the awesomeness happen when you flip it over. If you just bake the pineapple on top, you won't get this effect, nor will you get the taste of the pineapple in the cake. You'll probably just end up with kind of dry and chewy pineapple slices on top of a plain cake.
You could probably do something fancy like pureeing and draining the pineapple, adding that to the batter, then reducing the juice to a syrup and pouring that over before decorating it. By the time you do all that though, you'd probably be better off just finding a recipe for a pineapple cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.626452
| 2013-09-04T15:34:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36528",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Grax",
"Judene",
"RESTY PILPA SEVILLANO",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Safdar Faisal",
"Shilpa",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Yejus",
"corinthian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85796"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28250
|
Cinnamon Roll Filling
There seem to exist two different camps of people when it comes to cinnamon rolls and their filling. Some say to use regular granulated sugar, cinnamon, and butter while the opposing view states that one should use cinnamon, brown sugar, and butter. Why would one choose one over the other? What advantages or disadvantages does it bring to the cinnamon roll by adjusting the items within the filling?
What I learned researching this question:
Brown sugar has anywhere from 3.5 - 6.5% molasses depending on whether it is light or dark brown sugar. Molasses is what makes brown sugar brown. Brown sugar has a smaller granule than white sugar.
What all this means to a cinnamon roll filling:
When brown sugar and cinnamon (and butter) are used in the filling, the brown sugar becomes more liquidy and less gritty than white sugar. The flavor is richer and more complex. When I make rugalach or almond rolls, I prefer white sugar, cinnamon and butter for the filling which lets the almonds or walnuts bring the flavor to the pastry. Cinnamon rolls do not usually have nuts so the pastry requires more flavor from the filling ingredients (and the icing, of course!)
Here's the site where I read about brown sugar:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_sugar
Yes - essentially brown sugar turns into a kind of caramel.
There are no advantages or disadvantages in this case, it's all about personal preference. Brown sugar and butter will turn into a rich, sweet, syrupy ooze. White sugar will stay more granular and have less depth of flavor, but arguably you may taste more cinnamon that way. You can also mix the two, there's no reason you cannot have half brown and half granulated sugar
As a suggestion why not try both and see what you think? Do one half with granulated, and one half with brown and do a blind taste test?
Also as a trick you could put granulated sugar into a food processor and whiz it up to make the grains smaller. Smaller grains means it will dissolve more, so you get a cleaner flavor but a bit of ooziness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.626692
| 2012-11-06T01:59:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28250",
"authors": [
"Deltab",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ishan Deore",
"Steve",
"Sue Seymour",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65054",
"user65036",
"user65038"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29650
|
How dangerous is it to bake food with plastic?
I just baked a spiral ham for an hour. There was a little piece of plastic that I was supposed to 'remove before cooking', but I didn't notice it.
After an hour, the ham was baked and the plastic seems to be unburned. This is possibly because the plastic was under the basting liquid and not exposed to air. The plastic also does not seem to have melted. It feels hard to the touch. The surface is a little slippery and smells like ham.
Is my ham safe to eat?
I posted this question in a hurry (because as you can imagine), there was a lot of anxiety concerning whether it was safe to have dinner or not. It turns out that this ham is not safe; I will quote the USDA:
The plastic bone guard covering the exposed bone is used to keep the
bone from breaking the outer wrap. If left on the meat during cooking,
a 325 or 350 °F oven temperature may not melt the plastic but still
give off an abnormal chemical odor or taste. Cutting away the meat
around the exposed area will not necessarily solve this potential food
safety problem because the penetration of the chemical into the meat
will be unknown. If meat is cooked in a closed container, the
chemicals may penetrate the entire piece of meat. USDA advises not to
eat the ham; discard it.
Source: Hock Locks and Other Accoutrements (USDA)
Quite a disappointment unfortunately.
That's a shame - sorry to hear it, but better safe than sorry!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.626878
| 2013-01-01T22:45:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29650",
"authors": [
"JorgeAmVF",
"Kaa",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lin",
"Munish Chandel",
"ffledgling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68966",
"the0ffh",
"untore"
],
"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
}
|
28688
|
Ceramic vs Stainless Steel in coffee mugs
My travel mug broke :( Looking at replacements, I find that most travel mugs with designs tend to be stainless steel, whereas my prior mug was ceramic. Is there a difference in heat retention between the two materials in this day and age? Are there other considerations I should take into account when choosing between materials?
(Note: I put tea in it)
If you fill the container with hot water for about five or 10 minutes before adding your tea it'll keep it hotter longer also. I actually pour a second cup of hot water because the temperature of the water changes significantly with the first one.
The biggest deterent to a stainless steel mug, in my opinion, is that you can't reheat your drink in it in the microwave. It maintains the heat better than plastic insulated mugs overall but I hate not being able to reheat a tepid cup of coffee because it is metal.
Plastic is an option in this day and age - I have a double-walled plastic travel mug with a flip-up lid that's pretty durable and does a better job of insulating than steel. Not as fancy looking as ceramic or steel, tho.
Just for what it's worth, here's America's Test Kitchen recommendation: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46264/how-to-make-more-than-one-good-cup-of-coffee-with-a-moka-pot/46268#46268
Stainless Steel
Most stainless steel travel mugs are double walled, but are NOT vacuum flasks
They usually have a screw on stainless steel base, or just a plain plastic base. Both of these stop thermal air losses, but are in no way as efficient as a true vacuum flask. It can't be anyway, due to the lid having a drinking hole in it
Lids with sliding covers are impossible to clean, and should be avoided. Just a simple double wall stainless steel mug, with a "reduced spill" style plastic lid and silicone gasket will last many years, be cleanable, and provide reasonable heat retention
Double Walled Ceramic
Double walled ceramic mugs are heavy, and while reasonable strong, generally have two fundamental flaws:
They are very heavy due to having two ceramic layers, even though both layers are quite thin
Because the layers are thin, most mugs do not have a handle, as they cannot support one without breaking
Their insulation qualities are fine and they can be-reheated in situ. The typical silicone lids they ship with are easy to wash which is a bonus
If you don't mind not having a handle they are fine, but heavy
I don't like drinking from silicone, it feels weird, and the hole is usually too small. Cutting a bigger hole always ends in disaster (maybe a hole punch would do it?). They also break much more easily than a normal ceramic mug if used while travelling
My old ceramic one was double-walled. Does this mean if I could find that type of mug again it'd be the same as the stainless steel one?
Metal travel mugs nowadays are made like thermos, so they'll keep an (almost) constant temperature, although not all of them have vacuum betweem their walls.
(Source: Wikipedia)
They'll keep the temperature longer if you fill 'em up; having air in a thermo eases the temperature dropping. It's easier drinking a full mug of tea than drinking it full of strong dark coffee, so it will suit you better.
If you enjoy the idea of not having temperature drops, make sure it's designed as an insulated vacuum flask, and not just having double walls. I personally don't like having my drink at an undrinkable 80 C (170 F) 1 hour after having prepared it. In this list of materials, you can see vacuum has the lowest termal conductivity. I don't know which of those materials is ceramic, or if it's not listed there.
Materials for the isolating walls other than stainless steel are also to be considered; glass insulates better, but breaks easylier. Aluminium will be lighter, but you might feel an unpleasant taste (I do).
Is there a significant difference between metal and ceramic though? And how do you figure it's easier to fill a mug with tea than coffee?
Try to dring 300 ml of black coffee. I find easier to take the caffeine in 300 ml of tea instead ;-)
Ah, I can't drink coffee at all so I don't know much about it.
Espresso coffee caffeine content is 1,691–2,254 mg/L, whereas tea has 124–416 mg/L (source: Wikipedia) Drinking 300 ml (10 oz) of strong black coffee in one go is just too much.
I didn't think you usually drank an entire mug of espresso. Generic brewed is more like 200mg in a 240ml mug according to http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211 and many of the teas I drink boast having "as much caffeine as coffee" (http://www.teavana.com/the-teas/mate-teas). Anyway this is all entirely off topic, but thanks for explaining what you meant
Tip from Science: There isn't any doubt that vacuum is the best way to go. What could pass less heat from one side to the other than 'nothing' material. Air is good but not nearly as good as a vacuum. However, a true vacuum creates a lot of pressure on the mug walls because of 15lbs/sq inch of air pressing on the walls of the mug with no resistance from the vacuum inside. Vacuum provides no 'structure' so the walls have to be strong, hence the steel. It is highly unlikely you will find a vacuum double-walled mug that is not stainless for the reason above AND it needs to be manufacturable. Of course, anything is possible, even glass vacuum-insulated mugs but they would be too expensive to manufacture and hence not sell, thus are unavailable. SS is the best price/performance choice. If the mug is plastic inside, it is not a vacuum insulated mug by the way. Handles are often glued on in vacuum insulated SS mugs because screws would break the vacuum seal of the outer wall.
Sure, but as the accepted answer states, not all stainless steel mugs are vacuum
I prefer a travel coffee mug that has handles and an easy to clean lid that comes apart. Screw-on lids are a joke. I've had several and have found if you don't get them tight enough, they will leak and if you tighten them too much, they won't seal and will drip too. I had one that was ceramic for over 10 years but it broke one day when I accidentally dropped it onto a concrete floor. The lid popped-in...did not screw in and the lid came apart.
A lot of the above comments are correct. I have a SS double wall vacuum insulated tumbler that i use for hot or cold liquids. The vacuum insulated walls will keep may drink hot or cold all day if the lid is on. I've put coffee in it at 6am and at noon it was still too hot to drink without just sipping. I've left it full of coke with ice in it on my dresser over night and in the morning it was just as good as hours before. Still lots of ice, not watered down, and it doesn't sweat at all. The SS double wall vacuum insulated does, of course, cost more, but the added cost is more than worth it when you use it and see how well it really does perform. That's the only way to go. You'll never want anything else after using one of these quality items.
Putting your email in an answer attracts flags and downvotes (not from me this time) and is against SE policy. Suggest you edit this answer. You CAN put your email on your profile page.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.627072
| 2012-11-26T20:22:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28688",
"authors": [
"Brock Adams",
"Caroline Strudley",
"Diadems",
"EAJ",
"Ellen",
"Euginho Cortez",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mal de Demko",
"MargeGunderson",
"Marla Hester",
"NANDI EVENTS STAGE SHOWS",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Timon Brunsek",
"Yamikuronue",
"eliza gardiner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66419",
"steve",
"user150544"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30239
|
Best moment to put salt in spaghetti?
Different friends have conflicting theories about the best moment to pour salt into spaghettis:
Before putting the spaghettis, so that the salt infiltrates inside the spaghetti.
Just a bit before throwing out water, because salt reduces the boiling temperature.
After throwing the water out.
What is usually considered best practice?
You may have selected the correct answer too quickly, there are many other answer'ers whom may be put off
@TFD: OK, unselected, will select in a few days
I know it's not an exact duplicate, but hasn't this material been pretty well covered in Why add salt to the water when cooking pasta? As brief as it is, it's pretty much the authoritative question (and answer) on the subject.
@Aaronut: I totally knew the positive effects and reasons of adding salt to the water. But I was wondering WHEN is the best timing to put it. Different question.
Well, I don't think the answers here have been any more illuminating, really; the top-upvoted one is just repeating what the other question says. Convention is generally to add salt before pasta, as that is what the package directions actually always say ("add to [syz amount] of rapidly boiling salted water"), clearly that is the "best practice", so are you asking what would change if you added salt later?
Salt should be put before putting the spaghetti (or any other type of pasta for that matters) in the water.
For 200g spaghetti (2 people) count ~2-3 liters of water and 20-30g rock salt.
You can reduce the amount of salt if the sauce you are using is already quite salty.
As a note to your point 2, the salt INCREASES the boiling point of water (a process known as boiling point elevation)
However, the increase in boiling point when adding 20g of salt to 2l of water is practically insignificant.
Too much water for such a small amount of pasta! You should only need 1 l per 300 g of uncooked dried pasta
@TFD: the amount that is generally suggested (e.g. by McGee's On Food and Cooking, pasta.it or by any Italian mamma for that matters) is 1l per 100g, with 10g salt, pretty standard. You would add more for large pasta, such as lasagne, unless you want them to stick.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6162/what-is-the-correct-water-to-pasta-ratio
@TFD: try to cook fresh egg pasta with water just covering it and then you'll tell me. Of course you can stay there constantly stirring, but I generally like doing other things in the meantime.
Sometimes it's not a bad idea to use more salt then necessary as there are sauces that are made without adding salt, so your pasta can take a bit more salt. Most of the time it's safe to use that 100 + 1 + 10 rule though.
Salt doesn't lower the boiling point of water, it elevates it. Even so, the amount of salt you add to pasta water (10g/litre is a good guide) will barely make a difference. You need to add nearly 6 times that amount of salt to a litre of water to raise its boiling point by 0.5°C.
As throwing things into boiling water can result in splashing, I suggest adding it to the water before you bring it to a boil.
I'm going to argue for adding the salt after a boil, but before adding the pasta ... because I have stainless steel pots.
If you add salt to cold water, it won't disolve and disperse quickly. This results in the salt falling to the bottom of the pot, then slowly disolving there but not mixing. This increased concentration of salt can end up causing pitting.
Instead, I bring the water to a boil, toss in the salt, then bring it back to a boil (mostly because the lid was off, not because I significantly moved the boiling point), add the pasta, stir it 'til it's all fitting in the water and not clumping together, put the lid back on, bring back to a boil, then reduce the heat (as we only need to maintain a boil we need less energy than trying to elevate the temperature; the less rapid boiling also reduces the odds of the starchy foam boiling all over the place).
I won't say the pitting could not happen, but typically the pot will come to a boil within ten minutes or so--certainly less than an hour for any reasonable pot size and burner power level. This doesn't leave much time for such a reaction. I have been putting the salt in along with the water with my stainless pots (Admittedly, they are All-Clad which are high quality, if overpriced) for years with no ill effects.
The time it takes to boil depends on the amount of water and the size of your burner ... I've cooked in some kitchens where you were lucky to get a pot boiling in 15-20 min. And even with 10 min, if you're cooking pasta night after night like we did growing up (Italian American family), over time it adds up.
Some people believe that you should not add the salt to the pot until the water is boiling because, allegedly:
It can cause damage to your pot, inducing pitting in stainless steel. We could not find strong confirming evidence of this (see this question), especially at culinary concentrations and temperatures.
It can raise the temperature that the water must reach to boil. This is true, but trivially so: the temperature difference is on the order of 0.3 degree F. It makes no practical difference in cooking.
The real limit is that you want it dissolved and distributed throughout the water when you add the pasta to begin cooking. I suspect an actual study would show that with strong boiling and the convection it creates, adding the salt with the pasta would probably be equally effective in the sense that it would be distributed very rapidly, but I am not aware of any research here, and it is just as easy to add it earlier.
Since there is no strong credible reason to delay adding the salt, I add it along with the water personally, since it is easier not to forget.
Note: I wrote this answer for a new question, before I saw the duplicate.
KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid, words I live by. ), add the salt to the pasta(almost all pastas will benefit from salt) water anytime after the water is added to the pot and before the pasta is added. Just please...add the salt.
If you are concerned about corroding your stainless steal pans...(shrugging) find something else to worry about.
There is a reason that stainless is also called CRES(corrosion resistant) steel. You can cause stainless to actually corrode but it's not easy, your more likely to cause discoloration that can be cleaned with a product like Barkeepers Friend.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.627629
| 2013-01-20T06:02:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30239",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ambran",
"Amit",
"Jakob Glass",
"Joe",
"Martine",
"Natalie Perret",
"Nicolas Raoul",
"Oilfree",
"Plato",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sven",
"TFD",
"Tassos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71061",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28105
|
Baking with regular skillet vs. cast iron for apple pie
I have a recipe for apple pie I want to use. The recipe asks for a cast iron skillet.
Can I use a regular skillet in the oven instead of the cast iron skillet?
Just a note about safety - the other skillet should be oven-proof, of course. :-)
Technically, yes, though the crust will likely be less brown and evenly brown than if you use a cast iron skillet, especially if the sides of your regular skillet are thinner than the base. If that is the case, the sides will be less brown than the base of the pie.
You might also have to adjust the cooking time on the recipe as well, so if you're a stickler with following a recipe to the "T", then I'd ask someone to borrow their cast iron skillet :)
I love baking pie in cast iron; it absorbs some moisture that keeps crust crisp. Your skillet may be 'slicker' and let the crust steam a bit more. If it is an enameled, it is much more like baking in glass (which enamel technically is).
The other consideration is heating up time for bottom of the pan. Cast iron allows the top to brown before the bottom gets done. If it is a very juicy recipe, it may bubble up earlier than expected in a thinner skillet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.628253
| 2012-10-29T18:28:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28105",
"authors": [
"Activist Nutritionist",
"Deep fryer",
"Gloria Shapiro",
"Graham",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mort432",
"Sherry Keller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64660",
"salsaman",
"shae tanzi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28302
|
Refreezing apple pie
My mom will be traveling via plane this holiday season. She has a frozen apple pie.
By the time she arrives at her destination (my sister's house), the pie will have thawed. Could she then cook it and refreeze it before bringing it to my house?
There are too many days in-between for her to cook it at my sister's house and then leave it in the refrigerator.
Please advise.
Thanks!
Welcome @Donna - Would she consider shipping it in dry ice directly to your house?
According to the New York Department of Agriculture, fruit pies can be refrozen after thawing, but their quality will degrade. It's only apples and pastry when you think about it, so not much to spoil. It will probably dry out though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.628400
| 2012-11-08T16:34:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28302",
"authors": [
"Kristina Lopez",
"Linda Seaton",
"Roz mccann",
"Sandra Dee",
"fishheadsoup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65247",
"identicon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28506
|
Prepping to freeze, thaw and reheat
I have a food truck and would like to cook as many things as possible to avoid buying canned food and work with as many fresh products as possible.
It is too difficult to do it on a daily basis so I wanted to be able to spend one full day
seasoning and cooking a few recipes, enough for a couple of weeks and freeze it in portions.
My concern is if frozen, will the taste of the food be altered after thawing and reheating to serve?
Here are few examples of what I would like to freeze, thaw and reheat:
- ratatouille (stewed and seasoned vegetables)
- seasoned and de-boned roasted chicken
- black bean paste (seasoned) or refried beans
- sauteed spinach and mushrooms
- roasted chicken with leek, mushrooms and creamy sauce
Please advise
Thank you
JP
have you searched the site for the many questions that have been answered on freezing and reheating different foods? I see quite a few in the list: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1934/can-i-freeze-roux?rq=1, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17085/freeze-meat-before-or-after-cooking?rq=1
I don't think there's any better answer than Joe's: it depends. Some foods freeze well, other things don't. Best thing to do would be to search our [freezing] tag to see if one of your foods or something similar is already mentioned, and if not, ask a specific question about a specific dish or type of dish.
This is a difficult question in part because you've listed so many things -- for instance, a cream sauce is going to be difficult, as cream sauces may break when frozen. Cooked chicken, on the other hand, I go quite frequently.
But the thing with the chicken is that I'm cooking it to use as an ingredient in other things; I think you may have more success in that way -- compromising between the two by prepping and freezing some items to minimize the amount of work needed for each day's cooking. Some foods benefit from preparing in advance (stew, chilli, soups, etc.) that may could from once a week cooking. You'd likely want to bring things back up to temperature and then adjust seasoning on the day of. (possibly adding fresh herbs for the ratatouille and/or a splash of extra acid to brighten it back up)
I don't know what sort of food truck you're operating; if it's one with a kitchen, or if it's the type that prepares food in a canteen and does no cooking on-site ... I'd assume if you're cooking on site, this could be a problem as it'll take more time to cook from a frozen state.
It's probably worthwhile to do some taste tests -- make a recipe, then put some off to freeze, then thaw it back out a week later to compare to fresh and/or canned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.628513
| 2012-11-19T02:18:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28506",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Frank Schmrank",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lorraine",
"Raymond",
"Rob",
"Stephen",
"asongbird",
"eakbas",
"elaine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70073",
"simon at rcl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2338
|
Are the Jacques Pépin videos worth it for a novice?
I have Pépin's "Complete Techniques" book and find it interesting but a little hard to follow at times. I wonder if the DVD "The Complete Pépin" is a worthwhile addition. The reviews on Amazon are mixed, but also from the general public and not from a group of self-selected cooking knowledge exchangers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.628752
| 2010-07-20T13:39:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2338",
"authors": [
"Rami Alshareef",
"XedMada",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8491",
"vincentpants"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11166
|
How to beat one or two egg yolks?
Many sauces and pastries call for beaten yolks. You need to beat yolks well, till they are thick again and are lemon-colored, so using mixer is a must.
But if you need only one or two egg yolks, regular mixers are too big for the task. What I'm currently using is a battery-driven micro mixer, and it is not powerful enough and eats up batteries fast.
Can anybody suggest a good solution to the problem?
This is what I use currently - a drill on a high speed using the micro mixer attachement. I think Dremel Stylus on low would work as well, but I don't have that one.
When I make waffles for 4 people, I use 4 yolks and my immersion blender gets the traction needed, but for two yolks I need a narrow glass and this.
Using a mixer is not "a must". You should be able to whisk 1-2 egg yolks together quite easily which a whisk and some elbow grease. How do you think we beat egg yolks for the centuries prior to electricity?
With elaborate systems of levers and pulleys, obviously. Don't you know any history? :P
@Aaronut : I always assumed they used some form of braided leather. I mean, why else would it be called 'beating' and 'whipping' ?
There is a difference between yolks beaten for 30 seconds and 3 minutes with electric mixer. When done by hand, 3 minutes would be like 15?
I don't even bother with a whisk for something that small. (the only wisk I have is medium sized balloon whisk, I don't have any small ones).
I find a fork and a small bowl work well for up to about 3-4 eggs. I tip the bowl towards hand with the fork so I can get a better angle on it, and it keeps the eggs from spreading out too much across the bowl.
I think a great option for beating small amounts, if you don't just use a whisk, is a hand-cranked egg beater. They're cheap and easy to use. I have one I got from my Mom many years ago, and it works great. If you get one, don't let batter or egg or whatever dry on it--wash (or at least rinse) as soon as you're done using it. They're hard to get dried-on stuff off of because the spaces are small.
I'd use my immersion blender, which gets plugged in.
have you tried tilting your blender? i had the same problem for awhile and tilting the blender so the blades could reach the eggs did the trick. just be sure to have a firm, two hand hold; one on the base of the blender and one on the glass. then just tilt the top towards you.
One option I've found works well is, I had picked up a immersion little milk frother gadget, and it works like a tiny immersion blender.
Honestly, I find beating eggs can be done just fine by hand, with a fork and a bowl or with a whisk (sometimes just "churning" between the hands if the whisk is too large or the quantity or bowl too small), but the little frother works when I've lumps to be worked out of something, or actual blending would be nice but the quantity is small - and since I've got it, I can use it for things like beating eggs if I'm in a hurry or feeling lazy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.628835
| 2011-01-18T04:29:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11166",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Heather",
"Jamie Hollern",
"Jeff",
"Joe",
"Mrs T",
"Romanian guy",
"Sergey Aldoukhov",
"Tanya C",
"ezrock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ola",
"user52561"
],
"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
}
|
6753
|
What is a Hostess Set of flatware?
When talking about flatware, what exactly does a Hostess Set include? How many people does it serve?
From Oneida.com:
What is in a Hostess Set, Serving Set and an Entertainment Set?
A simple way to remember what pieces are in a Hostess Set is: The word Hostess starts with an "H" everything in a Hostess Set holds something.
Hostess Set: Gravy Ladle, Tablespoon, Sugar Spoon
Serving Set: Serving Fork, Butter Knife, Pierced Tablespoon
Entertainment Set: Casserole Spoon, Dessert Server
Does this mean that Hostess Set is for one person?
@Roman: No it means the host set is not a place setting at all, but a collection of specialty tools that you generally need only one or two of at the table. Similarly with the other sets that Michael lists.
Are you sure that this is what a "hostess set" is, or is it just what Oneida identifies as such in their product line? Searching around other shopping sites for "hostess set" yields varied results, the most common being a serving spoon, fork, slotted spoon, and spreader. In particular, the ladle seems to be mostly unique to Oneida's "hostess set" (for example - not intentional spam, btw, it just happens to be a representative result).
(Another example: http://www.silverqueen.com/Info/Sterling%20FYI presents a definition which agrees with most search results but conflicts with Oneida: "The standard serving pieces sometimes sold as a 6 piece hostess set are the A. Table serving spoon; B. Pierced Tablespoon; C. Cold Meat Fork; D. Sugar Spoon; E. Master Butter Knife; F. Pie Server.")
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.629365
| 2010-09-04T20:38:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6753",
"authors": [
"Jason C",
"Roman Protsiuk",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/531"
],
"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
}
|
87375
|
Does waiting for bread to rise before baking change its nutrient composition?
Does waiting for bread to rise before baking change the amount of standard macro- or micronutrients present? I imagine that baking would evaporate any alcohols produced by the yeast fermentation. So the final product would simply have less sugar. Is this correct? Or is there more to it?
Hi, nutrition is usually off topic here. We do allow a very narrowly defined part of it, which is concerned with the numerical measurement of concrete nutrients present in food, and I think your question can be seen as falling within this exception. But I had to edit it because we cannot talk about any broad nutritional properties here, just about things like "x percent less sugar" or similar.
No difference in nutritional properties. It is just the difference between bread and hardtack. The "fermentation" isn't to make ethanol, but rather to release carbon dioxide in the bread which creates "air" bubbles making the product soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.629520
| 2018-01-29T20:19:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87375",
"authors": [
"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
}
|
41176
|
easiest way to peel/skin a tongue?
So I've boiled a couple lamb tongues -- as per this recipe -- and have them cool enough to handle, however I'm having difficulty peeling the skin/film off them with just my fingers alone.
Is there some trick to doing this?
Yeah, after a ton of more googling, I'm starting to get the impression that a sign of an under-cooked tongue is one which is decidedly hard to peel...
I learned from Iranian ladies in Iran, clean the tongue first, boil it on a low heat for 60 minutes at low altitude. Longer time needed at High altitude. When the outer skin shows signs of separating from the muscle, then drench the tongue in cold water for 10/15 minutes. The skin will separate from the muscle easily.
This method is also used in Lebanon.,
You'll need a lot longer than 20 minutes that the recipe suggests. For cow tongue, we usually let them sit in a crock-pot for about 4hrs. My guess for lamb tongue is about 90 minutes on low simmer.
The skin tends come loose from the muscle underneath when done. The best trick I've found is to cut the skin down the center of the tongue (lengthwise). Use a sharp knife and try not to cut too much of the muscle or some of the meat will peel with the skin.
You can then peel off the skin easily ending up in two sheets (one for each side). Wearing latex or dishwashing gloves helps buffer some of the heat, but as long as they are above room temperature the peeling should go fine and easy.
I'll give this a go, and if it works give you the "check mark". Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.629625
| 2014-01-15T04:29:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41176",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"Dre",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stephan Samuel",
"StevieP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95937"
],
"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
}
|
21986
|
Where can I source Mexican chilies in the UK?
I've traveled to Mexico and the US and seen different chilies available there, but at home in the UK (or even worse, in my fiancée's home of Finland) I find it very hard to find Ancho, Poblano and Chipotle chilies.
Oaxaca Restaurants lists a lot of interesting-sounding chilies, but I have no idea how to source them.
I have once found dried Chipotle chilies in a supermarket, but at that time I was not entirely sure of the right way to rehydrate them (and I'm still not).
Where should I look for North American type chilies? And if I only find dried, can I use them instead of fresh?
What is your question?
Sorry for not being specific enough :o) The questions were where to find these 'exotic' chillies in the UK, and how to rehydrate them properly when cooking with them.
I'd also be interested if some of these varieties are readily available, but under different names, or equivalents with different names, like Habaneros being know as Scotch Bonnets over here (even if they're a slightly different variety).
Habanero and Scotch Bonnet are not the same thing (although they are similar). Feel free to ask a different question about substituting/rehydrating dried peppers, but please only ask one question at a time.
Grow your own! They are as easy to grow as tomatoes
Dried and fresh chilies are used completely differently in Mexican cooking. Re-hydrating won't produce good results. I'd follow @TFD's suggestion, and grow your own. Even in the U.S., that's my preferred choice. Most commercially-available chilies available in the U.S. aren't as hot (spicy) as the ones available in Mexico (thanks to wimpy American taste buds!)
I have grown my own before (unknown type, but pretty hot), but since I travel fairly regularly it's not as easy to maintain spice/herb plants. Although now I have a garden I may be able to do something that requires less maintenance. With this approach I'd still have the question of where to source the seeds to produce them, although I guess the chipotle would be fairly easy, since it's a Jalepeno.
Yes, rehydrating won't produce the same thing as a fresh pepper, but for some applications, a rehydrated dried pod is preferable, because of its taste concentration and the changed flavor profile. So, it is an interesting ingredient on its own.
btw, just a comment about spelling the edit by @Flimzy. In the UK we spell it 'chilli', the same with the other couple of spelling changes (see Wikipedia). I suppose if we're discussing the Mexican varieties I guess we should use the spelling 'chile'. I'm not sure whether there is a US language requirement on StackExchange, but if not, I would suggest using the spelling of the country in focus.
@dsample: Oh, I didn't realize that word varied across the pond... I figured we were all following the Spanish example. It's a common enough "misspelling" in the U.S., and wasn't even spelled consistently in the original post. If you prefer the double-l spelling, please by all means revert my change (but then I suggest making them all double-l :)
it has become vogue in the States to use 'chile', but backup for UK using chilli is in Oxford dictionary
@Flimzy: ime, regionally to the contrary. grocery chiles in NM, AZ, Southern CO, and parts of CA can be plenty hot, while growing with proper stress for spiciness can be a challenge.
@zanlok: That's probably true... those regions I expect have a higher average tolerance for spicy things. :)
@Flimzy: NM are reigning champs, trust me! =)
Mex Grocer has an excellent selection: http://www.mexgrocer.co.uk/. I've ordered chillies once from them in the past with success.
That site looks very promising, with free delivery with orders over £50... might have to stock up on some other mexican essentials too.
There are a bunch of places online (a bunch sell through amazon). Personally I've found Chinese supermarkets to be pretty good. They may not sell every variety but they have much better range than the mainstream ones.
You don't really rehydrate them to their original form but soak them in warm water for about 20-30 minutes to get the flavour out and then just use them like regular fresh chilis.
I've been able to find the chillies for the Thai food I cook from asian/oriental supermarkets, but I guess I'll have to have a harder look next time for other varieties.
The Chilli Company in Suffolk (just up the road from me :-) ) certainly have chipotle chillies as they sell chipotle sauce; although they don't list chillies for sale on their website it might be worth giving them a ring.
I actually have the Cambridge Chilli Farm about 2 miles away from my home too, but having spoken to them in the past at a craft fair they didn't sell chillies on their own. Now they list chipotles for sale though, so I might give them another try.
If you want traditional Mexican chillies then I recommend getting them from mexika.co.uk they seem to have a good variety, the chilli section is here here.
The best place I know of to get chiles in the UK is from Lupe Pinto's in Scotland. They've got two stores and until recently had an online store. They carry stuff from North & South America. I think you can also get a tortilla press and masa for making corn tortillas (which is on my wishlist, being a Texan in the UK)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.629812
| 2012-03-04T21:52:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21986",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Flimzy",
"Julia Sellers",
"TFD",
"dsample",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9361",
"rumtscho",
"squid",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93288
|
Skin irritation from Victorinox Fibrox handle
All of my favourite knives are stamped Victorinox with black fibrox handles... I find the shape and grip of these knives, coupled with the thin and flexible stamped blades, are ideal for processing any food that doesn’t require a cleaver.
But... I have eczema on my hands, most pronounced in my (dominant) right palm. I apply a very strong corticosteroid to my hands, once weekly, to keep the disease in check.
I don’t know why this took me so long to make the connection, but the worst rash spots are on the two contact points with the knife handle; one spot on the the heel, and another on the pad between my index and middle fingers. So to test, about 3-4 days ago I set aside all my comfortable knives and am using (mostly my wife’s) forged blades with hardwood or resin handles. And... my rash is going away! Today it is time for my weekly medicine, and the hands look pretty much like the morning after treatment.
It only took me 30 years to put 2 and 2 together....
My question is: Is this material known for causing allergic reactions or other kinds of dermatitis problem? A google search comes up with nothing, which surprises me.
I have a known latex intolerance (but the symptoms are generally different)
"Seasoned Advice is a site for professional and amateur cooks and chefs, and anyone who works in the kitchen..."
This is a totally on-topic requesting information about the career or the lifestyle.
Ask your dermatologist.
What would a dermatologist know about knife materials? I have gone to a dermatologist and they tested me for an assay of commonly irritating household chemicals. I was positive for none of them. Why would you answer the question in a comment @Max?
Your dermatologist would be in a good position to test the material with your skin, no ? at least better than a cook (home or professional).
Thank you all. I have edited the question to appeal directly to chefs. And @Max, my dermatologist asked me to try an think of what was touching my palms on a regular basis and eliminate it. I went through motor oil, airplane handle, pens, computer mouse... dozens of things but never thought of kitchen equipment. I cook two meals a day.
Pack one knife safely in a bag and take it to the doctor. Call Victorinox if they can send you a sample along with a detailed description of what is in there (other than thermoplatic elastomer)
Instead of handle's material, have you thought about residues from the dishwasher cleaning/soap?
Can you exclude that the handles have become slightly porous (= residues) or abrasive over time? The latter case could make these areas extra sensitive to substances?
An imporant note, despite the upvoted comment: the help center wording does not mean that everything that is of interest to cooks is also allowed on the site. We explicitely exclude a lot of otherwise interesting topics or question formats. This one is somewhat of a grey area, because of its closeness to health advice, but I would not hammer it closed, since it concerns readily noticeable effects.
Black Fibrox is a trademarked brand name for Thermoplastic Elastomers, or TPEs. This is a common plastic substance used to produce "grippy" plastics that feel rubberized, for a variety of applications.
Thing is, TPEs were largely invented as an allergy-free alternative to latex. Studies have, to date, not turned up any naturally occuring TPE allergies in test subjects. So you may be the first patient with a TPE allergy! Lucky you.
To verify this, do you have any wearable electronics? Items like the Fitbit and various smartwatches frequently use TPEs as band/covering material. If you have one of these, and you are allergic to TPEs, you should be reacting to it as well. Or go to your dermatologist, now that you know the substance you think you are reacting to, he can do targeted tests.
I can think of two short-term solutions for your knives. One is to sell them any buy the versions with "rosewood" handles, which I believe are non-TPE. The second would be to coat the TPE handles in something durable, like silicone.
You are a freaking genius! Thank you @FuzzyChef! I knew knowledgeable people were out there.
YW. My wife is a professional researcher, some things rub off.
I am a total gadget-phobe and although I was given a FitBit I sold it on EBay... along with the GoPro and the Flip video camera and the UAV. I know, lame, huh. I will try to find some TPE and tape it to myself to test. Also: it may be that the material after years of breakdown in the dishwasher is what brings out the reaction. My oldest Fibrox handle in use is from circa 1994.
You put your knives in the dishwasher?
I think the FIbrox isn't the only issue. https://www.seriouseats.com/2018/10/how-to-load-a-dishwasher.html
I still don't see how this is on-topic here. If Victorinox starts using Fibrox for the luggage bag handles ... the very same question could be asked on Travel.SE
@Johannes_B but it wasn't. Chill out, the question has been asked and been answered. We don't need to be OCD about a question being 6 inches over the border, particularly if it's an interesting question. If you're really unhappy, take it up on Meta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.630333
| 2018-10-27T09:15:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93288",
"authors": [
"Douglas Held",
"FuzzyChef",
"Johannes_B",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mattia.b89",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27881
|
Is there a way to lessen the unpleasant smell of steamed broccoli?
I really enjoy snacking on steamed vegetables lightly sprinkled with some salt and pepper, especially broccoli. However I find that steamed fresh broccoli has a slightly sulfuric smell that smells a little bit like fart. I was wondering if there is anything I can do to lessen that smell.
Eat them raw! Wash thoroughly, slice thinly, and make a spicy dip with yoghurt and a spoon of Tom Yum soup paste, extra Yum!
You can always use a hood! :)
@nico a hood? What do you mean?
@Jay: I mean turn on the kitchen hood while cooking, so you will avoid having your house stink for the next week :)
Holy moly! I love the smell of broccoli. It DOES NOT smell like fart. I live for the smell of lightly steamed broccoli. I'll eliminate anyone from my trusted friendship who tries to serve me broccoli neutered of its greenish scent.
@Blessed Geek: you're the first person I hear saying that he likes the smell of hydrogen sulfide...
I get fresh broccoli. We even plant it ourselves. Why are you buying broken vegetables that has started to emit H2S?
@Blessed Geek: broccoli naturally releases H2S not only when they're "broken" (whatever that means). Cooking just speeds up the process as H2S is volatile.
Most vegetables emit H2S - cabbage family not excluded. Especially when you leave it out for long periods of time and let them deteriorate, cooked/uncooked/over-cooked.
@BlessedGeek: Vegetables in the cabbage family produce trisulfides (not H2S), and it doesn't mean they're broken. It happens when they're cooked. Different broccoli may have different amounts of it, but it's going to happen, and Jay may just be a bit more sensitive to it than you.
Cook it less and/or quicker!
Cook it less, if you can. The more you cook it, the more you get that smell. Perhaps you are just more sensitive to it than most; I don't generally notice it until it's overcooked by my standards.
Along with this, cook it as fast as you can. The flavor you don't like is produced by enzymes converting precursor molecules into those with the flavor. From On Food and Cooking:
Heating cabbages and their friends has two different effects. Initially the temperature rise...speeds the enzyme activity and flavor generation, with maximum activity around 140F/60C. The enzymes stop working altogether somewhere short of the boiling point. If the enzymes are quickly inactivated by plunging the vegetables into abundant boiling water, then many of the flavor precursor molecules will be left intact. ... If the cooking period is prolonged, then the constant heat gradually transforms the flavor molecules. Eventually the sulfur compounds end up forming trisulfides, which accumulate and are mainly responsible for the strong and lingering smell of overcooked cabbage.
So as suggested by others, boiling instead of steaming to reduce cooking time helps. So does cooling quickly, with cold or ice water. Boiling in excess water will also leach some out, but you might also lose flavor you like.
A couple other thoughts, also from On Food and Cooking. Cabbage family vegetables grown in the summer, and under drought stress, produce more of the flavor precursors, and those grown in the autumn and winter with less light and more water have less. They're also more concentrated in the core of the vegetables. And for cabbage, you can remove a lot of them by chopping and soaking in cold water; conceivably the same could work for broccoli, but again perhaps at the cost of desirable flavor.
Overcooking is definitely the culprit when it come to sulphur smells from cruciferous vegetables. One other tip is to add a couple of unshelled walnuts to the water you are cooking the veggies in... the shells will absorb some of the excess sulphur.
This does not happen if you boil it for 30-60 seconds, drain, then ice water shock the broccoli instead of steaming.
In steaming, the usual way to prevent this is to eat it quickly and to steam for a very short time. However, steaming to the same point of moderate tenderness takes at least 6 minutes at high pressure, and the cooking doesn't stop after you remove it.
In my experience, blanching provides superior results for broccoli's flavor compared to steaming, even if you end up recooking the broccoli (like you might in a casserole), because the halting of the cooking process from the rapid cooling.
It's possible that ice water shocking steamed broccoli may have the same effect, but I prefer the shorter cooking time that blanching enables so I've never tried it. It may be worth experimenting with, if you're committed to steaming.
I wouldn't say quick cooking and eating is the only way to prevent it; I'd expect cold water to work on steamed broccoli just fine too.
I've never had a problem, but I also don't do a 100% steam cooking method ... you may want to try it and see if it sets off your nose, as we're all sensitive to smells to a different degree:
Heat a skillet with a little bit of oil in it. (you can use non-stick, but you still want a little bit of oil)
Cut up the flourets, but set them aside.
Slice up the stem
Sauté the stems for a minute or two.
Add the flourets, and saute for another 30-60 seconds.
Add a bit of water, and slap on a lid.
Let steam to your desired doneness.
Drain off the water (tilt pan over sink while holding lid slightly askew)
Serve
I left out the seasoning step ... I typically season when sautéing, but if you're used to steaming, it might be more similar to season after cooking.
We love all things broccoli ; soup included. I always add a pinch of baking soda, and that's the end of the odour. Good luck.
I have always had good results with adding a stalk of celery when steaming broccoli, and then discarding it after cooking. Don't know why it works, but my mom had done this for years after reading it in some cookbook, and it does seem to change the odor that permeates the kitchen.
This is super late—but if y’all put just a little bit of chicken or beef bouillon to the water, the bad smell lessens. I know everyone is saying to cook it less, but obviously you want to enjoy it at a texture that you like. So add a little bit of that in it and it helps!
I am a retired Registered Dietitian. Boiling broccoli in a large quantity of water , WITH THE LID OFF, is the best way to cook broccoli. It prevents the vegetable from turning that drab olive green as it lets alot of the sulfurous acids out and prevents too strong of a flavor.--You can still cook it too the tenderness (or not) with this method that I was taught in college.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.630780
| 2012-10-17T22:47:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27881",
"authors": [
"Brice Beaulieu",
"Cally Wood Doyle",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Didgeridrew",
"James Kiraly",
"Jay",
"June",
"Kesweat",
"Konner Rasmussen",
"Matteo Wyllyamz",
"Nae",
"Preston",
"TFD",
"Ted B",
"Victoria Smyth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98743",
"jaredready",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
30489
|
Can I reuse chopped onions?
I have a Hot Dog Stand. I use chopped onions every day, can I re use the left over chopped onions the next day? The onions are in a container that keep them cold all day long. Some days the onions have a lot of liquid in the bottom, is that a problem? I do not want to get anyone sick.
While not a safety question, which you are asking about, or a code question, the quality of onions that are held for a considerable period of time will go down. They will loose their crispness, and take on a more astringent, harsh flavor rather than the fresh, crisp bite they have when first chopped. So you might not wish to hold them, even if it is permissible under your local health codes to do so.
Cook them and serve pissaladière the next day.
If you're operating a hot dog stand, I'm going to guess that you'll want to follow your local health codes. There's a very good chance that it'd be a violation.
In most areas, it wouldn't be anything to stop you from using it for your own meals, so long as you didn't serve it to the public. (and you might have to transfer it to a different container, so you keep the public & personal stuff seperate). So long as they've been kept chilled through the day, I'd be inclined to use them in some sort of cooked dish for dinner. At worst, you get sick, but you don't get the public sick.
I think the core of Joe's answer--follow your local, current code--is the most important thing.
This is a good thread to read about storage time for onions after they've been cut.
There are also some ways to attempt to keep an onion fresh.
If you're cutting your onions to serve then Joe is correct in stating that you'll want to adhere to local health codes and possibly even consider cutting your onions to order or only cutting a small amount and adding to it as needed- any good customer would prefer a fresh cut onion to an off, cut up cup of them anyway, right?
It's also prudent to remember that in nearly all cases you cannot see whether or not a food has gone bad entirely, but since you stated there is a watery liquid in the bottom of your onions it sounds like there are some visual indicators.
Just remember: If in doubt- throw it out (especially when you're serving it to the public)!
Most cut vegetables have a shelf life of 24 hours, I've worked in restaurants were they "extended" the shelf life, but a health inspector would look for a same day sticker to indicate that those onions are not left over. If you are finding yourself overwhelmed with the amount of prep needed and are over prepping to compensate and stay ahead, pre-prep your onions. You can do this by having a cambro of peeled onions (or complete whatever primary or secondary steps you follow before reaching your final product) and then cut only what is needed for that day. If you're having trouble figuring out how much onion you need for the day weigh the amount of onions you prepped before and after service, and see how much was used.
Use 3-4 smaller containers so you are not opening and closing it multiple times and bringing the onions out of the cooler multiple times. And you are not mixing old onions with new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.631335
| 2013-01-28T19:43:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30489",
"authors": [
"Andy KR",
"Azwar Zaim",
"Dandan",
"Gatorade Group",
"Holly Niese",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Thắngg TL",
"emilie heard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71320",
"mouviciel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27561
|
Is Consumer Reports really correct about 6 parts water to 1 part rice?
There's been a number of news reports recently about possible high concentrations of inorganic arsenic in rice. I heard that Consumer Reports says to cook 1 part rice in 6 parts water to minimise risk:
"We say to use about 6 parts water to 1 part rice," says Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports. "And then drain off the water after it's done."
What!?!? Are they cooking rice soup? The only way I see that helping to reduce arsenic consumption would be to make the worst tasting rice ever so you don't want to eat it!
For years I have always thoroughly rinsed my rice and let it dry for about 10-15 minutes, brought water to a boil in a small saucepan (just under 2 parts water for 1 part rice) and then added the rice, covered, and cooked on low heat for 20 minutes. After the 20 minutes I don't drain anything, I just server the rice. It's always perfectly cooked.
Is Consumer Reports really correct about 6 parts water to 1 part rice!? Would the rice be any good cooked with that much water? If so, would I need to do anything differently?
We tend to avoid "health" related issues around here, but to comment on the actual rice cooking part, I suspect you could cook rice with that much water. As long as you drain it before it gets too soft, it would be cooked properly, and the water would in theory leech away any impurities. What will change, is you'll probably also leech away much of the starch, and result in less sticky rice. I'm putting all this as a comment, as I'm merely speculating here...
OK, Sorry @talon8! I'm not new to Stack Exchange but am new to this site. (New as in, haven't been able to think of questions and don't know enough to answer any :-) If this is OT I will gladly delete. It's not specifically a health topic, but it is somewhat.
I've only seen British people do this boil and drain method, and I can say the taste was not what I would hope for or expect in rice. I prefer the boil-to-steaming method that you use.
I think your question focusing on the cooking method recommended is perfectly fine and on topic, I was merely stating that I was going to just bypass the arsenic part, sorry for the confusion!
There's also the 'boil in bag' type minute rice, where you effectively do the boil-and-drain thing, so it's not just a British thing.
Except that's converted rice, so still works differently. (Though I would say that the taste leaves a lot to desired, I suppose it's for an unrelated reason).
I am accustomed to the boil-and-drain method of cooking rice. If you like your rice very soft/mushy, you can even cook rice 3.5:1 and wait until all water has evaporated on moderate-to-low heat (this is how my grandma always does it). The texture is different from the aldente 2:1 rice common in the USA, but I think the preference is a matter of habit.
It is perfectly possible to boil and then drain rice, although 6:1 is an uncommonly high ratio of water to rice. Obviously, Consumer Reports are more concerned with leeching contaminants out of the rice than with culinary aspects such as convenience and taste. Still, the rice cooking method exists, and there is no culinary objection against it except that some people don't like the resulting soft texture.
The boil-and-drain method (actually simmer-and-drain) is often combined with first frying the rice in oil until translucent, as for pilaf, but it is not technically required. You can just simmer in salted water until it has reached the desired consistency (depending on the type of rice you used, it will be somewhere on the spectrum between soft separate grains and a sticky soft mass where you have trouble separating the grains), then remove from the heat and drain. Add your aroma after the draining, as you don't want to throw it out with the water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.631625
| 2012-10-03T16:39:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27561",
"authors": [
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Luke",
"Noodles",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"amc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28551
|
How can I thicken this cranberry-pepper jelly?
In my first attempt at making jelly, I seem to have veered off course.
I'm following this recipe for Cranberry-Pepper Jelly:
Ingredients
3 red bell peppers, finely chopped
2 Fresno or red jalapeño chiles, seeded and finely chopped
1 cup sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons crushed red pepper flakes
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
1/4 cup liquid pectin
1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice
3 cups cranberries, fresh or frozen and thawed
I combined the peppers, chiles, sugar, pepper flakes, and salt in a large pot and brought it to a simmer over medium heat, as instructed. I then added the pectin and lemon juice and continued simmering for 10 minutes, as instructed. Finally, I added the cranberries and simmered for an additional 10 minutes or so until their skins burst.
During this entire process I observed the "jelly" was very runny. I sort of expected it to be somewhat runny based on the recipe reviews on Epicurious. The reviews stated that it was more of a relish than a jelly.
The problem is, mine is more of a soup than a relish. I put it in a jar in the refrigerator overnight, thinking that perhaps all it needed was cooling, but it is only marginally thicker than when it was hot.
Question
How can I fix this ridiculously soupy jelly? Can it be saved simply with additional heat, sugar, or pectin? I'd rather not go to the grocery store today (day before Thanksgiving) to get additional cranberries if it can be avoided. I have all ingredients but the peppers and cranberries on hand.
I found a site with another cranberry sauce maker complaining of the end product being too runny. What I learned is that cranberries have lots of natural pectin that is released when they are cooked past bursting.
If it were me, I would:
cook it some more, keeping it at a boil but watching it carefully so
it doesn't boil over and does not start to scorch at the bottom of
the pan (in other words, stir and WATCH IT!)
When the cranberries have deflated from releasing their inards and
some of the excess liquid has either boiled off or thickened, your
recipe should be salvageable.
Best of luck!
The amount of sugar in this recipe looks a bit low for a 10 minute simmer. I estimate that the bulk of the ingredients consists of,
~200g sugar
~330g cranberries
~330g bell pepper
That's less than 25% sugar. If this were a straight cranberry jelly, you'd need about 40% sugar content for optimal jelly strength and, I estimate, at least 35%.
I think that you could add another cup of sugar, bring it back to boiling for a minute and then let it set again. If you don't want to risk changing the recipe you could simmer longer until the pectin is fully precipitated (at about 220ºF or 104ºC according to the answers on this question)
Update: One of the answer comments on the question I linked to suggests that 220ºF is an indication of optimal water content, so it may not relate to pectin precipitation. TFD's answer has a tip for testing "pectin levels" with methylated spirits which might be what you need.
Having looked into this some more, I see the issues are more complex than I had anticipated. You have to get the pectin, acid, sugar ratio just right and that depends on the type of pectin. I only have a guess which type is present in liquid pectin and I don't know in what concentration (liquid pectin being mostly water). Liquid pectin contains an amount of acid to aid gelling so lemon juice might not be required. These and many other questions may invalidate my answer.
There are many variables in making jam and jelly. Pectin reacts with acid, not enough acid and the pectin won't gel. Not enough pectin and the gelling won't be enough. Too much water will make the gelling agent too dispersed.
So you can cook it down to get rid of the water, however that may ruin the consistency so I'd add more pectin and acid and see how that works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.631940
| 2012-11-21T18:11:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28551",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"DIVYA ARORA",
"GypsyCosmonaut",
"Sean Duggan",
"Swayam Siddha",
"flies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66001",
"melwin",
"richard walker",
"user1868607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62675
|
Tennessee Honey Jack Daniels substitution
What can be substituted for Tennessee Honey Jack Daniels in a recipe, I don't have any in my home. I have not been able to try anything yet.
Welcome to the site! If you post the recipe you are making and what effect you want you'll get much better answers, as it is your question is likely to be closed as being unclear what you're asking.
Do you have regular Jack Daniels, and some honey?
The flavored varieties of Jack Daniels (and most other brands, really) are nothing more than the same base whiskey, cut with additives including neutral spirits, sugar, and water. You can very easily add those last at home.
Make a honey syrup by combining honey and boiling water in equal amounts by volume in a heat-proof container; stir this until combined, allow to cool, and store in a sealed container in the refrigerator. This is both easier to mix with alcohol (just ask a bartender) and will provide some dilution.
Honey has about 17 grams of sugar per tablespoon (which equals 1/2 oz) and we've diluted it by half (so we now have the same sugar content of 17 grams per 1 oz). There's no exact information available for Tennessee Honey, but one estimate pegs the sugar content at about 6 grams in a 1.5 oz serving (which we'll convert to 4 grams per 1 oz). Many of these commercial liqueurs also include other additives which add a sweet taste and mouthfeel, so we'll err on the side of sweetness. A little napkin math then tells us that 1 oz of honey syrup should be enough to sweeten 3 oz of standard Jack Daniel's (producing 4 total oz with 17 grams of sugar, for 4.25 g/oz). You can also use just about any other bourbon out there; Jack Daniel's tends to be a little sweeter in general, but we've accounted for that to a degree already.
You can ramp this up or down for any amount needed, using the same ratio of 1 part honey syrup to 3 parts Jack Daniel's (or bourbon). And yes - that is a lot of sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.632274
| 2015-10-20T10:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62675",
"authors": [
"Daniel Truesdail",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Jennifer Kotzen",
"Lakesia Everette",
"Ron Matthews",
"bann0954aolcom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98763
|
Crispy chicken skin on the BBQ
I am on a mission to get CRISPY chicken skin on the BBQ. I don't mean to LOOK crispy. I mean to actually "crunch" when bitten into, if that's at all possible. I'm trying to do all the right steps. I dry off the chicken thighs (bone in, skin on) with paper towels, liberally sprinkle with Kosher salt and pepper, & spray with oil so it doesn't stick to the grill. On medium high, I start with skin side down so the fat can render and turn after about 7 minutes. Repeat and leave on till done. When done, the chicken is moist, delicious, and beautifully carmalized.......but NOT crispy!!!! Any suggestions?
is it a propane grill? the burning of hydrocarbons produces water, which might affect how crisp the skin gets (especially if it's cooked with a closed lid)
It is propane and for the most part the lid is closed. I would never guess that would be the reason. Would an open lid with propane do the tick?
It would help, but I don't know that it would be the only thing needed. Hopefully someone else has more experience with this
You are getting a lot of it right by patting the chicken dry and using a dry rub, I think you just need to tweak your method a bit.
Rendering fat and making crispy skin takes time, 7 minutes just isn't long enough for all the fat to melt away and it is searing instead. When I make crispy chicken in the oven I bake it on 190°C (375°F) in a fan oven for 35 minutes - that's thighs and legs, breast may vary.
What I would suggest in the barbecue is to reduce the heat to a bit short of medium, and cook the chicken longer on indirect heat. Once the fat has rendered and the skin gets crispy you can crank the heat up and get some color on it if you aren't happy with the color already. I'd keep the crispy skin away from the high heat though as it's likely to burn, instead caramelize the underside of the chicken.
This is all about removing moisture. I would add to this that salting your chicken, and letting sit, uncovered, in your refrigerator for up to 2 days before cooking will increase dehydration and allow for better crisping.
How long before you cook do you salt the meat? The salt will take time to draw out the moisture to give that nice crispy skin. You'll want to salt it (and use any other dry-rub seasonings) at least several hours before cooking - salting ten minutes or so before cooking can make the skin flabby.
Thanks to everyone for all the advice, I'll try all your suggestions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.632474
| 2019-05-01T22:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98763",
"authors": [
"Hutchette",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115768
|
Why do I sometimes “cream” and “beat until smooth”, and sometimes not?
I have enjoyed baking for MANY years and the basic rule of thumb is to “cream” the butter and sugar thoroughly, add the eggs one at a time then beat all other liquids until smooth before adding the dry ingredients. Over the years I have acquired a handful of favourites, (cakes and loaf cakes) that instruct to “add ALL ingredients, beat well, and add to pan. And, these recipes turn out perfect! I’m confused as to why “these” recipes don’t follow the tried and true method of basic baking rules, and still turn out perfect!
On the Great British Baking Show, they sometimes refer to cakes made the second way as "the all in one method." I'm not sure what makes a recipe work with that method or not, but it might be a helpful search term.
There is no one way, the creaming method is only one method among many techniques. The method you use depends on the texture you are going for.
There are many different ways to mix ingredients, which will affect the final texture. Here are a few that I'm familiar with, but I suspect a professional baker would know even more:
Creaming : Beating the fat and sugar together first to encorporate air, then add your other ingredients. Requires having a solid fat. Typically used for cookies and some cakes.
Muffin Method : Mixing the liquids and dry ingredients individually, then mixing the two together. Typically used for quick breads (and muffins)
Sponge: Whole eggs are whipped, then sugar and flour are added. Used for pound cake. (some argue that it's no longer a sponge if you add chemical leavener)
Chiffon : Mix together everything but the egg whites. Beat the egg whites, then fold them in. Used for chiffon cakes. (rather similar to making a souffle, but the proportions for cakes are different and includes chemical leaveners)
Angel Food : Whip your egg whites, then slowly fold in the sugar, flour and other ingredients. Used for angel food cake (and requires a special pan, so it's upside down as it cools). Unlike other cakes, there are no egg yolks or other fat.
Obviously, if you don't have a solid fat, you can't use the creaming method. So an olive oil cake simply can't use the creaming method.
Muffin method typically uses a liquid fat (there are variants that use fruit puree and no fat). I'm not familiar with the "All at once" method, but I suspect that it would also use liquid fats.
The only other solid fat methods that I'm aware of aren't used for cakes -- they're used for pie crusts, biscuits, and puff pastry.
As for the question about "beat until smooth", it again depends on ingredients and desired texture -- you typically do not do this with cakes once flour has been added. If you do, you'll develop gluten, which creates a chewy texture. This might be okay for cookies or yeast breads, but it's a problem for cakes and muffins.
If you over-beat a muffin, you'll get "tunneling", when bubbles are trapped inside the batter and end up looking like a worm has burrowed through the item. This is why muffins, brownies, and pancake recipies often tell you to stir until "just combined" or even that few flour streaks are okay.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to give all the great input!
For the same reason that sauce recipes will sometimes direct you to cut the tomatoes, sometimes to puree them, sometimes to deseed them, etc. You are not only making a cake every time, you are making different kinds of cake, and for each kind, there is a method which will produce the desired type of cake.
It will probably be more useful to stop thinking that 'the basic rule of thumb is to “cream”'. There is no basic rule of thumb. What is needed is to mix the ingredients in a way such as to provide the desired final texture in the cake. There are perhaps 6-7 methods which can be used, and the choice of method is always an integral part of the recipe, to the point where Michael Ruhlmann considers sponge cake and pound cake to be two different cakes, made with exactly the same ingredients at exactly the same ratios, but with two different methods (the creaming and the egg-foaming method).
As a very brief description of the specific methods of creaming and all-at-once, creaming is generally used for cakes with a finer final texture that is softer, with uniform small bubbles. Festive decorated cakes and tortes are frequently made with layers using this technique. The all-in-once method, also called the muffin method, is more commonly used for everyday cakes. It gives you a somewhat irregular texture with some tooth, requires a chemical leavener, and is more tolerant of adding extra ingredients, such as fruit or vegetables in sweet loaves like banana bread, zucchini bread, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.632787
| 2021-05-23T01:33:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115768",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Hutchette",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122335
|
Soul vide without the bag
I am experimenting with the sous vide style of cooking with fairly great results. I am wondering if I can cook poultry, (a turkey),without the bag, just submerging it into the water. I know it will float, but I could place a vacuum bag on top of it and weigh it down with a can or two. And, if that’s possible, instead of just water, could I cook it in a brine? Quite often I will poach chicken breasts so I don’t see much of a difference. Has anyone tried this?
Sounds like you plan to make a stock...
Worth noting that sous vide means 'under vacuum'; this may well be a good cooking method but it's probably best described as very precise poaching.
Or low-temperature braising/pot-roasting.
The benefit of low temperature cooking (also now known as sous vide, though technically "sous vide" translates as under vacuum), is that you can maintain a low temperature over a long time, both keeping proteins safe, and achieving textural results you can't otherwise. If you have the old school-type of immersion circulator (the kind that looks like lab equipment), you can probably get away with this. In the early days of sous vide, some folks were experimenting with cooking directly in oil heated by a circulator. These days, as @Sneftel points out, most of these devices are designed to work with water only. Other liquids, or particles of food can really mess things up. Beyond that, I see a couple of other potential problems. Floating items means poor heat transfer. You can account for this by weighing items down, as you suggest, but if you are poaching a whole turkey, for example, if there is an air pocket in the cavity, that could be a potential safety risk, as the heat transfer in the air space will be quite different from the rest of the bird. Finally, specifically in the case of poultry, dark and white meat are best at different temperatures, so you would have to factor that in. I do like to cook turkey breast sous vide, then finish in the oven. So there is merit to your approach. However, without containing your food, you create some challenges that you need to overcome.
Interesting information about the oil. Sort of a forced-convection confit, and wouldn’t leach away flavor like water would. I am intrigued.
@Sneftel I don't think many folks did it (I know Dave Arnold experimented, but he plays with everything). Obviously it did not have much staying power.
The sous vide “wands” I’m familiar with do not want to be immersed in anything but water. Protein could build up on the impeller and the heating element during cooking and damage them, and salt in the water could lead to pitting. And in any case, it could be quite difficult to clean them afterwards. Check your sous vide device’s manual about this.
Beyond that, the plan sounds fine.
EDIT: incidentally, I’ll mention that eggs (in the shell) are often cooked directly in the water. Not the case you were interested in, but an example of sous vide without bagging.
Thanks for all the great advice. I’m glad you brought it to my attention regarding cooking it in the brine, wasn’t thinking about all the particles, (spices, sugar, salt), floating in the water. Aside from that, I think I’ll give it a try and then crisp it up in the oven! Never cooked a Turkey in my cooler before!!
Not exactly what you're asking, but in case you're wondering because you can't find a bag or container big enough. I've done it before like this:
I closed the lid as best I could, but it did steam up the room a little.
I put removed the wings and legs and did them in zip locs. The body I put in a Reynolds baking bag. I added some chicken stock this. You can remove most of the air this way.
After sous-viding overnight, we put it in the fridge for while in the morning. Later in the day, right before dinner, broiled for 30 minutes or so, it was delicious.
Sorry I can't remember all the details to get it to the right temperature at serve time.
But some ideas...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.633173
| 2022-11-13T04:07:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122335",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Hutchette",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71364
|
Can I substitute buttermilk by curdling coconut milk with acid?
I love to bake but can't justify buying buttermilk for the odd time a recipe calls for it. Instead, I add vinegar to milk to replicate the buttermilk.(it works perfectly). At the same time, I LOVE to bake with coconut milk, substituting it for milk in the recipe. My question is, can I add vinegar to coconut milk and get the same results when substituting it for the buttermilk?
Not directly answering that question: Curdling with acid works on soymilk too, less so on coconut milk.
You might look for buttermilk powder - it will keep longer, so it makes more sense for occasional uses.
No, you cannot. Cow milk has proteins, which curdle when exposed to acid, thickening the whole thing. Coconut milk is simply a suspension of fat in water, with very few carbohydrates and practically no proteins. You cannot curdle it with acid.
Yes,it can! Coconut buttermilk - made with full fat coconut milk and vinegar can be substituted in most recipes for baking. It's a wonderful alternative for those who are dairy intolerant or vegan. It works great in biscuits! Here's a recipe from the internet that I have used with success. https://cooknourishbliss.com/2012/08/08/cream-biscuits/
Hey user106558, thanks so much for your reply. Welcome to this site, I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.633514
| 2016-07-12T02:31:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71364",
"authors": [
"Hutchette",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37807
|
When can I use coconut oil as a substitution for other fats?
Aside from imparting a different flavour, when baking and cooking can you substitute coconut oil for other oils (including butter) with the same results? I have been reading about the apparent health benefits from coconut oil, unless it's another fad!
It depends on the application: coconut oil is highly saturated compared to most vegetable oils, so it is more solid at room temperature.
If you are using it as a medium to saute or fry, this is not going to matter very much.
If you are using it a baked item, it may or may not depending on the item. Most of the time in baked goods, you can substitute fats pretty freely, but you will get some change the in ultimate texture if you use a much more saturated fat.
In recipes which expect the oil to be liquid, you either have to melt the coconut oil before using it (if that is reasonably possible, for example in a muffin recipe), or not use it.
And of course, coconut oil may carry a slight flavor or aroma of coconuts.
If coconut oil has a high smoking point (like vegetable oil) it could be used for deep frying although I don't know if that is true or not. It might be nice to make potatoes this way, imparting some mild coconut flavouring to them.
350-450 F depending on whether stabilizers are added.
Fat for deep frying is usually a mixture of coconut and palm oil (about 1:1 with minor variation depending on the brand) over here (germany).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.633651
| 2013-10-22T01:40:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37807",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"John E",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20761"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115926
|
How to decrease sticking during frying without adding fats
Are there ways to introduce anti-sticking food additives for frying batter like substances and very high protein solutions without introducing excess fats into the recipe? With some of my experiments I have upwards of a half tbsp of butter going in (with another half half way through) to give a truly easy frying experience. I want try adjust the food chemistry to make it generally as non-stick as possible.
I can experiment with cooking surfaces as well, but I suspect my non-stick pans are probably the best for dealing with very high protein "liquids" as oppose to cast iron. If it is a nonfat substance that allow for less fats to be used during cooking then I'm interested (for example Harold McGee mentions in passing that there are substances in butter that assist in the oil portion becoming more non-stick then you would expect from butters natural oil content).
You can take advantage of the Leidenfrost effect to minimise the use of fats.
The Leidenfrost effect is a physical phenomenon in which a liquid, close to a surface that is significantly hotter than the liquid's boiling point, produces an insulating vapor layer that keeps the liquid from boiling rapidly. Because of this 'repulsive force', a droplet hovers over the surface rather than making physical contact with the hot surface.
This video shows someone making scrambled eggs with a small amount of butter in an unseasoned stainless steel pan, and it doesn't stick:
HOW TO MAKE STAINLESS STEEL PANS NONSTICK | Cooking Eggs w/ NO Sticking | "Leidenfrost Effect" Trick
The idea being that, at a certain temperature range, the heat of the pan will create a bubble of hot air between the pan's surface and the liquid ingredient. Since the liquid doesn't touch the pan, it can't stick to it.
Another solution would be to actually season your pans; that will make the surface non-stick and you can use little or no oil. Well seasoned cast iron or stainless steel pans will behave similarly to your non-stick pans.
I didn't believe this until I tried it, but I read and tried placing raw carrot pieces in the oil of a frying pan when cooking potato pancakes or schnitzel. It works pretty well! It supposedly helps keep the frying pan cleaner, too, but I did not find that to be true. Putting a carrot into fry oil to keep it clean Good luck!
but what's the science behind it?
Still trying to figure that out :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.633790
| 2021-06-03T03:51:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115926",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25465
|
Why did my nougat burn?
I attempted to make nougat today and it was an epic failure. The instructions for the sugar and honey solution was to mix it together with 2 tablespoons of water and stir it over heat without boiling until the sugar dissolved. Then wipe any granules on the sides of the pan into the solution and bring it to the boil without stirring at all until it reached 164'C. However the solution smelt burnt before it became of temperature. When we beat it into the egg whites it was in deed burnt and resulted in a rather brown looking charged gooey mess.
I am wondering if it is possible to get the sugar and honey to that temperature without it in fact burning. We did note that it took quite some time (12ish minutes) on a moderate heat to reach the 164° C and even seemed to plateau and dip slightly in temperature while cooking. Would it help if we tried to reach the targeted temperature faster?
I have the ingredients and want to try again tomorrow. Hopefully someone here will be able to prevent a further failure!
Please post recipe or link to ir, some recipes just never work!
Your recipe is broken. If it actually gave you that temperature then discard it and find a new one.
Nougat is made, depending on the recipe, by heating the syrup to "hard ball" or "soft crack" temperatures before beating it into the egg whites.
Candy temperatures are categorized by the behavior of the syrup when dripped into ice water.
Hard ball is around 250F (121C) and looks like this:
Your temperature of 327F (164C) is actually off the chart and is categorized as "caramel" because the syrup has started to break down and the sugars are burning. Caramels have a lovely flavor but it is not going to create the correct texture for nougat. There is also a very fine line between "light caramel" and "horribly burnt" that is best avoided.
I recommend you find a more reasonable recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.634006
| 2012-08-04T11:14:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25465",
"authors": [
"Alice Brinkley Hobin",
"Arturino",
"Aruzo Amiry",
"Rosemary Stateler",
"S Roker",
"TFD",
"cruizer",
"denise guidotti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58317",
"tay evans"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19214
|
Cooking with a crock pot - temp
I'm thinking about getting a slow cooker, so I was checking out some recipes. Many say something along the lines of:
Cook Time
4 - 5 hours on LOW
2 - 2.5 hours on HIGH
Slow Cooker
4 - 4.5 Quarts
6 - 6.5 Quarts
Two questions:
Is it better to cook it on low or high? Obviously the time will be different, but will it usually taste better when done on low?
What is the stuff under Slow Cooker referring to?
Thanks
Cooking "Low and Slow" allows the heat to break down the connective tissues that cause toughness in meat, creating a more tender dish.
As for what the "Slow Cooker" is referring to, that is the volume of the crock pot.
For a pretty exhaustive list of why you would want to cook at a lower heat when time allows, see this question as most of the mechanics of letting your dish sit overnight apply when extending the cooking time by a few hours and lowering the temp.
In particular, I would look at this answer regarding passive transport; the difference being that you would be adding heat, further facilitating the listed mechanics
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.634205
| 2011-11-29T11:28:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19214",
"authors": [
"Xianlin",
"aidansmyth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41792",
"puvi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21136
|
What is the difference between good quality chocolate and cheap chocolate?
There are many types of chocolate out there, some higher quality than others. What are the main differences between good quality chocolate and cheap chocolate? And in practical applications in baking and confections, what "benefits" do higher quality chocolate offer?
Are you just asking about solid chocolate, instead of powder or liquid? And can you be more specific about "good" and "bad"? Are you talking about taste, price, or texture, for example?
@KatieK, I feel like my question as is, is pretty self explanatory. I didn't use good/bad. I used good quality/cheap so price is already implied.
Oh wait, I used good/bad in my title. i guess I'll change that.
The short answer is that good quality chocolate has a high proportion of cocoa constituents with little or no substitution.
What to look for:
High cocoa solids content. Chocolate with less than 50% cocoa solids will have little real chocolate taste and those with more than 70% will have a much more complex and fine chocolate taste.
Cocoa butter content. Chocolate makers tend to substitute vegetable oil in place of cocoa butter to reduce costs. Cocoa butter prices have increased in recent years due to demand in the cosmetics industry.
Smooth texture. This comes from the cocoa spending a longer period being crushed in the concher.
Conversely, these are indications of a poor quality chocolate:
Low proportion of cocoa solids
Use of vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter
Chocolates with low cocoa solids content, such as milk chocolate, are usually inappropriate for baking due to their proportionally low chocolate flavor. Baking cocoa powder itself is in fact just another word for cocoa solids, and this is why it is favored when baking: it is the pure chocolate flavor.
The milk constituents of milk chocolate may also go rancid, giving the chocolate a'bad olive oil' taste as described here.
In this image the cocoa solids go up from 0% in white chocolate to a maximum of 100% in the highest of quality chocolates.
As white chocolate contains no cocoa solids, look instead for cocoa butter and vanilla in place of vegetable oils and vanilla extract.
I'd really suggest you read the wikipedia on chocolate processing as a starting point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#Processing
There are many steps involved, and each one is important.
A summary of things that can go wrong:
Under-ripe beans
Improper fermentation. (many factors can contribute to this)
over/under roasting
Improper cleaning (foreign particles)
Poor conching (smoothing and grinding of particles)
Poor tempering (crystal structure)
5 and 6 go more to texture. You may find mass market Easter chocolate has a grainy texture -- That's poor conching.
Then the recipe has to be taken into account as well. Cocoa butter has value outside of chocolate making, and it may be replaced with cheaper oils (Hydrogenated coconut or palm oils for example.)
The cocoa solids themselves may be adulterated with cheaper ingredients to stretch the yield. And the mass producer's favorite weapon is more sugar. If you make it sweet enough, a lot of people won't notice the low quality product.
I'd recommend that you go out and buy a Lindt 70% cocoa bar and give it a taste. While not necessarily the best chocolate out there, it is readily available, and of a decent quality.
Note: the Lindt 70% should be of the Excellence line. The Lindor line is made with vegetable oils, not pure cocoa butter. Just read the label.
I've always wondered about the emulsifiers they add (normally lecithin). The 80% chocolate I get doesn't have any, so I'm wondering why it's needed on lower concentrations... Wouldn't fattier chocolate need more emulsifiers?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.634335
| 2012-02-07T20:18:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21136",
"authors": [
"Edel Martin",
"Jay",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"w00t"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19926
|
Is food with hair in it (or food which had hair in it) safe to eat?
Occasionally I'll find a hair in my food. If I find one in say a restaurant, I won't eat my food, but I can't just throw out an entire platter of food if at home where my own grandma worked hard to cook it for me. In that case, I'll generally pick the hair out and continue eating (at least in that case I know where the hair has been).
If a hair falls into food in preparation, is the food still safe to serve/eat once the hair is removed? What are the potential hazards of serving food with a hair still in it?
--
Hair is a protein mostly keratin
Keratin refers to a family of fibrous structural proteins. Keratin is the key of structural material making up the outer layer of human skin. It is also the key structural component of hair and nails.
There's nothing special about it as a protein, so as long as it doesn't wrap around your tonsils and get stuck in your throat, or contain dyes, hairspray etc. it's safe to eat.
However, the long stringy nature of the stuff can cause problems if you eat too much of it.
I never considered it getting stuck to the tonsils or the negative effects of dyes/hairspray. I think longer hairs that are capable of causing mechanical damage (such as with the tonsils or getting stuck in the throat) would be a lot easier to notice and pick out. But I wonder if even small hairs can get suck to the tonsils or throat and cause an infection.
Anyone who's owned a cat has surely witnessed what happens when they've ingested too much hair. But that requires consuming quite a bit more than one or two stray hairs that might have fallen into one's food...
@Aaronut yes well my neighbour owns a few cats and whenever she bakes cookies and sends them over I sometimes cough up a hairball (in a figurative sense). Actually I doubt the human body is able to cough back hair the way a cat can (hair might just build up in the stomach or something), but I guess that would make for an off topic question on these forums :P.
@Bizorke: Cats don't really "cough" up hairballs, that's kind of a euphemism. Hair is like anything else that animals can't digest; if it's important/built-up enough to get rid of, the body will find a way to get rid of it, even if it has to use a different exit.
I disagree that it will always find a way out. Long hairs can get caught up in the digestive system. In the worst case they will form a bezoar, but you have to ingest lots of them before obstruction happens, the stray hair from food isn't enough.
Really off-topic but there was an episode of the British TV series "Casualty" which featured a young girl complaining of stomach pain. It turned out that she had eaten her hair, which had formed a ball in the stomach.
There's also the fun of having to force yourself to eat the rest of a strand of hair if you accidentally swallow a long one. No way to retrieve the rest if partially swallowed :/ Always important to tie hair up/back before cooking or eating on windy days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.634626
| 2011-12-23T15:51:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19926",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brad Weesner",
"Can Hatipoglu",
"Era",
"Graham",
"JSideris",
"Manako",
"No'am Newman",
"Olivier Barbut",
"denvercoder9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44332
|
Scary moments - what temperature for broiling?
I have a significant problem - our broiler is flat out dangerous. The oven/broiler came with our house. Every single thing we've put under it has been burnt (it says it's 550, but I think it could be far hotter). A few minutes ago I put lobster mac and cheese under it for less than 90 seconds to brown up the top.
It started a fire, ruining the dish, filling the house with smoke, and causing us to dump some water we luckily had nearby on the dish to put out the foot high flames (cracking the glass dish, awesome!). If that hadn't worked, I would have had the fire extinguisher.
We're ok, but I will NEVER touch that damn broiler again.
So, that leaves me just using our oven, once I can get the smoke smell out. Should I just crank it as high as the oven can go (500 degrees)? Is it supposed to be lower? I know the addage is that a broiler is "an upside down grill" but grilling can be anywhere from 350 to 600 degrees depending on the grill, so that's a pretty bad comparison.
Any help would be appreciated. I'm kind of frazzled at the moment.
How close to the element are you putting things? Was it potentially splattery, greasy mac and cheese?
It's about 3 inches from the element (the top shelf). And negative, even if it had been splattery it was covered with a crust on top. It's an electric broiler, I wish it was gas.
Don't you have a thermometer to re-calibrate the temperature dial? Or borrow one? Or craigslist one?
Broiling isn't just about temperature, it's the radiant direct heat and it might take a huge ambient temperature to get close to that. It might be worth looking into replacing or repairing the broiler element, they're fairly cheap ($15-25) and usually can be replaced without much hassle (unplug everything first!). Also, you could try it again with the food much lower in the oven and the door open to watch (with extinguisher handy just in case)
Cooking fires can usually be put out by covering them with a lid, a plate, a cookie sheet, or whatever else is handy. Don't use water; if there's a significant amount of grease in the fire it will spatter and make things worse.
When you put something under the broiler, do you stay and watch it or do you set a timer and walk away? Specifically with the mac and cheese, I have to imagine if you were watching it you could have pulled it out prior to the fire. In general, it's a poor idea to leave your food unattended under a broiler, especially when you know that it's excessively hot.
100% agree with derivative -- when broiling you really need to keep an eye on things ... it only takes a few seconds to go from 'golden brown & delicious' to 'charcoal' (with or without flames). I keep the door open because the broiler typically gets so hot it'll cause the oven to shut off, so you need to vent the excess heat.
Yeah, this was a "completely untouched" to burnt in about 75 seconds, which, sadly was spent with my back working on the finishing touches of a side dish with peeps in about every 15 seconds. The door was open though, which is how we saw the flame.
Wow! It had to have been grease splatter or something. 90 seconds is truly amazing though. Sorry to hear about that.
I'd be glad to have that powerful a broiler in a home oven :)
Assuming you cannot fix the oven (which would be my first recommendation as much for safety as anything else), then for browning things on the top I'd suggest using a cook's torch, which is the same thing as a plumbing torch except it's flashier.
Of course you'll want to make burgers, steaks, fish, etc as well. Baking these will not get you nice toasted brown bits no matter how hot you set your oven, so frying is your next best option although in some cases you could use the torch there as well.
You could your too-hot broiler question on the diy forum to get ideas on fixing it.
You could try leaving the oven door open just a crack to help circulate the heat a little better
From what you say, it sounds way too hot. I don't know about temperatures, and it seems odd to try to measure, since the element will be "very hot" and the actual temperature you get will depend on distance. But in my experience, most broilers especially at a healthy distance of 3 inches from element to food will take a minute to really brown the top of an already cooked dish, and after that it'd more likely char than ignite. And things like broiling peppers (with plenty of turning) can take 5-10 minutes.
I think some of the suggestions in the comment are your best bet. First just try cooking something and watching carefully, to see how long it takes to brown. Maybe you had a fluke - some unexpected spatter. (I know you said no, but mac and cheese can have plenty of goopy stuff that'd be just right for a big bubble or glob to pop up and catch.) Maybe it's not actually as bad as it sounds. But if it is you might be able up fix it somehow.
Failing that, I think GdD might be right about the torch. You could try cranking it all the way up - 550F on the top rack will definitely brown things - but it won't be quite the same, and you'll probably cook the bottom too much on some dishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.635027
| 2014-05-22T21:56:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44332",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Joe",
"Katrina Bunker",
"Ken Reibel",
"Matthew",
"Pete Becker",
"Preston",
"Puntawud Tawornpichayachai",
"Sameer Saurabh",
"Spammer",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"quinn",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30006
|
What factors affect collagen to gelatin conversion?
I have a bunch of oxtails I've been braising for hours in an adobo sauce and they remain awfully tough. What I'd love to see happen is for that abundant connective tissue to melt away and coat each fiber of meat with its succulent juices, but that collagen just does not want to budge.
This makes me wonder what is causing the conversion to fail (or just take so long). I'm sure the fact that we're dealing with oxtail is a factor--and older piece of meat simply is more tightly bound. But I suspect there may be more going on here as well. For example, the braising liquid is relatively acidic--would the pH of the medium affect the conversion rate? Or water hardness, perhaps? I've checked the collagen references in "On Food and Cooking" but didn't find anything that seemed relevant.
So, generally speaking what factors will affect the rate and effectiveness of collagen to gelatin conversion?
This is odd. In winter, I often braise oxtail in red wine and after 3-4 hours the meat just falls off the bone.
That's been my experience as well--which is why I was a bit surprised when it wasn't going here, and suspected the chemistry of the braising medium.
I was unable to find information that might tell what happened to your dish, but found some extremely interesting and detailed sources of information on collagen and gelatin which I think are worth sharing.
I did find that the pH is unlikely to be the major contributing factor, as there are both acid and alkaline processes for gelatin formation--see the Science of Cooking, Gelatin.co.za, and Hydrolization references below.
Since you have read On Food and Cooking, you almost certainly already know the basics of what affects the conversion rate. To paraphrase one of the articles, it is a high energy stochastic process so:
Gelatin conversion is time and temperature dependent, with higher temperaturs permitting faster conversion
Requires the presence of water, as it is a hydrolization of the denaturing collagen proteins
Of course, it sounds like by braising for hours, you have met these basic criteria.
Here are some sources I found:
why use a pressure cooker for collagen to gelatin conversion? Related question here, on why pressure cookers are effective at gelatin conversion
Gizmodo article on duck confit, with really nice scientific introduction for someone not already familiar with the topic. No references.
Science of Cooking suggests that acid actually aids in the process by breaking covalent links. Has references to more sources. Nicely balanced on the science without being impenetrable to the layperson.
http://www.gelatin.co.za/gltn1.html indicates there are forms of gelatin from both acid and alkaline environments, so the pH of the cooking medium was probably not the major contributing factor. Extremely detailed including information on chemistry. Has extensive references to primary sources, but no description of the site itself.
Gelatin Manufacturer's Industry Association article on manufacture, process, uses, chemistry and more. Extensive references.
Hydrodynamic properties of gelatin: studies from intrinsic viscosity measurements Introduction has some good summary information on gelatin, and then full on science of the viscosity measurements. Lots of references.
At this point--I stopped, as I have learned more about gelatin than I need to know as a cook!
Very interesting references. That will give me some reading for a while. Thanks.
You wrote that you were braising in adobo sauce for hours.
As SAJ14SAJ (whose name is a pain to type on my tablet) well said-gelatin conversion requires water, heat, and time. I know that you had heat but I'm not sure you have enough water or time.
Adobo sauce tends to be very thick. I would recommend diluting it with water (or stock), letting the meat cook to your liking and then reducing the braising liquid afterwards if necessary.
You said "hours" how many hours has it been going? I will let really tough meat simmer for at least four hours- one hour if in a pressure cooker.
Ah, I should have had more detail there--the sauce was purposely made thin so that it could later reduce. Also it had been going at a low simmer for about 5 hours at the time of writing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.635787
| 2013-01-12T04:46:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30006",
"authors": [
"Dana Robinson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Grand Skunk",
"Ian B",
"Madiha sabir",
"Ray",
"Shehnaz Ameer",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69989",
"mark picken",
"node_man"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18295
|
What difference does oxygen content of tea water make?
I've heard the advice that water should be boiled for tea only one--that when boiled it loses dissolved oxygen, and if there is insufficient oxygen in the water, the flavor of the tea is (somehow) affected.
This doesn't seem to make sense to me. If the water loses oxygen when it is boiled, it would have lost it before tea ever touched it anyway.
Does this really make a difference, or is it just a commonly perpetuated kitchen myth? If there is one, what affect does the oxygen (or lack) have on the finished product?
English people I know (including my mother) will also insist you not make tea using water from the hot tap, again saying that oxygen (dissolved air actually) comes out of it when it's hot. Some will refuse to use even water that has sat around - say, was put into a kettle but never heated up - starting with fresh cold water from the tap every time. You could do an experiment so you would know whether you needed to always do it the hard way, but I don't recommend trying to use the results of their experiments to show them they are wrong, nor doing it the "wrong way" when they can see you.
Interesting.. in the US, we avoid hot water from the tap because it tends to carry more sediment
@Kate, I'm surprised that they're not complaining that the water coming out of the hot tap is too cold. Tea should be made with boiling water.
@Peter good one. To be clear, they object to filling the kettle from the hot tap. I see it as a time saver but apparently the air loss is all that matters.
@Kate, oops, that was a genuine misunderstanding. I clearly failed to extract as much caffeine as usual from my coffee.
@Myles Water doesn't instantly boil when it reaches the boiling point - it can exist as both liquid and gas at 100C. Once it reaches 100C, it takes additional energy (and time) to turn it all to water vapor.
@KateGregory English people insist you don't use the hot tap for food use because our hot water supply often comes via grotty tanks that render the water unfit for human consumption. Any other explanation means, in reality, "I heard you shouldn't use the hot tap but I'm not really sure why. I guess maybe it's X." Boiling water removes essentially all dissolved gas from that water so, it really doesn't matter how much gas was dissolved in the water before it went in the kettle.
I don't have an scientific explanation, but the taste of water is for sure affected. This won't be easily noticeble when you use it to steep a black tea from tea bag. But if you steep a light, yet delicate green tea, the taste will be noticeably different. The texture of the tea can also become somewhat thinner when using reboiled water.
This blog article (citing numerous sources) claims that re-boiling water doesn't have any significant effect on tea taste. Here are some key points from it:
Heating water above 50˚C already removes most of the oxygen from it, so neither once-boiled nor twice-boiled water contain significant amounts of oxygen.
Triangle tests such as this one prove that dissolved oxygen by itself doesn't affect water taste.
While oxygen could theoretically reduce tannin's concentration in tea, this effect is dwarfed by other factors, notably steeping time, water temperature, and water/tea ratio.
All this is not to say that water is unimportant. Water is important. Alkalinity is important. Salt content is important. Minimal iron content is super important. Dissolved oxygen is not important.
[...] For brewing tea, coffee, or any other hot beverage, dissolved gases are irrelevant.
All moving water has dissolved oxygen in it. That is what fish breath
Dissolved oxygen is reactive, and will most likely extract more substances from the tea leaf, than without it. If these are the good flavour parts of tea, I do not know?
When you heat water it starts to release the dissolved oxygen. The more you heat water the more oxygen escapes
You can buy tea making kettles that bring water up to 95°C (203°F), but not boiling, so as to decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen lost, but still making the water hot enough to brew tea. They also save energy :-) I use one of these, and am happy with it
Example Kettle
Some people "watch" their kettle, and switch it off just before the water boils!
It is a personal taste preference if tea tastes better when brewed in water with more dissolved oxygen or not
Now I need to buy one of those pots, to add to the snobbery factor of my kitchen!
It's not oxygen content, but impurities react to boiling https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420808-100-the-last-word/
"Dissolved oxygen is reactive, and will most likely extract more substances from the tea leaf." That seems dubious, to me. The way that oxygen "extracts" things is called "burning".
"The more you heat water the more oxygen escapes" - The more means the time, the temperature, or both?
@DavidRicherby DO could react and oxidize compounds in the tea water, but this would likely destroy or denature them.
-1 because the real thing here is heat and dissolved oxygen(DO). Your claim about 'reactive, and will most likely..' is dubious at best with no foundation.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Yes but that reaction is the same reaction that occurs when you burn whatever substance. And burning usually isn’t good.
@DavidRicherby Agreed. It is called oxidation in food science. Apples, bananas, red meat.
I think one could more easily add more oxygen than prevent it's loss. Pouring through the air a few times should do it (it seems to be just agitation and exposure)
I agree with your suspicion. While boiling water most likely does cause it to lose some of its oxygenation, the bubbles and steam you see while boiling water do not come from the oxygen trapped in the water.
Water boils when you heat it enough for the water to begin acting as a gas. The reason boiling water bubbles is because the heat source is generally on the bottom, so the first water molecules to become gaseous are on the bottom and then bubble up.
Saying boiling water releases its inner oxygen is akin to saying that ice is not water and in fact simply traps water inside.
If you're worried about oxygenation, try pouring your cup of tea in various methods:
boil it in the mug (microwave?)
boil then pour into a cup
boil then pour a few times in to a cup
get a straw and blow some bubbles in your cup
try using seltzer water to make tea...?
Anyways, I could be wrong, but the whole concept seems a little silly.
Happy tea drinking :]
If you boil it in the mug, be careful to only boil it once. Boiling it a second time can result in a dangerous and spontaneous boil over. Basically, boiling it twice can superheat the water and remove any nucleation points, so when you dump in your coffee or tea it all boils at once.
@Nathan: That can happen on the first boil, too. I've seen it happen when my gf was trying to make instant coffee (for lack of a better alternative at the time). Fortunately, she wasn't burned by it.
Boiling water removes essentially all of the dissolved gases. It doesn't matter how you boil the water: if it comes to a rolling boil, all the gas leaves. (Yes, the big bubbles you see when water boils are primarily steam, but they carry all the dissolved gases with them.) Meanwhile, the bubbles in selzer water are carbon dioxide and have nothing to do with oxygen. Boiling selzer water will drive off all the carbon dioxide, along with whatever other gases were in there.
This person found that increased oxygen in the water resulted in milder, less tannic tea:
https://cookingwithnumbers.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/does-oxygenating-water-improve-tea/
Rather than boiling and reboiling water, they oxygenated water by bubbling air through it - so it doesn't exactly indicate what the effect would be from repeated boiling.
Presumably the repeated boiling would decrease the dissolved oxygen in the water, having opposite effect of aeration, thus increasing the solubility of the water, actually suggesting that you should boil water extensively before using for tea.
My mom, who would have been 100 years old by now, always told us that reboiling the water leaves the water a bit "stale" tasting. She talked of "Free Oxygen", which I believe was her way of saying Dissolved Oxygen. I think DO is what fish actually get through their gills, which is why fish in a bowl need to get fresh water (with DO at high enough levels) in order to live. So - my theory is that tea is best when made with fresh water that hasn't been previously boiled. That's my 2 cents!
My head hurts... That's as clear as a mud puddle.
OK, but you're making tea, not keeping fish. You've explained why fish need oxygen, but not how or why it helps tea. And the first boiling already removes essentially all the dissolved gases from the water, so reboiling it will make no significant difference.
All the correspondents seemed to have mislaid the chemistry and physics from early school lessons
as I remember water is composed of two atoms of Hydrogen and one of oxygen, if one were to remove the oxygen as suggested then to be sure we are left with H2 which at NTP (normal temperature and pressure) occurs as a highly flammable gas, plus you would need a chemical reaction (catalysis) or electrolysis to separate O from H2 , boiling water is simply heating water until the vapour given off equalises atmospheric pressure which is one bar or one atmosphere in old money, as a matter of interest Marks and Spencers have a message on their tea packets that boiling water removes the Oxygen, a case I think for appropriate legislation enforcement.
Tom Gilmore
Tom, you might have misunderstood the idea in the question and answers. We're not talking about losing the oxygen bound in the H2O molecule--we're talking about oxygen gas (O2) dissolved in the water. You may not be considering that gasses can dissolve in liquids; consider for example club soda, in which CO2 is dissolved in water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.636160
| 2011-10-10T17:44:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18295",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Sherohman",
"David Richerby",
"Flimzy",
"Glen J Fergo",
"Guy Norman",
"Justin Richardson",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kylie Rutland",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Megha",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Nathan",
"Orchard Blues",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray",
"Rob Marriott",
"Ushi",
"aikramer2",
"arieljannai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"user112288"
],
"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
}
|
28778
|
Which are recipes for "rolled fondant"?
I'm looking for recipe about rolled fondant for cake decoration.
I tried to search for it thought questions inside stackexchange, but i found nothing about (i'm probably non good researcher in english! I trust in you! :D ).
Thank's a lot! :)
I am sorry, but recipe requests are explicitely off-topic on our site. See the [faq] for details. If you find a recipe somewhere and it doesn't come out right, you can return with a description of your problem and we will be happy to help you make it right.
Here is one recipe:
http://www.food.com/recipe/rolled-fondant-247561
I cannot speak to its quality. I would stay away from any recipe calling for marshmallow fluff, however--at least as fondant.
You can also purchase fondant, should you so choose, from some internet retailers or retail stores.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.636969
| 2012-11-30T17:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28778",
"authors": [
"Capa",
"Jaime Lee",
"Kangaroos at Risk",
"Mz Fane",
"Robert Allen",
"genonymous",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66625",
"rumtscho",
"user41744"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27546
|
What kind of herbs are common in Italian dishes?
Yesterday I tried to follow a pasta recipe that called for tarragon. Since I didn't have this herb, I sustituted basil.
For convenience, I may try to plant those commonly needed herbs myself so I can pick them fresh, when I need them.
What are the most common herbs used in Italian pasta dishes and should they be used fresh?
Please state why the herb was chosen rather than simply listing them which would not be that helpful to me. For example, tarragon goes well with chicken so I put some into the pasta dish because I like the fennel-like taste of it.
Northern and southern Italian cuisines are very different. Which did you mean?
What's the difference?
That's another question in itself. They're vastly different cuisines, may as well be different countries.
Do you have a link to the recipe ? I love tarragon, and I would like to try that !
Italian cuisine is not monolithic. It varies widely by region. There are very few, if any, common herbs that are not used. They are probably more commonly used fresh, but dried herbs have their place as well.
Some example of herbs usage here in Italy (I'm 100% italian living near Milan):
Basil: (for its fresh taste)
Pasta with tomato sauce and a couple of leaves of fresh basil on top.
Pizza Margherita: Mozzarella Cheese, tomatoes, basil.
Pesto: basil, parmigiano cheese, pine nuts & olive oil.
Oregano: (a little salty, chosen for its strong parfume)
On top of Focaccia
Mozzarella Caprese (mozzarella, tomatoes, basil & oregano)
Sage (delicate perfume, used to enhance flavours)
Gnocchi with butter & sage, with little parmigiano
Parsley
Mostly used with fish pasta dishes (never with meat!)
Some common mistakes on italian pasta recipes "as seen from abroad" is that we don't really use parsley or oregano everywhere. Many other herbs like tarragon, marjoram, etc... Are rarely used in everyday recipes.
So what I need is only basil if I only cook pasta?
Yes and No. If you want to strictly observe typical italian recipes, well, you have a few choices. But if you search on the web you can find a lot of delicious recipes like this one http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fricette.giallozafferano.it%2FOrecchiette-alle-erbe-aromatiche.html&act=url (translated from the most famous italian foodblog) that are not so common here, but are delicious.
As an Italian, you perhaps should know better than anyone that there are no "never"s in Italian cuisine. I can show you any number of recipes from actual Italian chefs (Guiliano Bugialli, Marcella Hazan, Giorgio Locatelli, Fabio Trabocchi...) that use parsley with meat. Two minutes flipping through Il cucchiaio d'argento turns up recipes for veal, liver, duck, and lamb that include parsley.
Oregano is better dried instead of fresh (it's one of the rare herb that is better dried).
Basil, Parsley, Oregano, Bay leaves, Marjoram, Rosemary, Sage, Thyme.
The more woody of these aren't left in when serving (Rosemary, Bay Leaves etc.).
No general rule of thumb about what herbs to go in which sauces but for me, you can separate them by which goes well into which sauce colour:
Red (Tomato) sauces: Basil, Parsley, Oregano, Bay Leaves
White Sauces: Bay Leaves, Marjoram, Rosemary, Sage, Thyme
No reason why you can't put any herb in any sauce though.
Would there be other pasta using other sauce instead of red or white? I'd rather try to group them by how their favour suits a particular dish. And I think you won't put all the listed herb into the sauce too because that too overpowering.
My Italian friend says only the Greeks use oregano. She is from northern Italy though, which is nearly a separate country from the south.
Oregano is a staple herb in all the commercially jarred red pasta sauces here in the U.S.
French and Spanish also use oregano. My neighbor sells bags.
Oh, I know. Don't shoot the messenger! :D
Load of rubbish. Origano (Oregano) is one of the most common herbs in Italy. It's nearly on every pizza and pasta dish they make, usually in the pomodoro (tomato) sauce
It's common, but not on every pasta or pizza.
I agree oregano is extremely common in southern Italy, but not so much northern, and @ElendilTheTall's friend was from northern Italy.
In fact, the question isn't really answerable without specifying northern or southern Italy. The cuisines are very different.
@ElendilTheTall I am from Liguria and dry oregano is literally a must have in the kitchen. Liguria isn't exactly in the south. Of course in the Alps oregano won't be in any typical recipes. Italian cuisine seems misunderstood. There is not, that's probably the reason.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.637093
| 2012-10-03T06:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27546",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"BaffledCook",
"C. watson",
"Carey Gregory",
"CelticThugPoet7",
"El Burro",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Here2Quest",
"Koyovis",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Max",
"Sean Chinery",
"Steve",
"TFD",
"Veronica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jscs",
"lamwaiman1988",
"mary davidson",
"moscafj",
"napolux",
"user3254174",
"user62128"
],
"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
}
|
28077
|
Why salt AND pepper and not salt and/or pepper
Which is to say--narrowing things down--do the two actually have any mutual enhancement effect, such as, say, in the manner in which salt can fool the tastebuds into perceiving sweet as even sweeter? (thus reducing cost for sweetening)
I have never "observed" any such effect of salt and pepper used in tandem...at least I don't think so. Is it simply that the two are typically found together, and handily so, in most any food prep area? (The recommended reading elicited by the question suggests such an interpretation but does not address the aspect of s&p mutuality when shaken, used, or tasted together)
If there is, in fact, no such mutual complementary effect, it will suffice to simply say so--I will accept that as an equally affirmative answer.
Welcome, Lex! Can you please provide the research you've already done for this question?
@KristinaLopez I think this is a pretty reasonable question as-is. Might be a duplicate though.
possible duplicate of Why are salt and pepper the "classic" dinner table seasoning?
@Jefromi, some reasonable effort should be made to find an answer before posting a question. At least I asked - some just downvote.
@KristinaLopez: That doesn't mean every question needs to come with a description of research, particularly if that description would be "I googled various things and didn't find anything conclusive." I think this question is fine; if you don't, feel free to post a question on [meta] to discuss it there.
Thanks, Jefromi, if I thought the question warranted it, I would. Instead I thought it best to greet our new member and ask for their research, if any. :-)
Pepper is likely just lucky to be a very commonly used spice that gets to hang with Salt all the time, though Salt really makes everyone else look good anyway. Pepper just doesn't look good on its own.
Uh... Yeah.
I say you do see salt paired with plenty of other spices, but because "Salt and Pepper" is pretty engrained in our culture (refer to the potential duplicate thread), you don't really take note. Therefore, you will always see "Salt and X" as a matter of fact but rarely do you see "X" alone without that ever so essential Salt.
This answer's getting pretty close to the Answer in the other Salt and Pepper question, huh?
@KristinaLopez and friends: An update to the question is in progress which will clarify the "research" and "question uniqueness" misgivings, and add further augmentary narrowing [;)elements to the question. Please stand by as it might take a while. Thanks.
I'd say salt/pepper is a cultural thing. Salt can generally be hidden in anything, and it's fairly often paired with sugar in mass produced foods to improve the flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.637607
| 2012-10-28T22:48:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28077",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chrislaka",
"Hugo Casañas Salgado",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mathusuthan Kannan",
"Nandkishore Tiwari",
"Seán Hayes",
"Welz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64802",
"lex"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28809
|
Put pork in crock pot and accidentally set to warm
I put a large pork roast in the crock pot this morning and accidentally set it to warm. I noticed it about 2 hours later and turned it to high. Is it safe to eat or do I need to toss it and buy a new one?
Please see the food safety wiki, which answers this question as well as all other "food left out" questions pretty definitively. 2 hours is at the very edge of the USDA guidelines, which makes this a pretty low risk but not quite risk-free. It also depends on what your crock pot's "warm" temperature actually is; if it's at or above 140° F then there's less of a risk. That's about all we can tell you.
(Note: As per previous discussions, I'm closing this as Too Localized rather than trying to find an "exact" duplicate. The circumstances are slightly different, the answer is - as always - the same, and in the tag wiki.)
There are a number of related questions regarding crockpots and food safety on this site but I found this informative link that will help explain why you may not want to risk keeping that roast that has been in a safety danger zone (below 165 F) for more than an hour. The meat becomes a bacteria breeding ground, in essence.
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/safetysanitation/p/slowcooksafe.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.637842
| 2012-12-02T14:56:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28809",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AspiringMathematician",
"Christine",
"Frank Salvatore",
"Tongia Holley",
"Vikki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66753",
"niti"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30053
|
Keep "soup greens" once done cooking?
I have a Polish cookbook (translated to English) from the 1950's and most of their soup recipes contain a bunch of greens/veggies but it's not always clear if they are just to be used as flavor or as ingredients. For instance (partial recipe):
1/2 oz dried mushrooms
2 med. onions
1 leek
2 stalks celery
2 carrots
1 parsnip
...
Simmer mushrooms and vegetables until thoroughly done, about an hour.
Cut mushrooms into thin strips and return to pot.
...
This would imply to me that the other vegetables should be discarded. Is that accurate?
Is the recipe named "mushroom soup" or something similar to imply the other vegetables are only there to flavor the broth? Is there another recipe in that book where the vegetables are processed and returned to the soup? If so, I would agree with your idea that those vegetables do not become part of the final product.
It is "mushroom soup." I looked through other recipes and nothing is clear on whether things should be retained or not...
My logic tells me that if 1) nobody told you to remove the vegetables and 2) you are only directed to cut and return the mushrooms, then the vegetables are supposed to remain in the pot the whole time, because nothing here says they have to be removed in the first place. I imagine that you first strained the soup and then fished the mushrooms out of the sieve, leaving you with a separate pile of vegetables, but this was not necessary what the recipe assumed. As for cooking guidelines, either will produce a good soup, with a different flavor, so no "right" or "wrong" way to do it.
Polish-style soups typically keep all the vegetables used for cooking. You may do the same with veggies as with mushrooms - chop and drop back into the soup. An exception done by some is parsnip root.
Unless... it is Christmas-eve mushroom soup (eg. from Mazowsze, central Poland) - then you grind the vegetables into the dumplings mushroom filling. The dumplings are served in the soup anyway.
When making soups, very few things ever need to be discarded (bay leaves or lemongrass come to mind as some that should be discarded when done). However, this recipe sounds like it means that when the vegetables are done, including the mushrooms, to pull out the mushrooms and cut them and return them to the pot (but this step seems very optional since it really won't affect anything other than the texture of the soup -- big chunks as opposed to bite-sized chunks of mushrooms).
Most of the other vegetables in this recipe are what are known as "aromatics" and they are usually used to start a soup and you definitely don't want to discard them when done. You can however carefully blend the soup to make the texture smoother and creamier if you desire (or leave them as is for a rustic-style soup).
Other greens that sometimes are better when added during the last 10-30 minutes of cooking time are leafy greens like kale, parsley, etc. because the reduced cooking time will leave them brighter green than if they had been in the pot the whole time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.637990
| 2013-01-14T00:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30053",
"authors": [
"Ed Avis",
"Gypsy",
"Kathleen Keene",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Prîñçé Årórâ",
"Sunny Patel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71022",
"oo_dev",
"rumtscho",
"tpg2114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11346
|
How do you prepare fresh fennel for cooking?
How do you prepare fresh fennel for cooking? My isntructions just say to "roughly chop", but don't say what parts of the plant to use.
Sometimes the outer leaves are a bit leathery (especially if the quality isn’t too god). When that’s the case I remove them first.
Next, I remove the green stalks – but Jefromi is right, the tiny leaves are delicious.
The kernel in the middle near the base of the fennel bulb is very hard. I usually cut it out by halving the bulb along its length and making two incisions with a sharp knife on either side of the kernel.
I chop the rest of the bulb so that it yields thin concentric slices.
It's hard to be absolutely sure without knowing what you're making, but since you say "cooking", it's pretty likely that you want to use the lower portion of the plant - the bulb. "Roughly chopped" is a good indicator that this is right. Those have a crisp texture, something like celery; they're good fresh and raw, but can also be cooked in a variety of ways.
The stems have good flavor but are pretty tough, like celery but much more fibrous. You can add them in big chunks to a long-cooking dish like a stew then fish them out. You can also slice them thinly, breaking up the fibers, and cook in plenty of dishes.
The tiny leaves also have a wonderful flavor, but like most fresh herbs, you don't want to cook them much; the flavor's delicate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.638269
| 2011-01-22T03:26:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11346",
"authors": [
"Andhersson Salazar",
"Buy Psilocybin mushrooms spam",
"Claudiu",
"Relaxed",
"e nony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94879",
"m. fishman",
"user120104"
],
"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
}
|
33951
|
Do all varieties of cocoa naturally taste bitter?
Very simple question. I bought some roasted cocoa seeds and tasted them, they have a slight "bitter" flavour and not "sweet" as I imagined when I was a kid.
Now, chocolate is made by adding sugar to the cacao powder (obtained from the seeds). I am wondering if there are any varieties of "cacao plants" that produce naturally sweet cacao :).
The fleshy party of the fruit of theobroma cacao is is supposed to be sweet and pleasant. However, it does not taste like chocolate.
Chocolate is made from the nibs or seeds within the fruit of theobroma cacao, after it is fermented ground, and processed, and is in no way sweet.
The nibs themselves are very low in sugar, and contain alkaloids (such as caffeine or theobromine) which are bitter. This probably evolved to discourage predation or disease to the seeds themselves.
This is very similar to the way peach kernels (the seed within the pits) are not terribly sweet, although they certainly grow within a fruit that is.
So no—there is no such thing as naturally sweet chocolate.
A related tree, Cupuaçu (theobroma grandiflorum) is cultivated more specifically for its fruits, which are sweet and said to taste something like pineapple. Again, the fleshy fruit is not analogous to the seed which eventually becomes chocolate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.638445
| 2013-05-04T14:14:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33951",
"authors": [
"BePhant",
"Daniel",
"Hooman",
"K Size",
"Z4-tier",
"donna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78929",
"rawwar",
"user78923"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27702
|
My Shrink Wrapped Steaks are Brown when I thaw them!
My parents bought a slab of steaks from my cousin who personally shrink-wrapped them. But when they thawed them out they were brown!
Are they still good to eat? What's going on?
My dad didn't cook them.
How long was it from shrink-wrapping to being frozen? Have they been thawed before?
Very similar to: Is ground/minced beef bad if it turns brown in the fridge?
I assume the steaks were frozen or packed in ice:
The freezing process, especially slow freezing damages the cellular properties of organic material. This results in discolouration, texture changes(it'll be tough) and flavour loss. Snap freezing, using the Birdseye process (The company and the process are named after Clarence Birdseye) reduces cellular damage and preserves flavour, resulting a better preserved product.
If your meat is frozen sufficiently it should keep for around one year. But the texture and flavour will never be as good as a fresh steak. It should be fine.
Yes it was frozen after being wrapped. My dad thawed them and thats when he discovered their color. I will let him know they are probably fine to eat!
Steak in the supermarket is wrapped in permeable plastic to let oxygen reach the muscle and keep it bright red. Shrink wrapped meat is not, so it can often look brown. This doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.
For details see this article. The key is:
The red color of raw meat is mostly the result of oxygen exposure. When the myoglobin is exposed to oxygen, it becomes oxymyoglobin, which turns the steak into a bright red color. To maintain the bright red color consumers prefer, supermarkets use a plastic wrap that oxygen can pass through to package the beef.
Yes, it's true, many things turn brown when they oxidize. But not all things.
Of course, the existence of one reason for brown meat that doesn't mean bad meat is not at all the same as "go ahead and eat brown meat from your freezer no matter what." Defrost it, smell it, poke it with your finger, and if it seems ok, it probably is ok. Most "freezer damage" is dehydration, which makes the meat less pleasant to eat but not unsafe.
Supermarket meat also tends to have chemicals added to make it stay red.
Necroing this post, but is there a trustworthy source for this advice? Letting oxygen into the meat is going to cause oxidation, so I believe this answer objectively incorrect.
A steak is not an apple, @phil. Edited in a quote,
Oxygen does not keep it red…it oxidises the meat and causes it to go brown. This is why refrigerated and old meat goes brown. Vacuum sealing meat keeps it red.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.638604
| 2012-10-10T02:11:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27702",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"Carla Theisen",
"Carmen",
"Carole Toad",
"Johnna McGee",
"Kate Gregory",
"Phil",
"Sandra",
"TFD",
"Zolf Tenebrae",
"curiousv ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90226",
"user62581",
"user62583"
],
"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
}
|
32603
|
Shelf-life of pressure-canned soups - is it still good?
I am just trying to get a rough idea of how long a pressure canned soup can last. We made turkey soup with thanksgiving leftovers, which we canned. I have it dated from 10-28-2012, so it's a little less than 5 months old. I followed the pressure canner instructions for meat products (10psi for 25 minutes). I opened the jar and it smells good and tastes ok. I just can't find any reference for what shelf life to expect.
While they are almost certainly very conservative (and with good reason), the FDA recommends that you plan on using home canned goods within one year. They do not give shelf-life guidelines other than this.
I could not find truly authoritative sources (FDA, a major university extension center) that provided more detail. Less authoritative sources make various claims, on the order of several years, but I will not quote them or link them here.
A five month old jar is certainly well within year that the FDA guidelines suggest, assuming you followed good canning practices. The fact that you took the trouble to date the jar is a good indicator of your diligence.
If you processed the soup for 25 minutes, you have under processed it, according to the USDA guidelines. The USDA guidelines call for processing soup (vegetable, meat, bean-based) for 60 minutes for pints and 75 minutes for quarts; they call for processing soup that contains seafood for 100 minutes.
The 20/25 minutes processing time is only for meat stock, which is liquid. (Remember that density has quite an effect on processing times.)
References:
See section 4-18 of the USDA Complete Guide to Home Canning Guide 4: Selecting, Preparing, and Canning Vegetables and Vegetable Products: http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/usda/GUIDE%204%20Home%20Can.pdf
See page 5-7 of the USDA Complete Guide to Home Canning Guide 5: Preparing and Canning Poultry, Red Meats, and Seafoods: http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/usda/GUIDE%205%20Home%20Can.pdf
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.638864
| 2013-03-11T20:32:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32603",
"authors": [
"Jon Morton",
"SingedEyebrows",
"beverlyann",
"bulhi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75465",
"user75268"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30144
|
Grinding melted latex off a pizza stone?
My fiance and I got a pizza stone for christmas, and are still learning how to use it. Tonight we accidentally used a potholder which had silk-screened designs on it, and almost immediately the white silkscreened lettering (I believe it's latex) had melted off on to the pizza stone, so we now have big white splotches that we can't get off (tried steel wool, scrubbing with water, etc. No luck on anything.
I'm considering hitting it with an orbital sander because at this point, I figure it may be ruined if I don't try something more drastic. Has anyone done this, or used something like a dremel to grind chunks off of a pizza stone?
You could fire a blow torch at it until int burns off completely? Do it outside... Disclaimer: I have no idea how well or poorly this will work, or what kind of residues will remain..
Who the heck would silk-screen anything that can melt onto a pot holder? I'd say that pot holder was strictly for decorative purposes and not meant to be used.
Just a thought that diy.stackexchange.com would be a better forum for your question.
@talon8 : And work quickly -- if you unevenly heat the stone, you risk it shattering. (you might be able to bake it off by pre-heating the stone as hot as the oven will go normally, that put it on a cleaning cycle if you have a self-cleaning oven, but that could ruin it, too).
Does your oven have a self-cleaning mode? That's how I've gotten unwanted gunk off of mine...
It won't suffer much from having a millimeter or two of material removed in one area, so I'd just go ahead with the Dremel and grind it down to clean stone rather than resorting to chemicals that may or may not work and may or may not impregnate the stone. There's no substance made short of diamonds that can resist a grinding wheel. Worst case is you end up with one side that's unusable for anything that requires a smooth surface, but otherwise it should be fine. It's mainly just a rock, after all.
Aha! Most pizza stones have 2 sides (at least in this universe ;-) ). +1 for not worying and using the other side.
If your experience is anything like mine the pizza stone won't survive long enough to bother maintaining it. Maybe I need to find a thicker stone, but the three we've bought so far have all cracked through normal (even light) use.
That said, if your pizza stone is worth the effort, I'd recommend a "burn it off" approach vs an orbital sander.
Interesting, my pizza stone has lasted about 5 years of heavy use.
@lemontwist: please tell me where I can get such a magical stone.
I got mine in Boston at a little housewares store on Harvard ave in Allston.
Some folks believe that so-called pizza stones are overpriced and silly, and use plain unglazed quarry tiles instead--they are comparatively inexpensive. The current internet fad (Serious Eats' Kenji Alt endores it strongly) is the pizza steel, which is basically a quarter inch thick slab (I don't want to call it a sheet) of stainless steel that you use just like a pizza stone. It can surely take any amount of abuse. For more info see: http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2012/09/the-pizza-lab-the-baking-steel-delivers.html
@SAJ14SAJ: excellent tip! I'm going to dig into that a little more.
@SAJ14SAJ: I landed a pizza steel for Christmas. The first round of pizzas baked on it were incredible. Thanks again for that tip.
@JeromyFrench Very cool... come to chat and tell us all about it!
[chat] ... ... ...
Silkscreening ink is made to withstand scratching. So I wouldn't go the dremel route.
The first I would try to do is to transfer it again somewhere else, to something more porous/sticky than the pizza stone. The best thing would probably be blotting paper, if you can get it, but if not, try other types of non-glossy paper. Heat the stone again, then put the new material on it and press strong enough. A hot clothesiron above the new material might work best - it could be worthwhile trying it with a cold stone and a hot iron, meaning that the latex is hot (therefore sticky) on the paper side but not on the stone side.
If that doesn't work, I would try to get it off by a chemical process, throwing ever stronger acids, bases and solvents on it until something works. Even though other cooks dislike the idea, I haven't seen any sticky film capable of withstanding concentrated NaOH (I have used it to remove seasoning from polished forged iron, which did not go off by dremel), and the stone (provided it is natural stone) shouldn't suffer. Of course, this should be the last step - vinegar, baking soda, bleach, concentrated ethanol and maybe acetone-free nail polish remover should come first (do not mix any two at once!).
+1 for an acid or base. Not sure if the solvent will work -- silk screening ink gets heat cured, and the solvent's don't work after that. (when I did screen printing in high school, we used 70% isopropyl alcohol for most cleaning tasks, but 99% for the really stuborn stuff (99%'s annoying to work with, as you only have seconds before it all evaporates). And a cloth that can take high temp (natural fibers) might work better than standard paper, being more porous.
Do you have a BBQ?
Place the pizza stone in there (latex-side down), close the lid, and turn it up to full blast (toss some foil-wrapped potatoes or something there while you're at it). An episode of Pitmasters later, and you'll likely have burned off most of the residue without risk of melting it further into the surface. Don't open it until completely cooled. The somewhat-even heating and cooling will mitigates the risk of cracking it. You can probably try this in an oven, but a decent BBQ will get much hotter.
You wont likely have a shiny-new stone after the scorching; but hey, a well-used stone wont stay pristine for all that long anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.639044
| 2013-01-16T23:41:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30144",
"authors": [
"Amr Mostafa",
"BSNGD",
"Burkhard",
"Carey Gregory",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"JasonTrue",
"Jeromy French",
"Joe",
"Just someone",
"Linda Bowen",
"Robert Frost",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TZubiri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"lemontwist",
"murph",
"talon8",
"urooj Fatima ",
"user70347"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32110
|
White chocolate ganache won't set
The other day I attempted to make a white chocolate ganache, and while the flavor is perfect, it utterly refused to set. Instead what I ended up with was a sticky, somewhat runny blob. It never hit that really nice fudgy stage where I could take it out of the spring form and not have it run all over the place. Granted it wasn't horribly runny, but still enough not to be presentable.
I'm used to dark chocolate ganaches which will firm up into something not unlike a fudge, which is perfect for making tarts.
The basic recipe was this:
1 cup heavy cream, held at a low simmer for around 5 minutes with spices
Strain cream over 12 ounces of nestle white chocolate chips
Stir on low heat until fully melted and slightly reduced
Any ideas would be really helpful, I have high hopes for this recipe once I can get the ganache to set correctly.
White chocolate does not have starch, so it does not thicken the ganache, unlike dark chocolate.
The proper proportion for white chocolate ganache is 45 to 60 ml of cream to 12 ounces of chocolate. You used 240 ml, which made it too runny. Use less cream and you will get a good consistency.
That is exactly what I was looking for, thank you! Can I add a starch next time (potato or corn)? Or will it end up with a wonky texture and taste??
I don't know. I only got this problem once (that's how I learned of it :P) and added xanthan. The resulting texture was unpleasant, my best description was gloopy. The problem with starch is that you have to cook at 100°C before it thickens, and this will deemulsify your chocolate. But maybe the starch itself will bind it again.
Fantastic, I'll just have to double up on the recipe next time so I can have the correct amount of ganache for the tart. I appreciate your help!
In addition to using too much cream, part of the problem is also that you're using chocolate chips for any purpose other than... chips.
Chocolate chips are specifically made to be somewhat heat-resistant and have less cocoa butter than quality couverture or even compound or baker's chocolate, which means that any melted-chocolate product (including ganache) that you try to make with them will end up being grainy and not set properly.
They're cheap for a reason. They're fine to use in muffins and cookies and ice cream and anything else that is actually going to have chocolate chips, but they should be viewed and treated for what they really are - packaged candy/confection products like sprinkles or canned frosting - rather than as pure chocolate for use in ganaches or enrobing or even as an appropriate substitute.
You can kind of get away with cheaper bittersweet or dark chocolate, but since white chocolate already has a ton of milk and very little (if any) cocoa solids, you really notice the difference in quality primarily due to cocoa butter content, and the cheap stuff is hopelessly runny and usually also cloyingly sweet.
I personally would not bother attempting the recipe again, even using only 20% of the cream, without decent-quality chocolate. Even if it "sets" properly, it's not going to have the texture you want with chips. It's not really that expensive; I can get a huge brick of Callebaut white chocolate here for under $20.
Interesting point. I have bought real conditor-quality chocolate in chip-shape before (re-packaged bulk goods normally sold to industrial customers), which are shaped that way so the conditor does not have to chop them before melting. I totally forgot that "nestle chips" are a different product. Good thing you caught that one, +1.
@rumtscho I've seen those referred to as callets, which are smaller than the wafers but just slightly larger than the Nestle/Hershey-style chips. There may of course be regional differences; I always assume the cheap stuff when I hear the word "chips", unless I know somebody has a chocolate chipper.
This is interesting - sadly the store we were at only had nestle chips (we always make ganache with ghiradelli with great success). I'll give it a shot with melting chocolate (the type used for candies) and see if I have better success.
@Matthew: Careful - there are two kinds of "melting chocolate". Couverture is great for just about anything involving chocolate, but there's another type of cheap chocolate called compound chocolate, also referred to as candy chocolate, coating chocolate, etc. While it's actually pretty good for enrobing, in a pinch, it's not particularly tasty and I'm not sure how well it works for ganache. Any store that sells chocolate chips usually also sells Baker's Chocolate, which isn't amazing but is much closer to couverture than chips.
White chocolate with a decent amount of cocoa solids should use a 4:1 ratio, that is four parts white chocolate to one part heavy cream with a fat content of 35%. This is for a good coat of ganache similar to dark chocolate ganache. I like to make a whipped cream ganache as it goes further and is not cloyingly sweet. You shouldn't need to add corn syrup or icing sugar. What is very nice is to get freeze-dried strawberry, raspberry or other fruit powders. Then you can add flavour and colour to the white ganache. (Try health food shops or buy online). If using a white or fruit ganache for an occasion, I would suggest that you make a small sample batch to get the consistency right first. Some people can get away with a 3.5:1 ratio for example, it can depend on the chocolate.
I tried the first suggestion, 45-60 ml of heavy cream with 12 oz. of Nestle's White Chocolate chips and it worked great.
Put chips in a glass bowl. Pour in cream. Stir to coat. Set microwave on 2:30 (two minutes thirty seconds) at half power. Micro :30 stir with a metal spoon. Micro another :30 and stir. *Repeat until out of time n micro. Stir with whisk until smooth.
Let ganache set for twenty minutes or so then use as desired. I poured mine over a strawberry bundt and it set up shiny and delish.
I also added 1.5 tablespoons of Drambuie half way through melting process.
It does help to add powdered sugar, but it still does not set enough. I had the same problem with my white choc ganache, I thought I would make it using a dark chocolate recipe and it came out too runny, whipping it didn't help, adding powdered sugar helped a lot, but still not good enough. Left in fridge overnight and added double the amount I had of melted White chocolate in the morning. That's the only way that really helped thicken it.
I've just tried to make white chocolate ganache, following a recipe which usually uses dark chocolate with butter as well as cream. It didn't set the same at all but after I let it sit in the fridge for a little white it thickened up enough to spread across the top and sides of the cake just fine.
Perhaps you may also try adding some corn syrup, about two tablespoons.
This would actually not help it set, but in fact lead to a softer final product.
Adding sugar of any kind to a ganache will only thin it further. Starch is a terrible idea. Good white chocolate and heavy cream are all you need. I buy Lindt white chocolate bars. And yes, white chocolate ganache needs less cream than milk chocolate and milk chocolate needs less cream than dark chocolate.
I'm having rather the same problem and someone mentioned using starch but I wonder if powdered sugar might not have a similar thickening effect?
If you try it, please do come back and edit your answer to let us know if it works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.639544
| 2013-02-21T15:51:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32110",
"authors": [
"A. Human Being",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Devendra shakya",
"Elmo",
"FrankL",
"Jamie Forschler",
"Jeff Schaller",
"Kay-LeeWilliams",
"Ketogirl ",
"Matthew",
"PT EDGENEXT LEGEND TRIOMPHE",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"admirestyle Raza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99951",
"pkeshy",
"rumtscho",
"דניאלה הלר"
],
"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
}
|
86046
|
How to make the legs of a whole roasted duck less fatty?
I made a roast duck for Thanksgiving. It came out well. I'm looking to improve it.
The recipe calls to pierce the skin all over, and submerge in simmering water for nearly an hour before roasting. This helps to render a lot of fat.
The breast was marvelous. But the leg quarters had very persistent fat.
Does anyone have a success story on how to get the legs and thighs less fatty?
Ducks are fat, you can trim the fat off, but really if you want less fat pick a different animal. Or just cook duck breasts.
'Simmer' is kinda vague. I suspect there'd be an ideal temperature for this (hot enough to render without cooking too much)
Simmer is in no way vague. It is the action that occurs between still, heated water, and a rolling boil. If anything, when cooking this it tended more towards a boil.
I have often had oriental roasted ducks which were roasted hanging, I believe with extra slits low on the thighs to allow extra fat to drain into the body cavity with the neck tied to retain it until purchased. Note, the fat is often considered the most sought after part of the roasted bird, so in these shops purchasing one would include a couple ladles of the fat, and constant fights as to if the shop was shorting the customers a fair amount. Rendered duck fat is often referred to as kitchen gold.
PS, it is also common to remove the legs before roasting pan style or preparing just duck breast and preparing them separate confit, slow cooked in their own fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.640181
| 2017-12-01T04:09:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86046",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"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
}
|
127936
|
How to use a particular brownie recipe for s'mores
I've got a particular brownie recipe that I swear by. I'd like to add to it to make it a s'mores recipe. I've got some ideas on how to do it but am unsure of the times and temps.
The brownie recipe:
2 sticks of unsalted butter
8 oz bittersweet bakers chocolate
1 C white sugar
1 C dark muscovado sugar
4 eggs
1/2 tsp salt
2 tsp vanilla
1 C AP flour
Double boil the sugars, chocolate and butter til barely melted. Cool slightly.
Blend eggs, salt and vanilla. Introduce eggs and chocolate mix slowly til mixed. Fold in flour.
The recipe calls for it to be baked at 350° for ~35 minutes til the top is cracked and shiny
What I'd Like To Add
Honey graham crumbles
Mini marshmallows
A very viscous caramel topping
My thought is to:
instead of 35 @ 350, shorten the time to 30 minutes
start at 350 for 15 minutes
cook at 400 for 15 minutes (to cook the tops more stiffly, to hold up to the toppings
put Graham crumbles and marshmallows on top, cook for an additional time (not sure how long)
dot with caramel and broil for a few minutes
This is my best guess now. I'm looking for some guidance on whether this approach looks solid and also some validation on the timing.
Viscosity is often a function of temperature, so putting it on hot should be easier than cold.
Hi Jason, when I saw the title, I expected it to be about pairing the brownies with other flavors (which was really unfortunate, because that would have been closable). So I changed the title, it now should reflect better what you are exactly trying to do.
Taking some direction from my business manager/board of director/wife, I went in a different direction, and I think it worked out well.
Recipe:
I poured the original brownie recipe in the pan, and poured Graham crumbles over the batter. I then mixed the Graham into the top layer of the batter. Cook at 350 for 35 minutes.
Take pan out, cover with mini marshmallows, and 1 Tbsp scoops of the thick caramel sauce. Cook for an additional 6-7 minutes.
Kill the oven, and keep it open slightly. Broil the pan (it was at middle level) and watch until it gains golden color.
Results? Everyone who's had it said they enjoyed it. The only thing I'd do differently would be to let it brown for a bit longer.
If anyone does this on their own… use a metal pan. Pyrex and other ceramics don’t always do so well under a broiler
I have an aluminum snake pan. So every brownie is an edge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.640338
| 2024-03-24T21:08:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127936",
"authors": [
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58924
|
How does the Croatian system of flour categorization correspond to the systems of Western Europe and USA?
1) In my country we have following types of wheat flour - T-400/T-450 and these 2 are white, T-500/T-550 (also white), T-850 (brown) and T-1100/T-1600 (black), however when I googled this I didn't find anything and it seems that there is no such thing as "black wheat flour" so I'd like to know what is it's name in Europe and USA (black wheat flour is wheat flour with high ash content, in my country numbers after letter T represent ash content multiplied by 1000)
2) How are all these wheat flours produced?As far as I know wheat flour is made by crushing wheat grains.
3) What is the difference between whole wheat flour and black wheat flour (T-1100/T-1600)?
I've never heard of these, what country are you in?
These types of flour exist in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia (and maybe in few more countries near these).
Welcome to the site. When you have 3 questions, please ask them separately. That way people who can only answer one, can just answer one.
It is indeed important to have different questions asked separately, but I think that in this case, the questions are very similar, in the sense that if they were asked and answered separately, each answer would share a lot with the other two. What we need is simply a better title, I'll try to think of one.
Flour types are quite different in various countries, but yes, all flours are basically made from crushing grains (wheat in this case).
A grain mainly consists of three parts:
Source: http://www.californiawheat.org/industry/diagram-of-wheat-kernel/
The bran.
The outer layer of the grain.
The endosperm.
The white inner part that we tend to associate with flour.
The germ.
The sprouting section. Often removed in flours for longer shelf life.
So when milling grains, the parts of the grain are separated, for whiter flour (that's the lower numbered types, the number actually giving the mineral content and indirectly indicating the fiber content.), the bran and germ are mostly removed, "brown" and "black" flour (middle to high number range) increasing amounts of the bran are kept,resulting in a higher fiber content.
Whole grain is - as the name implies - made from the whole kernel (but quite close to "black" / 1600).
As you noted, the "numbers" (= mineral content) typically sold in stores are not consistent in European countries, but the pattern is always the same. (In France, the numbers seem different, but are basically the numbers you know divided by 10.) If your recipe calls for a specfic "number", you can "mix" "lower numbered" and "higher numbered" flours to get the desired strength.
For simplicity the lighter types are sometimes labeled according to their use: Cake flour / all purpose flour / bread flour (-> increasing "numbers").
The US has a slightly different system, here flours are characterized by their protein content and labeled according to use. if I remember correctly there was some kind of "substitute chart" here, but I can't find it at the moment.
There is no good substitute chart for US flours, because their protein difference comes from using different types of wheat (hard vs soft) while the European difference comes from using different parts of the kernel, so a European high protein flour automatically has other elements and behaves differently from a US high protein flour.
I concur with the information @Stephie has provided. However, there is a 'black wheat flour' that is widely used in France and other European countries. It is actually made from buckwheat, which by definition is a grain but not wheat at all.
From this Wikipedia article :
The seed coat is green or tan, which darkens buckwheat flour. The hull is dark brown or black, and some may be included in buckwheat flour as dark specks. The dark flour is known as blé noir (black wheat) in French, along with the name sarrasin (saracen).
More info and history from Behind the French Menu :
Farine de Blé Noir, Farine de Sarrasin or Blé noir – Buckwheat flour. This is a flour with a distinctive, mild, nutty taste; the flour’s French names translate directly as black flour or the flour of the Saracens. The darker color comes from the seed’s coating and when some of the coating is left in the flour making process it is that coating that gave the flour its color. Buckwheat is gluten free.
The French name for buckwheat flour, Farine de Sarrasin stretches back to the crusades. During the crusades the French first met up with the dark skinned Saracen warriors and also were introduced to their dark buckwheat flour. They took the flour home and among the flour’s various names is the name of their Saracen foes; today that would not be politically correct. The galettes de blé noir, crêpes, pancakes of buckwheat flour, are traditional in Bretagne, Brittany, but, you will find buckwheat flour in use all over France.
From Cook"s Info , buckwheat flour has a 2% mineral content.
Nutrition
Buckwheat Flour is approximately: 63% carbohydrate, 11.7% protein, 2.4% fat, 9.9% fibre, 11% water and 2% minerals.
You might be comparing apples and oranges here. While buckwheat is "blé noir" in French, other languages have less misleading terms: "hajdina" (Hungarian), "bovete" (Swedish), "Buchweizen" (German)... But bread is colloquially categorized by the "darkness" of the flour, many languages where higher typed flour is used have equivalents of "white bread" and "black bread".
@Stephie I understand your point and it is valid, and I am not disputing the information you have provided. However, I think that this information is also relevant. I searched extensively and, for the term 'black wheat flour', all results came back as either buckwheat or the French 'Farine de Blé Noir'. I am just offering this as one explanation of the term. I don't know how the term is interpreted in that part of the world but, per your information, the answer to Q3 would be that there is no difference.
"Black wheat flour" is the word-by-word translation for "Farine de Blé noir", so if you googeled this "connection" is likely, but not what OP would use (heljda or hajda). As for Q3, they are similar, but not identical.
@Stephie Heljda is Croation for buckwheat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.640561
| 2015-07-09T12:19:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58924",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Frames Catherine White",
"Frank Borsi",
"Gayle Parrott",
"GdD",
"Leofryd M. Aldred",
"Ranee Rose Hemmi",
"Shaquana Harris",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"roxanne stevens",
"rumtscho",
"user3711671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59733
|
(Is it safe?) Preparing Breakfast in Bulk
Seasoned Advice-Givers,
I make an excellent breakfast, but would like to prepare a 7-day supply in bulk, to eliminate the preparation time I expend every weeknight.
The ingredients are:
3 Cups Rolled Oats
Large handful of Sultanas
Large handful of Dates
3.5 whole bananas, thinly sliced
Enough milk to completely submerge all ingredients in a sealed, air-tight mixing bowl
I'm reasonably confident about how well the sultanas/dates/oats will hold up, as far as food safety goes. (If I'm wrong, I'll know in about a day or so). BUT, I'm a little worried about putting the bananas into the mixture.
Obviously, bananas are quite perishable, once peeled, but what if submerged entirely in milk, mixed with the other ingredients, in an air-tight, sealed mixing bowl? Will they go rotten rather quickly, or will the described environment preserve them?
Keep in mind, I do not mind mushy, rich, super-soft bananas that have started to turn - I think these are quite flavourful. But I don't want to cross the line into sanitarily dangerous.
I know I can get at least 1 day without them spoiling, but I'm aiming for closer to 7 - It is likely the bananas in the mixture would still be safe to eat by Day 7? If not, at how many days do you recommend that I should draw the line?
This would be stored in the fridge, top-shelf toward the back, which is the coldest part. Fridge set to a 4 out of 7 on the temperature dial, which is one notch before ice will form on water.
Many thanks,
David
why don't you just add the bananas in every morning or do an experiment. put a half of cut up bananas in a bowl with milk, check it every day to see when they go bad. this way you don't waste your time and ingredients and in the meantime you could add the bananas you have put in the milk into your mix if they taste ok.
I honestly can't think of any reason that the bananas or milk would spoil over the course of the week. None of your ingredients seem to interact with each other in an adverse way. You might try making a small batch, sealing it, and checking on it after a week. That should give you a solid (no pun intended) basis of comparison.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.641039
| 2015-08-08T23:40:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59733",
"authors": [
"Darwin Hernandez",
"Geoff Onions",
"Robin Addis-Vaughn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"kunal saini",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27912
|
How do I dehydrate hot peppers in the oven?
I have a bumper crop of jalapeno hot peppers that I would like to dry in my oven. I love to roast and grind dried chiles for Chili Con Carne or Enchiladas. The correct oven temperature and drying time are the obvious questions that come to mind.
I have never heard of drying them in the oven. My grandma dries all kinds of peppers on braids in the attic.
A common treatment for preserving jalapeños would be smoking (to turn them into chipotle peppers)
I've dried out chillies a bunch of times, both with and without a fan-assisted oven. It's much easier with a fan oven, but not impossible with a conventional oven, but it is wasteful of energy in a conventional oven as you have to leave the door cracked. That and you must have an oven that has a very low setting.
The reason that heat works is that heating air reduces its relative humidity as warmer air can contain more moisture. Once the warmer air fills with moisture it will saturate, and won't be able to accept any more, and when that happens your chillies will stop drying. A fan oven will generally cycle the air out and bring in new air which will accept more moisture, but a conventional oven won't, so you either have to crack the door or open it every 10 minutes to bring fresh air in.
All in all it takes days to dry chillies in a fan oven with it being constantly on, and it will stink up your house while doing it. A more effective way (although I've never tried it) would be to use a desiccant like silica gel (available from hobby stores) in a sealed container to dry them out.
A good way to keep dried chillies dry in a moist environment is to put them in a sealed container with a bunch of rice grains in the bottom, the rice will absorb any moisture.
When it comes to drying, air flow is actually more important than temperature. If your oven does not have a convection mode, I wouldn't even bother. Furthermore, even if your oven does have a convection mode, chances are that it cannot maintain a low enough temperature to dry the peppers without actually cooking them in the process. If you know that your oven can maintain a steady temperature of 120 degrees F or less with convection, then drying the peppers should take no more than 10 or 12 hours. This might be possible if your oven has a bread proofing mode that also supports convection. If your oven has a bread proofing mode that does not support convection, then I think the only reason you might want to use that is if you live in a particularly humid environment. Otherwise, hanging the peppers in front of a fan is probably your best bet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.641246
| 2012-10-20T20:59:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27912",
"authors": [
"B Jxn",
"Chloritone_360",
"DSF",
"Joe",
"Noa",
"Videonauth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user64155"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28241
|
When is Slow Cooking done - time vs temperature of meat
I have read that slow cookers manufactured recently (not sure what time period that actually means) rise to their cooking temperature faster because of FDA concerns of keeping a food at a dangerous temperature for too long. The recommendation is to perhaps cook things for a bit less time than the typical 8 hours on low to avoid overcooking.
To this end, I have been putting a thermometer in my meat and cooking to a temperature instead of to any set time. However, I'm finding the meat gets to its "done" temperature at WELL below the time suggested. For example, I have a chicken recipe (skinless, boneless) that suggests cooking for 8 hours on low. In my slow cooker, the chicken gets to 165 degrees at only 2-1/2 or 3 hours! Well below the 8 hour suggested cooking time.
So, my question is, should I say my meal is done at that 165 degree mark, or is there any slow cooker advantage to leaving it in for the full or close to full cooking time? It seems to me the meat just gets dry if I leave it in longer, but maybe if I left it in the full 7-8 hours, some other chemical process takes place, leaving the meat more moist and flavorful than if I take it out at the 3 hour mark because of the temperature.
The answer depends on the type of cut. If you have a tender cut of meat then there's no reason to cook it any longer than then desired doneness. If you are using a tough cut then there's lots of collagen that needs to be broken down, and that requires moisture and time. You want to cook it until all the collagen is broken down as that will make the meat tender. That may take 2 hours, it may take 6, it depends on the cut and the thickness.
I have a similar experience with my slow cooker, it goes way too fast. To get around this I've ended up putting in big chunks of meat and veggies because anything else is completely nuked after 8 hours! I've also thought about using a light timer to have it start 3 hours after I leave home.
+1 for your answer which is very good. I also like your idea about the light timer but I would be worried about the meat and some ingredients sitting outside the refrigerator not cooking for that initial time period before the slow cooker turns on. It makes me want to only use my slow cooker while I'm home to watch it.
I know what you mean, it defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it!
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I wish there was a device you could attach to a slow cooker to lower the temperature it cooks, back to the levels they used to cook!
There's no device unfortunately, but if you scour yard sales, flea markets (boot sales in the UK), and the like you may be able to find an old one for next to nothing. They are built to last.
The target temperatures you describe are based on food safety recommendations, not quality of product. With chicken, for example, it is safe at 165f. However, I prefer the dark meat to get to 180f, give or take (I go by visual and tactile qualities, not by temperature). If you want to make pulled pork or beef, the meat has to get up to around 200f. Same goes for shredded chicken, even -- the temperature has to get pretty far beyond the safe range for the meat to be shreddable.
So I think the answer to your question is you should go by NEITHER time nor temperature, as long as your quality target exceeds your safety target.
I'm also going to go out on a limb and suggest that there may be some fault with the recipe itself. A slow cooker does not lend itself to cooking something like chicken pieces, where there is a lot of surface area in relation to the total mass of meat you are cooking. Additionally, unless you are intending to shred the chicken, I don't think cooking it for so long would be of any benefit. A slow cooker is better suited to a large cut of meat with lots of connective tissue, like a Chuck roast or a Boston butt, and the time/temperature caters to that type of cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.641722
| 2012-11-05T16:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28241",
"authors": [
"CanProgram",
"GdD",
"Khulthum",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Marcy",
"Minty",
"Norrius",
"Vera Baddoo ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65030",
"j-grimwood"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28360
|
What is the best way to store prepared raw vegetables
I help and elderly friend who has asked me to pre-prepare some vegetables for her. This way she'll be able to cook them for herself later.
I would like to know the best way to store pre-prepared vegetables such as, carrots, broccoli, sprouts, cauliflower and potatoes that are not going to be cooked for 3-5 days.
Thank you.
@purplespider welcome to Seasoned advice! On our site, we distinguish between actual answers, are intended to give you the best solution to your specific problem, and comments, which give members a lightweight mechanism to discuss details not strictly related to a possible solution. If you feel some of them are not constructive or even offensive, you can flag them and we moderators will remove them. I can assure you that those of us who know a good answer for your actual question will do so below, regardless of any side discussions happening in comments.
I understand your frustration with getting distracting comments on language before somebody has left a real answer, maybe it looks to you like we are not willing to help you. But I suppose that the real reason for no good answers is that your question is extremely difficult: 1) it is very broad, and 2) there is no really good technique for doing this, the more you prepare a vegetable, the quicker it goes bad. For now, I will just delete the distracting comments for you, and keep my fingers crossed that somebody comes along with suggestions for your problem.
As an alternative to chopping fresh vegetables and storing them, your friend might want to look into using frozen vegetables. There are often pre-cut options available for vegetables (including carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, and even potatoes).
It's really difficult to answer, as there are way too many variables.
Which vegetable?
What is being done to it before storage?
What will be done to it after storage?
Is it closer to 3 days, or 5 days?
For instance, let's look at carrots, one of the items that you mentioned. Cut carrots can be stored in water, in the fridge, and they'll do just fine ... but if you're going to try stir-frying them, the extra water has to be dealt with, and so that won't work (unless you remember to drain them and give them time to dry before you're going to use them.)
Brocolli's another strange one ... if you're slicing up the stalks for using later, once again, water's a good idea ... but I've never had good luck with soaking the florets, as they just take way too long to try to dry back out to use.
Potatoes are one of those things that you might want to do more than just cutting or peeling them -- I typically bake a few off to use in later dishes, like hash. (and I leave 'em whole, and cut them up as I need them). But if you're going to leave them raw, you really should put them in water, or they'll oxidize and turn brown.
The time's also another issue -- not everything can be stored for 5 days without freezing, but that brings in lots of other issues. If I blanch brocolli, 3-5 days is what StillTasty gives in the fridge. (they claim the same for raw, but I know I can keep brocolli from the farmer's market for 7 days ... part of it's buying firm heads .. if the florets give at all in the store, you're not going to get very long out of 'em).
... if it were me, I'd also try to look into what issues your friend has ... there might be tools that could help her (eg, if it's an issue that she's unsteady with a knife, could she use a box grater, food processor or mandoline for slicing things?). If it's an issue with grip, would a vegetable peeler with a larger handle give her more control?
Joe, thank you very much for taking the time to reply, it has answered a lot of my queries but has also created some new ones! My friend is an elderly lady, she doesn't eat meat but finds preparing and cooking vegetables just for her tiny appetite too much of a chore. If the veg was already chopped she would be more likely to use it. I don't have the time to go round and prepare her meals for her every day (im a working mum of 3 kids, one of which is autistic). In your opinion do you think I would be better to cook the veg 1st so she just has to re-heat (she doesn't even have a microwave!).
@purplespider : if you have a list of the types of meals she likes to cook, you might want to ask a question about how to do advanced prep & plan out the meals, rather than ask about the individual items. There might be other things that can be done (eg, assembling a casserole ahead to be baked later, but leaving something like a salad assembly for the last minute so she doesn't feel like she's not doing anything)
Joe's answer is pretty good, but I'll give you some specific advice on the vegetables you listed:
Carrots are fairly easy. Even precut and stored in the fridge, they will keep for several days, only gradually drying out and losing some flavor. The best way is probably vacuum-packing and freezing them, but storing them in a hard, tightly sealed container in the fridge with a paper towel on the bottom should also work fine.
Broccoli: Ideally you should lightly blanch the cut broccoli and freeze it. Short of that, I'd store it in a hard-sided container layered with paper towels to absorb moisture.
Sprouts: I'm not clear on why you're cutting up sprouts.
Cauliflower: fridge, same storage as the broccoli.
Potatoes are quite difficult, because the oxidize and turn an unsightly brown. Your only real option is to lightly blanch or microwave the cut-up potatoes and freeze them; anything else will result in them being unsightly and dull-tasting after 4 or 5 days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.642210
| 2012-11-11T16:53:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28360",
"authors": [
"Derekbdc",
"Fisher",
"Goldielox ",
"Joe",
"Mary Conn",
"MikeJansen",
"Myer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"purplespider",
"rumtscho",
"sam yo",
"user65580",
"user8709",
"محمد خالد محمد خالد"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28473
|
Can I replace milk with eggs in recipes?
I have had to go dairy and soy free because I'm breastfeeding and my little one gets really bad colic if I have products with milk or soy. I would like to know if I can use eggs (mixed with a little bit of water and oil) in place of milk. Please do not suggest almond milk or other plant based milk as those are primarily water (I'd say about 80% water) and they make my cakes gummy.
Are you able to be more specific about what type of cakes you will be making?
Pound cake, olive oil cake (which calls for about 180ml of whole milk) etc.
Cow's milk is more than 80% water; I don't think water content is the issue with non-dairy milk substitutes.
No, you can not.
Milk is used as a liquid in cakes. Eggs add a little bit of liquid, but also have lots of other effects on your batter. You don't want these effects, or rather, you want them to happen in a certain degree, and the ratio of eggs to milk in existing recipes is calculated to give you the optimal degree. The effects are too many to explain in depth here, but they can include drying out, toughness, fatty feel, eggy taste (ever had a cake which tastes like an omelette?), and overleavening. You want to use a liquid which does not have these effects.
Cow milk is roughly 3% protein, 5% carbohydrates, 4% fat and 88% water. You could try to find something with similar proportions. Plant milks are fairly close. A shot in the dark (or rather twilight): if soy milk gums your cakes, try scalding it first. Soy protein has the ability to form film-like structures similar to gluten; once you denature it (with heat), it will have a harder time building them. If you prefer something else, pick a different liquid from the advice in the other answers, and adjust at least the solids-to-water ratio proportionally. Better yet, adjust the fat-to-nonfatsolids-to-water ratio. So I wouldn't use full-fat coconut milk (21% fat), but rather a lower-fat version. And I would add fat if using fruit juice (a bit more butter in the creaming step should do).
If the dairy-free recipe calls for certain ingredients such as whole fat coconut milk, it is probably best to at least try the recipe before futzing with it so you have a basis to start from. I'll still give you a +1 for the cake that tastes like an omelet. I've tasted that and it's gross! :-)
@KristinaLopez I agree, if a recipe already has no milk, no substitutions should be made, as it is already balanced (hopefully, there are also lots of bad recipes floating out there). I was describing a case where the cook tries to change their old milk-containing recipe by themselves. If the OP is looking for new recipes, there is no need to look for ones with coconut milk, as most types of cake don't need liquid anyway, dairy or otherwise. (I mean "liquid" in the baking sense here, of course eggs and possibly melted butter are physically a liquid).
There is a site called Go Dairy Free.org that uses whole-fat coconut milk in its poundcake recipe. There seems to be lots of recipes that are suitable for your purposes. Best of luck!
You can use fruit juices instead of milk in some recipes, either straight juice or a mix of juice & water.
Sources:
Vegan G free baking cheat sheet from Gluten Free Goddess (scroll
down to replacing dairy)
Bake with Pineapple Juice from wikiHow
How to replace milk in a pancake from Livestrong (tip #3)
Lemon Olive Oil Cake from Chef Chloe (uses water & lemon
juice)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.642685
| 2012-11-17T09:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28473",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Fisher",
"JW101",
"JamieS",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Primprim",
"Sharon Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65730",
"ingernet",
"isabel",
"rena litt",
"rumtscho",
"user65724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28679
|
Chocolate Cream Pie using coconut cream or Coconut milk?
Can I substitute coconut milk or coconut cream for milk in a chocolate cream pie?
This is a little off-topic but thought it interesting - I make a chocolate cream pie with packaged pudding mix and just read on the package that if soy milk is used, the pudding will not set! I never knew that.
Yes. I made a coconut cream pie this weekend using coconut milk.
Cream pies are set mostly by starch with help from the eggs.
The protein in the milk does not play a significant role in the pie structure. The fat from the milk is important to the texture. Pies made with whole milk are much more delightful than those made with skim.
Coconut milk, and especially coconut cream, has plenty of delightful fat and works well. You may find that the color is different and more translucent. Many recipes call for a mixture of coconut milk and regular milk.
The quality of the coconut milk makes a difference. Many brands have a low amount of cream, but if you have an afro-carribean section at your supermarket get one from there, those brands have much more cream in them.
@GdD- good point. The coconut milk I used I made myself.
I bet it tasted really good! Now I want to make one, how did you do it?
I followed the instructions in this answer: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27594/how-do-i-extract-coconut-milk-from-coconut-meat I grated the coconut meat, extracted the milk, then toasted the meat and used it in the pie. It was very good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.642993
| 2012-11-26T15:04:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28679",
"authors": [
"Charlie Brumbaugh",
"GdD",
"Jacob Gray",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Olivia Rinaldi",
"Sobachatina",
"Susan Sentman",
"Xetra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27616
|
How to prevent food colouring changing the taste of food?
I am a keen baker with a big sweet tooth. I often use coloured icing and sponge when I bake, but often the colouring I use changes the taste of the icing/sponge.
Does anyone know how to prevent the food colouring changing the taste of food or how I can minimise it?
The food colouring I use is: Dr Oetker
How much food coloring are you using? Do you know the ingredients of the food coloring? I'm thinking if you're using a natural food coloring (and I think Dr Oetker doesn't use artificial coloring), for example beet juice, you could be getting a bit of that flavor but it's hard to say without knowing the ingredients and how much you're using.
Is the colour changing the actual taste, or merely the perceived taste? They say, “The first bite is with the eye”, and it's known that colouring does affect our perceptions. (Of course, a way to tell would be to try both coloured and uncoloured pieces with your eyes closed, mixed up, and see if you can distinguish them by taste alone.)
If you use the same Dr. Oetker colouring that I have used in the past, which is advertised as a 'gel' colouring, then you have to use a lot to get a good intense colour.
You may have better results (colour and taste-wise) getting proper concentrated gel food colourings, like those made by Wilton. You need to use much less than cheaper brands so you don't run the risk of flavouring the food, and you can even use them in meringues without ruining the structure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.643172
| 2012-10-05T13:17:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27616",
"authors": [
"Armand",
"Captain Jack",
"Foodie4U",
"d3lphi",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"lemontwist",
"morph808"
],
"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
}
|
29627
|
How to keep a high hydration bread loaf from becoming flat
Yesterday, I made a sourdough loaf with a high hydration (80%) and as usual, when I turned it out of its banneton, it simply couldn't hold its shape and became very flat; only about 1 1/2 inches at the highest point.
The recipe follows:
Sponge:
50g water
50g spelt flour
100g starter (100% hydration)
Sponge
344g water
230g whole meal spelt flour
230g strong white flour
Mix together ingredients for sponge; ferment overnight in fridge.
Mix water, flours and sponge together and knead until elastic.
Rise until it becomes 1 1/2 its original size.
Shape into a boule (for surface tension) and place in floured banneton.
Rise until doubled; turn out and bake.
Although I made the recipe up there is nothing unusual about it and this happens with other high hydration loaves. I know it is a high hydration but others have formed lovely boules. How can I also achieve these high boules?
Hydration numbers aren't that meaningful by themselves -- whether an 80% hydration level can produce a high-rising free-form loaf will depend on a lot on the types of flours or grains that are used. (Usually, 80% hydration is most appropriate for flatter or roughly shaped breads: ciabatta, focaccia, pizza dough, rustic baguettes, etc.) With the specific mixture of spelt and "strong white flour" (high protein) you mention, it should be possible to get a loaf with a little more lift. But it's hard to say for certain -- the flour itself will affect whether it's actually possible to do what you want.
Frankly, there are a lot of variables that could be creating problems beyond the ingredients. A sourdough culture that produces a lot of acid quickly can make it quite difficult to get a tall loaf. Or, if your sourdough yeast is weak and takes more than a couple hours for each rise, you might be producing too much acid. The acidic environment will tend to weaken the gluten, and you'll inevitably get a loaf that spreads. If this is the problem, you'll need to refresh the starter with a few closely spaced builds that really dilute the starter (e.g., dilute your starter 1:4 or even more with new flour/water in each build). That will strengthen the yeast but cut down on the early development of acidity. Unless you're a sourdough expert, I might actually suggest trying to get good results with regular baker's yeast in your recipe before doing the sourdough conversion, since the sourdough may be contributing more than anything else to the spreading.
If the starter isn't the problem and the ingredients can hold up the loaf, the next options are alterations to technique. The best suggestion I can give is to introduce "stretch-and-fold" maneuvers into the first rise. After you mix the final dough (which doesn't necessarily need to be heavily kneaded), come back every 30-45 minutes or so and stretch the dough from each side at a time. Pull out, lift up, and fold on top of the rest of the dough. Do this from each of the four sides of the dough. Let rest for 30-45 minutes again and repeat as often as you need until you feel the dough strengthen significantly.
If you adopt stretch-and-folds, you may not see the same amount of rise you saw without them, so you need to just keep your eye on the clock and use the same amount of time you did before for the first rise. By the time you reach the shaping phase, the dough should be much more taught and elastic.
The other significant issue is shaping. Do you do a pre-shape and bench rest before the final shaping? That can also help. Preshape by pulling the dough taught, folding in upon itself a number of times, then let rest for 15 minutes or so before doing final shaping. Basically, the more times you stretch the gluten and let it rest, the stronger the dough will get -- whether you do that in folding during the first rise or in a preshaping before bench rest, it will help. The shaping technique itself can also significantly affect the stability of the final loaf (but that's hard to explain in a text response).
Also, you may be waiting too long in the final proof if you wait to fully double in size. Unless the sourdough culture is very strong, you might have better results by waiting for only a 1.5 or 1.75 rise. If you do that, you may want to be somewhat gentle during the final shaping to preserve some of the gas from the first proof.
In fact -- if all of this sounds way too fussy for you, another option may be to skip all the stretching, folding, shaping, etc. and avoid the final rise almost altogether. Let the dough roughly double in size during the first rise, then shape very gently into a rough ball, rest just a short time until it starts to expand again (no more than an hour or so), and then throw it in to bake.
Lastly, the baking method could change things. If you're baking on a flat stone, the dough can just spread significantly during baking itself. I've sometimes seen this with high hydration sourdough -- I load it on a peel, and it looks okay before it goes in the oven, but during the oven spring phase, it just becomes wider instead of taller. Baking in a pot or round pan could help to restrain that spreading a bit without making it look too much like bread from a pan. And, if you cover a pre-heated pot for the first 15 minutes or so of the bake, it will help the oven spring and crust development.
It's hard to know which of these options will work best for you, since there are a large number of issues that could be at fault in this case. In my experience, however, the two most likely causes for spreading are a weak sourdough starter or inadequate strengthening of the gluten during shaping.
I second the stretch and fold technique. I've gotten baguettes with around a 75% hydration to hold up beautifully with this method.
You are using whole spelt flour. Being whole it should absorb a lot of water, much more the strong white wheat flour (which already does absorb quite a lot due to having a lot of gluten).
Most of the loafs in the link you posted are white bread. You are using spelt, which is weaker than plain wheat (your recipe tries to compensate it with strong wheat). But mostly: you are using whole grain flour, which has grinded husks in it. Those hushks are heavy to lift. Also, they can do hit and cut the gluten (think of them as tiny knifes). Those two reasons make doughs rise less.
Also, keep in mind that many of those loafs are made with very very thick stones, wich will give them a lot of initial heat to rise.
Your recipe also says to wait until the loaf "doubles". I personally think that's not a good indicative to show when a dough is ready. Your loafes might be lightly (or almost) overfermented. Try to do the finger poke test instead, and put them in your oven stone when they still could have risen a bit outside.
Also, following the points given by @Athanasius in this answer, you'll be able to get enough experience to achieve those high loaves.
In addition to the above answers, adding an oxidizing agent, such as vitamin C can help whole grain loaves hold their shape better. You can usually find ascorbic acid powder (pure Vitamin C) at health food stores, or try replacing a few teaspoons of the final water in your recipe with a citrus juice. This will help to produce a taller loaf.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.643353
| 2013-01-01T09:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29627",
"authors": [
"Andrew Barton",
"Mahbub Rahman",
"Mike Collins",
"Sebastian Vega",
"SourDoh",
"VALINDA",
"hbabbcook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80734",
"larry jackson",
"user1973229",
"user68908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28416
|
Do meat grinders need to have cutting blade
I got a Game Winner meat grinder #8, but it did not come with cutting blade. Do you need this to grind meat?
Can you post a picture of your grinder and (if possible) of the piece you know it's missing. My instinct is to say yes, you do need the cutting blade to grind the meat.
Here is the relevent description on a site selling that particular meat grinder:
The Game Winner™ Hunting Gear #8 Grinder grinds up to 4 lb. of meat per minute and features a powder-coated cast aluminum body, 3, 4.5, and 7 mm stainless-steel cutting plates and a stainless-steel cutting blade* for durability. The Cam-Lock locking mechanism and thermal reset button offer safe operation, while the feet-forward design helps prevent tipping. Full-power grind, reverse and off modes. 400-watt motor.
Features and Benefits •stainless-steel cutting plates and cutting blade for durability
It definitely looks like you'll need the cutting blade and cutting plates.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.643913
| 2012-11-14T15:23:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28416",
"authors": [
"JohanTux",
"Laura",
"RGM",
"Thatcher Ulrich",
"TonyS",
"Tyler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30213
|
Why must I return the chilled chocolate cookie dough to room temperature before baking?
According to a chocolate chip cookie recipe, I chilled the cookie dough before baking but it was also written to turn the cookie dough to room temperature before baking. What is the purpose of doing that?
I found out research indicating that we put the cookie dough in the fridge to prevent the cookies from spreading too much in the oven. But then why do we have to return the dough to room temperature?
How long should I wait in order for the shaped cookies on the baking sheet to get the room temperature?
Please detail the recipe that you're using.
The resting is probably to hydrate to the dough, which will inhibit spreading. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/29298/14401.
The bringing back to room temperatre is probably for one of four reasons:
To help ensure you are baking each tray at a consistent temperature
Colder dough will cook on the outside a bit more before cooking through, so they may brown or crisp or dry out more than is desired before being cooked through
They might be somewhat easier to scoop at room temperature
The original recipe author was just used to doing it that way.
It is highly likely that by adjusting the baking time slightly, you could bake them from refrigerator temperature, with only a very small change in quality. You would just have to try it and see.
Thank you!!!!!The cookie recipe says to cool the dough for 30 mins after i shape the cookies and put them on the baking pan how long should i wait to bring them to room temperature?
Truthfully, I wouldn't bother to do it at all. It is even possible to bake them from frozen dought lumps in almost all cases.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.644040
| 2013-01-18T18:33:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30213",
"authors": [
"Blake Daugherty",
"Elizabeth",
"Faquarl",
"Felissa",
"Hart CO",
"Hzwyfee",
"KatieK",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheila McCoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70519",
"ika",
"user70509"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30281
|
How to help my vegetable beef soup that I added too much tomato to?
I was making my homemade vegetable beef soup and put too many cans of tomato sauce and paste in it. My husband says it is a tomato soup instead of a vegetable beef soup. What can I do to improve it?
Like all essentially liquid recipes, once you put two much of something in, its in. You cannot get it out.
So you have only two choices:
Find a way to mitigate the excess ingredient, or in this case, repurpose it so it seems intentional
Create an additional batch of the soup with reduced or eliminated tomato, and combine them so the proportion is essentially the intended one.
For the first approach, you might embrace the tomato-y-ness of the batch, and add spices or flavors like chilis that compliment that. Enjoy it for what it is.
The second approach can also be effective, but you will end up with much more soup. That is great if you are happy soup lovers, or if you can freeze it for later, but may not be practical for everyone.
Take a small batch and add more meat and vegetable to it. Use the rest for pasta sauce.
Mushrooms and cheese
For the pasta sauce, add lots of sliced mushrooms - fresh shitake mushrooms. Then grate in mozzarella, cheddar or blue cheese before serving.
Mushrooms and liver-fried fermented tofu
If you are lactose intolerant, try a little bit of fermented tofu. Fermented tofu has very strong and disagreeable flavour and odour. In the hands of someone experienced in its use, fermented tofu can be be used to provide an exotic cheesy flavour to food. What you could do is to use it to fry chopped liver and then use that to flavour the pasta sauce.
During the frying, the fermented tofu would lose a lot of its pungency by fouling up your kitchen. Over-frying it would cause it to lose its morbidity turning it into unexciting stale salty bitter tofu mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinky_tofu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Xerlt6kLQ.
The problem with this solution is, you would probably never use fermented tofu very often and you would have a jar/packet of fermented tofu stored in your freezer for next 20 years.
There are also different grades of pungency. The most pungent being the ones from Hong Kong.
Sweet pineapple and lots of celery
Put in sliced, fresh but very ripe pineapple. Very ripe, because they are sweeter. Or use canned sweetened pineapple. This will turn your tomatoey soup into celery soup. If you are using canned pineapple, don't cook the pineapple.
Sliced canned rambutans
Canned rambutans taste almost like canned lychees but they have more flesh. Whereas the taste of fresh rambutans are distinctly different from that of fresh lychees.
Canned rambutans are an extreme rarity. Because, in places where rambutans are in abundance, they would prefer fresh rambutans. While in places where fresh rambutans are not found, people would barely have heard of them. Don't cook the rambutans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambutan
Turn it into a pot of curry
Get a tub of Thai green curry. Ideally, you should get a pack of sabji or korma masala powder from an Indian spice store. However, apparently, it is easier to get a tub of Thai green curry paste than to locate an Indian spice store in New England. Sabji masala, because it is not a hot spice mixture (maybe a little-little hot).
http://www.everestspices.com/masalas/sabji-masala.
Add in more celery, lots of potatoes, and egg-plant (aka brinjal) cubes.
Egg-plant is used a few ways.
Over-cooking where it melts into a paste to thicken the curry.
Throw the egg-plant cubes in while the soup/curry is hot but the heat turned off.
Cooking whole egg-plants in the soup without turning it into gooey slime. Lift the soften egg-plant and use a fork to strand it out - making egg-plant noodle. Making egg-plant noodle may require some experience thro trial and error. Over-cooking it, but before it melts completely, would turn it into slimy strands. Under-cooking it would make it too difficult to strand it.
The idea of the egg-plant strands/melt and potatoes is to give your curry extra body to balance with the tomato.
Add unsweetened condensed milk to dilute the tomato paste
Which leaves you with sort of a "cream of tomato soup with beef and veggies". Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.644228
| 2013-01-21T21:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30281",
"authors": [
"Call Ed",
"Dogsbody",
"M D",
"Margot Denaxas",
"Mary Jane",
"Ninja Nana",
"Patti Gianakos",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70806",
"user227201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24207
|
Breading/Crumbing Chicken in their own eggs
I have heard of a new trend for recipes involving breaded chicken meat. Instead of using random eggs, the eggs laid by the very chicken you're preparing should be used for breading. This way a special flavor is reached.
Can anyone confirm special flavors of effects of this technique?
I know this is not easy to manage, certainly you might be required to buy the chicken directly from a farm, but I also heard that some food stores started to offer both in combination.
This sounds completely ridiculous. Do you have some sort of reference/source for this?
Ok, this may sound ridiculous, but is it any more so than making coffee from beans that a cat has previously eaten? Deep fried twinkies? Bacon Ice Cream? Beef that has been massaged and fed a steady stream of beer? Even if it just a hoax, it is an interesting question.
I must admit, I find this distasteful, much along the lines of the Hebrew Law "Don't cook a goat in it's mother's milk". Completely irrational of me, but it just seems wrong.
Comments cleaned up, left a few which cover the common attitudes towards the question.
I suspect you will notice a taste improvement, but not because of any special chemistry between a chicken and its own eggs. Rather, in order to connect the chicken and the egg, you will have to go either straight to the farmer, or possibly to a very small store that knows the farmer well. Further, the farmer will have to keep so few chickens that they know which ones laid which eggs, and generally be able to tell them apart. Imposing these conditions will lead to a very small operation, possibly a hobby farm of heritage breeds raised for love and fun, in which the chickens range free, play with children etc. And darn right you're going to end up with a better tasting dinner after you do that.
If you're able to source meat and eggs like this, as an experiment, you could easily bread meat from chicken A with eggs from chicken A, then another piece of meat from chicken A using eggs from chicken B, and what I think you would find is they taste the same - way better than the supermarket.
I think whoever suggested this just liked the thrill of the self-referential part, which I actually find a little gross.
Also, to accomplish this, wouldn't you generally end up with a younger meat chicken (one who is, in fact, laying eggs) than otherwise?
@KatieK, yes, good point. Many layers go off for the soup pot once they get too old to lay big eggs. Not sure if taste differences between "raised for meat" and "raised to lay well" would also come in to play. If anything I would expect those to go in the other direction.
-1 Sorry, but this is a rubbish answer. Good eating chickens don't lay eggs. It's like lamb and old mutton. Also, there is not correlation between good flavour and being chased by children, heritage and diet are the main indicators
@TFD as I said, I would expect a chicken raised for meat to taste better than one raised for eggs all things being equal. But a raised for eggs chicken that runs around outside, eats bugs etc is going to taste better than a raised for meat chicken from a factory farm. Heritage and diet and being loved by the farmer, they all matter. I've raised birds we ate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.644661
| 2012-06-04T22:20:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24207",
"authors": [
"A Ryan",
"Chiel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Cos Callis",
"Glenn",
"Josh",
"Kate Gregory",
"KatieK",
"TFD",
"chux",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26157
|
What is the name of this dish involving fruit & sugar - blended and baked thin and flat?
I don't know what it is I'm doing (IE, the name of the technique or dish) I can't research it.
I cook either rhubarb or passion fruit with a few tablespoons of sugar, blend until very smooth, spread out very thinly on a baking mat and then cook on a low temperate. (The cooking - I assume - caramelizes the sugars.)
The desired result is a pliant thin sheet of fruit flavor (which is what I want).
I've also ended up with a gooey mess that can't be used (undercooked), or a bitter overcooked disaster. The issue I have with it (when I get the cooking time right) is that it is really chewy. Like a caramel or toffee, it gets stuck in your teeth which is totally undesirable.
Does any one know what the name of I'm trying to cook?
This is called fruit leather. But I have never made it and cannot comment on how to make it less chewy. I have eaten it though, and if my memory serves me right it was quite chewy and it most definitely got stuck in my teeth. Maybe it cannot be avoided.
Also, if you are cooking it at a low temperature (I assume you are well below the boiling point) the sugars will not caramelize. (EDIT: Apparently, sugars will caramelize at low temperatures, but it will take a long time, see the comment by jkadlubowska below) For that, much higher temperatures are needed. You are simply drying out the purée to the point where it becomes "leathery". From a bit of googling it seems that 140 degrees F is the correct oven temperature to use.
Thank you so much for this. I will now search everywhere and possibly ask a different question! Thank you.
Actually, at low temperature sugar will caramelize, but it takes more time.
That is way cool! I did not know that.
I have edited my answer to reflect this, new to me, information.
Use a dehydrator designed for fruit leather (it will have non-stick trays with very small perforations, so water can escape, but fruit pulp stays in place
Adjust sugar level to adjust chewyness
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.644949
| 2012-09-14T08:45:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26157",
"authors": [
"Constanza Zamani",
"Dave",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Quaternion",
"benawhile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61984",
"jkadlubowska"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22149
|
How to increase flavour intensity in this recipe?
I am thinking of making dinner tonight (probably pasta) and the ingredients that I have a courgettes, tomatoes and half a butternut squash. I am 70% vegetarian
I first added olive oil, then fried onions and garlic, then added in the vegetables. I added in salt, pepper, souvlaki seasoning, sage and thyme I believe for extra taste. At the end I mixed in a tablespoon of Ricotta (my favourite cheese). The pasta I had with it was Rigatoni.
However the taste turned out to be a bit bland. What can I do to spice up this recipe? I want it to be more intense,perhaps roasting the vegetables first and then frying them. Will that help? Otherwise what can I add to increase its taste?
Thanks.
Edit : Instead of having pasta with this sauce, can I have Ciabatta baked in the oven with it?
I am sorry... but what would a 70% vegetarian be?
As written, this question is essentially What can I add to X and not constructive. It's also pretty bizarre in the sense of changing from future to past tense in the second paragraph. I can see how this could be constructive, if you were able to be more specific about what you mean by "more intense" - for example, bringing out the flavour of a specific ingredient, or just asking about the flavour of roasting vs. sautéeing these particular vegetables. But the current version is just going to lead to random poll-style answers, if anything.
try adding some green, yellow and red peppers with the added vegetables. I believe these peppers give a strong taste.
Also you could try to add some paper laurel when cooking, then remove it upon serving, it gives a good taste and smell too.
Hey I roasted them in the oven and then pulverised them with the hand blender and the taste was a lot better!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.645137
| 2012-03-10T07:18:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22149",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David Benjamin Lim",
"Joseph Hou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8554",
"nico",
"saracha",
"user32421",
"user49546",
"user51744",
"yumyrecipe.com"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11534
|
How to complement a dish?
I really love cooking the "main feature" of a meal... I love doing the meat - steak, chicken breasts, you name it, I love it.
But when it comes to making the rest of the meal, I always draw a blank. I end up resorting to the same old thing that I know everyone loves (steamed asparagus, seasoned potatoes).
I'm trying to figure out how to be more creative with the complementary pieces of the meal.
What are some good things to keep in mind when preparing a side dish, and what are some good resources that will help me in my creativity?
Just tell it that it's the nicest dish you have ever known.
Hi rockinthesixstring, and welcome to Seasoned Advice! I'm going to suggest that you try to narrow this question down, as right now it essentially reads as a "pick your favourite side dish" poll. If you can narrow this down to a fairly specific main dish and explain a little bit about your goals here (nutrition? presentation? flavour pairing?) then I think this would be fine to stay open.
@Aaronut - I don't think the poster is looking for specific side dish suggestions, but rather how to learn about complementing main dishes. To use an analogy, the question isn't the equivalent of "which wine goes with ", but rather "how do I learn how to do wine pairings".
@aaronut, I agree with Allison. Of course, the OP could contradict me. Maybe it just needs to be tightened up a bit to make the question more obvious.
@yossarian: I'd be fine if the question were "How do I learn to complement a dish?" or better yet "Where can I learn more about food pairing and presentation?" but that isn't what the question says, particularly the last sentence.
No, @Allison is correct. I don't want pairing suggestions, but rather instructions on how I can enhance my side dish diversity.
Fair enough, the edited wording looks much better to me.
You could certainly get a cookbook of side dishes and learn some new favourites, but what might be more useful is a book that teaches you about flavour combinations and menu planning. I would suggest Culinary Artistry as one such book. It's not about specific recipes (you can find those elsewhere or make them up), but rather it addresses the kind of skill you're looking to learn.
One technique is to consider the origin of the main dish and choose side dishes from the same region. Seasonality or market-based shopping is another approach to expanding your repertoire.
I would add The Flavor Bible to this answer. It's by the same people. I got it for Christmas and can't stress how great it is for ideas. I consult it anytime I don't have a firm idea for a complete meal in my head. It's brilliant.
I was in Chapters today looking at "cook books" for almost an hour. It's so overwhelming, and it's hard to figure out what a good resource is. Thanks for the direction here.
both those books look great, sad that I can't get them for the Kindle, but hey, you can't have everything ;-)
@rockinthesixstring, If you were to choose one, I'd get the Flavor Bible. I think it's more what you are looking for.
seconding The Flavor Bible, also got it over the holidays and think it's gonna be great for what you're trying to learn.
Make meat "not the main feature". Having it as the main feature is a piece of history when meat was the most expensive part of the meal, and it also seems to have become an unhealthy piece of history.
Meat is significantly cheaper nowadays, so you can spend more on other things and make them the main part of the meal, not just side dishes.
It is a mental paradigm shift.
Start looking for new and unusual ingredients from small or local farmers, not just the staples from the main grocery stores, there is an entire new world to discover.
Try growing or wild harvesting your own ingredients.
Then the fun begins, finding recipes or techniques to use these new supplies and make that masterpiece.
The meal becomes much more interesting when there is more of "you" in it.
Of course, if you're already having trouble coming up with complementary dishes, putting more emphasis on the non-meat parts of the meal might make it even harder. (I'm not arguing with your philosophy - I cook vegetarian.)
I'm a big believer in contrasts in meal planning.
For example, one thing I like to consider is the basic flavor profile of the main dish and the side dishes. For example, if you've got a particularly rich tasting main course, you could complement it with a slightly bitter side dish such as Brussels sprouts or broccoli raab. A sweeter vegetable would be a nice contrast to a more sour main dish.
Textural differences are also valuable. A stew or soup (which is generally all mushy stuff) works great with a crunchy side dish such as a nice crusty bread.
Think also about how the plate will work. If you've got a main dish with a gravy, you don't want anything on that plate that will not work with the gravy. Thus if you also want salad, give a side plate or serve it as a separate course.
The visuals of the plate are also a consideration. If you've got chicken in a cream sauce, mashed potatoes, and cauliflower, they're all close enough in color to make for an unappetizing meal. Color differences make things more appetizing -- that's why bright green parsley and bright yellow lemons are often used as garnishes. That's also why some dishes are visually appealing right away. (Arroz con Pollo generally has yellow rice, red pimientos, and green peas. Stir frys often try to include something red or yellow to contrast with the green of many of the veggies.)
Having said all this, what I'd recommend is taking the side dishes you like and start sorting them into categories. For example, starches can be divided into mushy, chewy and full of texture, and crispy. (Potatoes can be mushy or crispy depending on the preparation.) Then as you're planning your main course, think about how to contrast it in a pleasant way.
There are tons of grains, which are great for sides. (Bulgur, Rice, Barley, Millet, etc.)
Your additions to these grains could be simple, or complicated, according to your taste and time. Of course, these aren't the only things you can use to start a good side-dish. You could use pastas such as couscous or orzo. You could use polenta, as well.
If you don't want to add a vegetable to the sides mentioned above, consider adding a vegetable somewhere in the meal. You could do this with a salad or a simple steamed vegetable with butter.
Cooked rice, pastas, cous-cous, salads... a lot of variety to choose from. Even simple bread will do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.645325
| 2011-01-27T20:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11534",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"Calico",
"Cascabel",
"Chase Florell",
"Debbie Esposito",
"Flavia",
"Glorious Kale",
"John",
"Jono",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4550",
"mrwienerdog",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user23699",
"user23700",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22945
|
What shape is a French omelette and how is it achieved?
I've seen them shaped like a rugby ball (but longer) but geometrically can't see how a circle can be folded into such a shape.
I've also ordered French omelettes from menus before and they weren't pinched in at the ends.
Is there a classic shape, or is a French omelette just one that is not set as much with no browning?
This video with Jacques Pepin should be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=57afEWn-QDg#t=272s
The pictures in Jacques' book I couldn't follow but the video explained it.
There isn't a standardised shape as such, but the rugby ball shape is common. To achieve this shape, all you have to do is cook your omelette (French style uses a super-hot pan and lots of butter), then roll three quarters of it up in the pan.
Then nudge the omelette up the side of the pan a little, so that it partly protrudes over the edge, which will then allow you to flip the remaining quarter back over onto the rest of the omelette. You should now have a rugby ball shape with a 'seam', i.e. the edge of the omelette - simply turn this out so the 'seam' is on the plate and you have a nice smooth omelette showing on top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.645852
| 2012-04-10T23:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22945",
"authors": [
"Chicago Real Estate Lawyer",
"Chicago Tax Preparation",
"CormacNJ",
"Nigilady",
"aisha",
"arvere",
"cptloop",
"habtamu molla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19975
|
Uneven baking in a convection microwave oven
I'm just starting to learn to bake. I have a convection microwave oven and I've read at a lot of places that a convection microwave can be used for baking. But, everytime I bake something, it gets baked unevenly. I have never baked in anything but my own convection microwave oven. So, I don't know that the uneven baking is due to the oven or not. If anybody has ever faced a similar problem and has a fix for it, please reply.
Could it be because of rotation inside the oven?
Thanks.
I would think that the baking would be more even due to the rotation...
What are you baking?
Convection-baking in a "convection microwave" is a bit like conventional baking in a toaster oven; it's more or less the same principle but you really can't expect the same results as a conventional oven (or full-size convection oven).
That being said, if you're attempting the recipes in a convection microwave or even a real convection oven without any modifications, you may be using too high a temperature, or cooking for too long. The guideline for conversion (and this is just a guideline, not a rule or guarantee) is to subtract 25-30° F / 10-15° C from the temperature, and 25-30% from the cooking time.
So, for example, if a recipe calls for baking at 350° F for 60 minutes, your first attempt in a convection oven should be 325° F for 45 minutes.
Again, please keep in mind that a convection microwave is still fundamentally a microwave oven. No matter what their marketing claims say, it is not a substitute for a conventional/convection oven and you are not going to see equivalent performance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.646011
| 2011-12-26T07:47:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19975",
"authors": [
"Aditya Vasan",
"JAB",
"Jonas Ballestad",
"Mien",
"NVZ",
"Pruthvidhar Rao Nadunooru",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20129
|
French dressing will not blend or mix to be creamy
I make a french dressing > I blend using a milk shake mixer. Usually as I add the oil, sugar and vinegar it mixes up to a very nice creamy thick dressing. Lately it will not thicken up and stays very liquid almost like a vinegar and oil.
Is there a sequence to mix the oil, vinegar, salt and sugar?
So, it has worked for you in the past, but is not anymore? What are doing differently?
Have you looked at the answers to Why isn't my vinaigrette emulsifying properly?
Try adding a bit of egg yolk. The lecithin in that usually helps these things emulsify. Obviously you can't do that if you're young/pregnant/old.
If you don't want to try egg yolk. Put everything in but the oil. Add maybe half the oil and shake, then add a bit more and shake. Do it piece by piece as if you were drizzling into a bowl and mixing by hand with a whisk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.646163
| 2012-01-02T20:24:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20129",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Erik Pukinskis",
"Jacob G",
"R.Chatsiri",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"iAhmed"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20865
|
How can I tone down the heat in hot oriental mustard, without making it sweet/significantly altering flavor?
I recently attempted to mix up my own hot oriental mustard using a powder, bought in the local supermarket. (S & B Oriental Hot Mustard)
Following the directions on the can. I mixed with water only. I found that, I could not put enough water in the mix, to dilute the heat, without making it too watery.
Is there something else I can add, that will dilute the heat without making the mustard too watery, sweet, or otherwise significantly altering the flavor?
The ingredients in the can of mustard powder I used, are Mustard & Turmeric.
I am trying to imitate the flavor & spiciness of the dipping mustard that is served in Chinese restaurants.
I came across this article.
It explains where mustard get its heat from:
Mustard seeds come from the mustard plant, a member of the cabbage family. They contain two sulphur compounds, myrosin and sinigrin, as well as an enzyme, myrosinase. When the seeds are broken and water is added, the enzyme breaks down the sulphur compounds. The result is the sharp tasting oil that gives mustard its pungency, and helps explain why the name mustard comes from the Latin words mustum (much) and ardens (burning).
In addition, it recommends adding some flour to tone down its heat.
In the case of prepared mustards, the reaction is toned down by using additives such as flour.
Replacing about 60 percent of the water with rice vinegar smooths it out a bit. It's still spicy heat, but not so harsh. When I started using the rice vinegar, mine started tasting a lot more like what we are served in Chinese restaurants.
Make the mustard by replacing 1/2 the mustard with flour and adding some extra water to compensated for the thickening properties of the flour, then cook it off to get rid of the floury taste and there you go! If you don't want to go down the flour route you could always add coconut milk/cream or plain yoghurt instead of water which would temper the heat but you'd have to make sure that it suits the flavor for the appropriate recipe.
Hope the advice helps!
I'm not sure if the using cream or yogurt would result in the same chemical reaction to release the heat. It might result in a mustard that doesn't have any heat at all. Maybe adding half the amount of water first for the reaction and then adding some cream or yogurt afterwards to "dilute" it down.
@jay Yes you could do that but by adding the yoghurt or milk then you will have the flavor of the mustard without the heat, of course some may feel that a mustard without heat is no mustard at all!!!
That reason I said that is because the OP is asking to imitate the same level of heat that he had before in a chinese restaurant. Which means he does want heat but just toned down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.646285
| 2012-01-28T18:18:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20865",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"John C",
"Sebiddychef",
"elizabeth",
"gmabey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"user3412975"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67081
|
What are the characteristics required for a liquid be considered milk?
I know that the liquid from animal (cow, etc) are considered milk. But how do you know feature a liquid to appoint as milk? There's the vegetable liquids (soy, nuts, ...) which are also considered milks. What liquid needs to be a milk? the juice is a milk, for example?
It has to remind people of milk in looks and consistency and not be too strongly flavored of something else.
Really, there is no authority which appoints stuff as "milk". If it looks sufficiently like milk, it is likely that people will call it milk. If it is edible and available in large quantities (unlike the milk of, say, Euphorbia) people will try using it as milk - drinking it pure, adding it to coffee, making crepes with it, etc and thinking of it as just another kind of milk.
If you are unhappy with this answer because it doesn't list an objective decision criterion for dividing stuff into "milk" and "not milk", you need to realize that we are not dealing with mathematical sets here, but with cultural categories. Cultural categories are ill-defined, and membership in one is determined primarily by perceived similarities to the prototypical member of the category, in this case visual similarity to cow's milk.
...and the milk production councils/boards/committees of various countries get conniptions at this fact, but it is nevertheless a fact. (There was something in the news a few years ago in the US about milk producers not wanting to allow almond milk to be called milk. I don't remember the outcome, except that the almond milk at the store still says, well, almond milk.)
milk of magnesia
dandelion milk? (the white liquid that comes out when you break the stem)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.646535
| 2016-03-04T15:09:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67081",
"authors": [
"Alison Sneddon",
"Barbara Middleton",
"Evelyn McAuley",
"Joe",
"Kim Norris",
"Marti",
"Sobachatina",
"adlib",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"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
}
|
22134
|
How can I marinate meatballs without making them "mushy"?
I like to marinate my meatballs in a sauce on the stove for several hours, but they always seem to be "mushy" after cooking for so long. Is there a way to marinate the meatballs without having them cook?
Will the meatballs marinate while sitting in the cold sauce just as well as in the hot sauce?
Hi John, I'm not sure of my answer works for you, but it would be helpful if you include any technique you have already tried, or do not wish to try; for instance, it would be helpful to know if you would prefer not to fry the meatballs
I would crispen the outside a bit by frying or baking them first. To improve the outer crust, you might dust with flour and corn starch before frying. Typically I have not previously had problems with meat balls in sauce becoming mushy using minimally breaded mix, spices, and lean -ish (90%) ground meat. Here are some additional points to consider;
If you use bread in your meatball mix, you might tilt the ratio more in favor of the meat
If you are not using egg or some other binder, you might try doing so to create a tighter bond inside the ball
If you are cooking the sauce at too high a heat (I normally have mine set as low as possible when doing a long cook) it may come to a simmer, making the sauce likelier to disrupt the meatballs. Maintain a lower heat or use a heavier pot
If you are using ground meat, there is more room for the sauce to creep in. Make sure that they are packed sufficiently tightly when rolling them
Short of leaving the sauce and meat overnight, flavors will transfer more quickly in warmer temperatures. I am having trouble locating definitive resources to back this claim up, so I am speaking mainly from experience. However, one caveat exists particular to collagen and connective tissues in meat; here it is explaining why stews and other foods taste better the next day. Mixing water and strong acids is an exothermic process (gives off heat, does not benefit from warmth). However, this process is about mixing strong acids and fats. I would also mention that you are supposed to store tomatoes at room temp as the cold does not preserve their flavor and inhibits ripening, though I'm not sure this is relevant.
American's Test Kitchen recently had an episode on the topic of spaghetti and meatballs:
http://www.americastestkitchen.com/video/?&docid=36514
Their trick was to first bake them in the oven at 425F for thirty minutes, make the sauce separately, and then put the pot (with the sauce and meatballs) in the oven for another hour.
You instead of having to do something "for several hours", the entire process takes around ninety minutes. Haven't tried it myself yet, so YMMV.
I don't think that's the cooking time which makes your meatballs mushy, especially if you keep them on the stove for long time. My guess is that the composition of your meatballs contain too much bread. Also the kind of bread is important. Always prefer using small bites of the soft part of the bread instead of breadcrumbs. Eggs are also important (did you use them?) Try this:
70% meat
30% bread bites mixed with eggs (let's say one egg for 5-7 meatballs)
Salt, garlic and whatever you like
Mix everything for 5 minutes (just use your hands) and I'm pretty sure the result will be great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.646815
| 2012-03-09T20:21:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22134",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"mfg",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44363
|
Can I store bread dough overnight?
I would like to bake bread as soon as I get up.
Would it be possible to store bread dough overnight, perhaps in the fridge?
For how long could I store it?
Would it need to rise again next morning?
I'm going to assume that by 'as soon as you get up', you're still giving a good 30 min for preheating the oven, and allowing the bread to warm back up from the fridge. If so, see the answers to a question I asked about baking as soon as I get home : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14184/67
Possible duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63999/is-there-a-bread-you-can-mix-in-the-evening-leave-overnight-and-bake-in-mornin
Yes, it is possible, and in fact usually results in better bread, because the yeast has more time to work and develop flavour. It depends on the recipe, but you should usually reduce the amount of yeast being used to prevent overproofing. You can keep most doughs for a couple of days in the fridge, depending again on the amount of yeast and how often the fridge is opened.
Simply mix and knead your dough as normal, cover it tightly with plastic wrap over the bowl, then put it straight in the fridge. You will usually need to allow a couple of hours the next morning for the dough to 'wake up' and finish a full proof, but if your dough has fully risen in the fridge (ie it has grown 1.5-2 times) you can go straight to shaping.
I had a recipe for bread dough that was even supposed to be stored in the fridge for up to a month for developing flavor. My dad and I have also made pizza a lot and that dough can also be safely stored in the fridge, just let it warm up before using it.
Though word of caution, the dough will continue to rise in the fridge so make sure that the dough has adequate space otherwise it will overflow it's container.
You can even form bread rolls from the dough, and put on an oven tray, in the fridge. Then, when you get up in the morning, take the bread out of the fridge, switch on th oven, and ten minutes later shove the bread in there.
It's not ideal, and you may need to play around a bit with the parameters as the yeast will work at very different speed depending on the temperature. Another problem is that the bread surface tends to dry out in the fridge. I have a tin that I put upside down on the tray, with a small bowl of hot water, to keep the vapour pressure up for a while. The water typically condenses on the bread, and other things, fairly quickly.
You can also play with using a slightly lower temperature and longer time in the oven, if the dough is very cold.
One thing that I sometimes do is that I leave the bread in the fridge at night, and then if I wake up in the middle of the night (around 4AM) I transfer the tray to the oven. With the over door closed, it turns into a pretty good proofing cupboard. (Especially if you also add a bowl of hot water.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.647080
| 2014-05-24T05:53:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44363",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"John Nganga",
"Magdy Samy",
"Manny ",
"Palm Bay Mold Removal spam",
"SEO For You spam",
"Spammer",
"dan smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"spammer",
"user302747",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30830
|
Induction interface disk
Most of my cookware is aluminum. I've seen induction interface disks, but they are quite expensive. Would it work to use a small cast iron griddle as an interface disk for my aluminum pots and pans?
secondary transfer would likely cause undesirable energy loss
Yes, it will work. The induction interface disks are practically the same thing as a griddle.
Of course, both disks and griddles mean that the induction stove will behave like a resistive stove (slow heating, etc.) If you want to get your money's worth from the induction stove, replace your cookware. The combination with cast iron is great, as it gives you all the advantages of cast iron without the major disadvantage of glacially slow heating of thick pans. All other induction-capable materials will work better than alu on a griddle/disk too.
Induction cooking is accomplished through a magnetic field created in the hob that excites (causes to vibrate) the IRON ATOMS in the cooking vessel you use. This is what causes your pan to heat. If there is no iron in the pan (non-ferrous stainless steel, tin lined copper pots, aluminum pots and pans, glass or clay cooking vessels, etc) they WILL NOT heat! This is why people are advised to check whether cooking vessels are "induction friendly" by testing whether a magnet will stick to it.
As a result there is a direct correlation between the iron content of any given pot or pan and how quickly it will come to temperature. This means that pure iron pans such as DeBuyer's "Mineral B" brand are the most responsive, followed closely by cast iron ware (including ceramic clad cast iron), then carbon steel, and last of all comes "induction friendly" stainless steel.
I have been cooking with induction for two years now. I invested in an induction interface disk early on. I used it only once because I found it to be too inefficient. Instead, I use my largest cast iron frying pan to accomplish heat transfer to non-ferrous cooking vessels, but be warned! You can warp pans by doing this if you use very high (relatively) temperatures. Adding an inch or two of water to the cast iron frying pan and then elevating the non-ferrous pan by setting it on spacers that allow the simmering/boiling water to circulate under it not only reduces the risk of warping but also results in less temperature fluctuation and more even heat distribution in the non-ferrous pan.
I have yet to see an induction interface disk that is made of anything except stainless steel. In my opinion, they are not satisfactory and are unreasonably overpriced. In addition, it is just so much easier to use the right pan for the right heat source. In this day of portable butane gas burners such as those Iwatani makes, as well as single unit electric hot plates, adaptive induction interface plates just don't make sense to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.647343
| 2013-02-11T16:19:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30830",
"authors": [
"AnnapolisGirly",
"C Enright",
"Eren ÇELİK",
"John M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94303",
"ohno",
"webv9bet",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26064
|
Will steaming fish cause salt to come out or cause fish to fry in its own fat?
If you brine some fish and then boil it in water (make a soup) ,the salt and other nutrients leach right out thus defeating the purpose of the brine. I will soon buy a steamer, however I just wanted to know if you brine fish and then steam it, is it likely the salt will leach out, move onto the surface or will it stay in the fish?
Also if you grill food, the fat comes out and falls of it, however I have noticed the meat is lightly frying in its own fat as it moves along the meat. Would the same thing happen with steaming, i.e. fat will come and drip out or lightly fry in its own oil as is the case with grilling?
What kind of fish? A lot of the common things we cook are so lean that there's not really any fat that could drip out.
Tuna or any high protein low fat fish. If you grill any fish which contains fat you can actually see the fat drip out and onto the tray even if it is a low fat lean fish.
Just to toss this out there... if you are boiling brined fish in water and the salt/nutrients leach out, they will be leaching out into your soup. That could still be good eats.
Salt moves due to differences in concentration, from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration. So, when you boil brined fish, you surround the salty flesh with low salt concentration liquid, and thus the salt moves out to equalize the concentrations.
Steaming the fish will not result in as much movement of salt, because steaming applies less total liquid to the surface of the fish. Steaming works because the very hot steam condenses onto the cooler food, and by condensing it liberates heat (which transfers to the food). However, you still will have some movement of salt because the condensed steam on the surface of the fish remains at a lower salt concentration.
Also, steaming is much gentler on the fish, since the meat is not being constantly agitated by boiling water. With less agitation comes less leaching.
Grilling is the transfer of heat from pan to food, or from direct heat source to food. The temperatures are typically much higher than for steaming (steam is at 212F, 100C), so you get entirely different chemical effects from the process (e.g., caramelization). Therefore, I doubt the fish would "fry" in its own oil in the case of steaming.
If you're concerned about maintaining the salinity of your brined fish, you could consider steaming it en Papillote, or even in foil. This would result in the fish cooking in its own moisture, essentially eliminating the leaching of salt (although some salt would move to the surface, carried by the water).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.647595
| 2012-09-08T19:50:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26064",
"authors": [
"Aps",
"Cascabel",
"James Wilson",
"Lisa",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18185
|
Are egg whites generally available at the store?
Can you buy egg whites at the store, or must I take the yolk out my own? I assume if so they would be sold in some sort of carton.
My plan is to just use them for scrambled egg whites in the morning. It just helps speed up the process this way for work days.
I can, yes. Whether you can or not may depend on where you live, so perhaps it would be worth editing the question to say where that is.
Many stores sell egg whites. Organic Valley Liquid Egg Whites as an example.
They can be both pasteurized (useful if you want to use the whites in a non-cooked application) and non-pasteurized.
In my US grocery stores, I find egg whites in the refrigerated section, near the eggs in cardboard cartons, similar to those that cream comes in.
Depending on your application, beware of egg substitutes; these aren't quite the same thing.
Yes.
This is probably a question better asked of an employee of the grocery store(s) you frequent. They should be found in the refrigerated section of the store that contains whole eggs.
Eggology is a brand that can be found in the USA. I've used it before for making omelets and mixing into cocktails.
Besides convenience, an added benefit of buying egg whites is storage lifetime. Egg whites sold in bulk should be pasteurized which can extend their storage life up to four months after opening. Compared to the two to four days that raw egg whites can last, this is quite significant.
I do not use them for baking since I find that the aggressive pasteurization denatures the proteins some. This can subtly affect the rise and stability of some baked goods.
They're also pretty useless for whipping. I think you can really only use them in stovetop applications.
Depending on your application, you may also (in addition to @hobodave's answer) be able to buy just powdered egg whites in your baking section. These have a longer shelf life than the liquid form and are suitable for some baking applications.
There's also meringue powder that you can get from cake supply stores, but it has other stuff in it (sugar, stabilizers, etc.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.647837
| 2011-10-04T21:13:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18185",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Beachhouse",
"Catherine",
"Dazzaar",
"Horseheart",
"Joe",
"Lyn",
"Peter Taylor",
"Terry",
"binnev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"min"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19182
|
How can I prepare Jack fruit to simulate the texture of pork?
The best fake meat I've ever had was in Srilanka. 10 years ago I traveled to the Kandy mountains in Srilanka, where I had the most extraordinary non-meat stew. Jack fruit, potatoes, long onions, a strange circular bitter eggplant veggie thing, and other stuff I can't remember. This was stewed with cow bones on a open fire for several hours in a cauldron sealed with banana leaves and topped with a rock. Ok, the flavor did come from cow, but the texture of the meat was truly meat! If I didn't know that it was jack fruit I was eating, I woulda sworn it was pork!
Does anyone know how to make this?
I believe you, as I've had "pulled pork" jackfruit before at a restaurant. I haven't made it myself, but here's a recipe.
The essentials seem to be to use canned, brined jackfruit, rinsed clean and squeezed free of water, then slow cooked for about an hour. This recipe calls for "pulling" the jackfruit apart with a couple of forks, but this may be different from the texture you experienced in that stew--perhaps you'll get this texture that way, or perhaps you'll need to slow cook it for longer without pulling?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.648050
| 2011-11-27T23:49:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19182",
"authors": [
"Ciacciu",
"D.F.F",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41705"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27879
|
Why isn't my homemade yogurt smooth?
Last week I successfully made my own greek yogurt! I was and am very excited that I finally got it to work. But now the problem is, the yogurt I am making is just not very smooth. Store bought greek yogurt (such as Dannon Oikos and Fage) is silky smooth, thick and creamy. This texture is one of the biggest reasons I enjoy it so much.
My DIY greek yogurt has a rough consistency closer to ricotta cheese. It also has very small (1 mm) cottage cheese like curds in it. I found out that you can make Ricotta simply by heating up whey. That causes the albumin protein to turn into ricotta. The first step to make Greek Yogurt is to heat up the milk to denature albumin protein. Apparently this results in the protein staying in the yogurt instead of the whey. So I thought if I didn’t heat the milk up as hot, it would keep more albumin protein in the whey and the result would be a smoother yogurt, and a higher yield of ricotta from the whey. What I ended up with was more whey and less yogurt. More importantly, the yogurt had the same texture as before.
Does anyone know of something I can change in the yogurt making process that leads to a more silky smooth consistency?
Maybe it's in the post-processing, have you tried blending it to see if you get a nice, smooth consistency?
You are correct that the milk is heated to denature the albumin so that it becomes part of the structure of the yogurt instead of washing out in the whey. When distributed through the yogurt properly this protein will not cause the clumping problems you are seeing.
You shouldn't expect to make ricotta from yogurt whey- even if the milk wasn't boiled it just doesn't work well.
Most yogurt problems, including breaking and clumping, are caused by poor temperature control. Heating the milk too much during incubation, over incubating, or erratic temperatures, can all cause your bacteria to misbehave. Often this causes the yogurt to be too acidic and to curdle which would explain your clumping.
As has been canvassed in other answers; the best yogurt incubation temperatures are between 100 - 110°F (38-48°C) but it seems to vary a little with the starter. The best results seem to be had from putting 110°F (48°C) milk in an insulated container to incubate rather than trying to use a heater.
Many yogurt recipes call for powdered milk to boost the milk protein in the mix. Another possible explanation is if you mixed it in insufficiently.
WAHOO! I have SMOOTH yogurt! Well okay, it still has some clumps. I am going to try to remove those by skimming the top off as soon as I take my yogurt out of the oven. But the overall texture of the yogurt is much more smooth! I changed three things at once: I didn't heat the milk as much before incubation (now I heat it just to 175). I reduced the incubation time to 8.5 - 9 hours. I reduced the oven temp from about 120 deg to 100-110 deg. Oh, and I threw away a broken themometer that was causing me to overheat things. :P So I guess I changed four things.
Oh, and you're definitely right about making Ricotta from the whey. I finally tried with the whey I had saved from previous yogurt batches. I didn't get any ricotta. :( Yogurt tastes better anyway.
Congratulations! Oh- and you didn't mention that you were fermenting for longer than 9 hours. 6-9 is the usually guideline. That might have been your problem. Too long and the milk will over-acidify and possibly curdle.
I ferment my yogurt for 24 hours and it comes out great, you just have to cool it for a couple hours to let it set.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.648429
| 2012-10-17T18:08:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27879",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Haluk Levent Aka",
"KarenSue Slack",
"Nathan Ojaokomo",
"Sobachatina",
"Stainsor",
"amonowy",
"hannah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95484",
"jean",
"michael-suggs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33925
|
Looking for an Italian cheese similar/identical to the French Brie
I am looking for a an Italian cheese that I can use as substitute to Brie.
It should have the same consistency and creaminess, as well as delicate flavour.
Any suggestion?
EDIT: This question could benefit by defining how Brie is made, so I could go in an Italian diary shop and ask for something made with a similar process
Erm... why not just use... brie? Is there a reason for this?
Yes of course there is a reason :). Its for a competition and wanted to use only Italian ingriedients but have created a recipe that is perfect with brie. I tried substituting it with different types of Italian cheese (e.g. light Pecorino, Tosella, Puzzone, Gorgonzola) but it doesn't result in the same delicate flavour that Brie can give. I am aware that Italy has 300+ types of cheeses so there must be something out there that will fit :). I'll go and speak with a local diary farm tomorrow and try grasp some more info :)
+1 for a great question. fyi, the category of cheese you're looking for is called 'washed rind'. It'll help your cheesemonger narrow down the choices. The mold is Penicillium camemberti. Would you reporting back when you try the Alpino? some of us are curious ;)
@MandoMando I managed to find some Alpino from the Italian brand Osella. It tastes similar, if not idenitcal to many "mainstream" bries but it has not the same creaminess of the Brie I wanted to use. As far as I understand from the answers I got it probably on how long they have been seasoned for. Is it correct to say that longer "seasoned" bries will be more creamy and hence the Alpino I tried must have been seasoned only for a minimum amount of time?
The most similar, of course, the one you could easily find in any supermarket, is the "Camoscio d'Oro". This is not similar but the same, since is made by Bongrain SA, a French food group.
As semi-industrial cheese made in Italy, we have the "Alpino", better or similar to "paglietta", both of Osella, which is sited in Piemonte (Turin), region on the border with France.
But all over the region there are many small firms dairy, which produce the "tomini". Tomini are a tipical regional cheese, smaller but very similar to brie, both as flavor, as texture and as aging. some news
You can find tomini freshly made, very sweet and tender, and, day by day, more and more seasoned tomini. The last ones can be done on the grill.
If you switch to production typical, you can find a variety of high-quality productions of tomini and similar products in many farms in the region. Like "Montebore" or "Bra", or very similar products that, if you are lucky, you can find among the reserved ones from some kind local farmer.
We share a border, mountains, traditions, people. We even have a whole region half Italian and half French, the Val d'Aosta. Incidentally also some cheese!
Thanks Viola, this is a more complete answer. I went to my local store and found some Tomino, however they are not identical. I have ordered some "Alpino" and hope that they will be fine. The owner confirmed that they should be similar to Brie.
FoodSubs claims Paglietta is similar.
I don't read Italian, so I don't know what the Italian language wiki says about it.
Thanks, it does look similar to brie and I remember trying it once. I will go in a shop tomorrow and try buying it to see if it works :). Thanks for the link :). http://www.fattorieosella.it/it/formaggi-osella/prodotti/specialita-da-banco/paglietta
Brie is a soft cheese that is characterized by its creamy texture and velvety rind.
It is only aged for two weeks to five at around sixty degrees Fahrenheit.
Its unique texture and flavor is a result of the mold that is allowed to grow on its surface. The mold partially digests the young cheese and creates the creamy texture. When the cheese is wrapped the mold is smashed and becomes the rind.
http://www.cheesemaking.com/store/pg/22-Brie.html
Thanks for your contribution, it helps me to have an idea on what to ask and improve my "food culture"
Wikipedia disagrees on the aging time ("at least four to five weeks"). French Wikipedia says that brie de Melun is aged at 12C for a week then 7C for 3+ weeks, and the AoC regulations require a minimum aging of 4 weeks.
@PeterTaylor- fair enough. Four weeks is still a fairly young cheese.
Aging time depends on which are the conditions of temperature / heat / moisture / airiness of the rooms where the forms are stored. Every location is different and the farmers/manufacturers know very well their own rooms. It is not a fixed element, so you have just to look at the calendar. The cheeses good made are checked every day, to check the degree of ripeness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.648757
| 2013-05-02T23:06:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33925",
"authors": [
" spiderboy",
"Andres",
"Anthony Brienza",
"Ashley",
"Boann",
"Ken Williams",
"MandoMando",
"Matt W",
"Mr.HiggsBoson",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Sylvia Romero",
"Tommy Baker",
"Wendy Lane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78860",
"mm24",
"space97",
"user78840",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27462
|
What is the difference between baking bread in a loaf pan made of stoneware vs metal vs iron cast?
Is there a significant difference between using a loaf pan made of this materials?
What kind of bread are you making? Can you post pictures of the loaf pans to reduce some confusion?
Retangular loaf pans like the ones pictured in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaf_pan
Sandwich or quick bread has different heat requirements than artisan breads.
Artisan breads require a blast of high heat and humidity right from the beginning. They are usually baked on flat, preheated stones that store a lot of heat.
With breads baked in loaf pans the bread is proofed in the pan which is obviously not preheated. The goal is not a blast of high heat but generally even heating.
Stoneware and cast iron will hold a lot of heat but that isn't very useful for this type of bread. The big difference that a stoneware loaf pan will make is in the bread's crust. Unglazed stoneware will let some moisture escape during baking. Stoneware loaf pans are often used for dishes other than bread such as meatloaf where the even heating and heat retention when serving is valuable. Bread baked in stoneware will be crustier in the area covered by the pan than bread baked in metal. This is a more compelling advantage with quickbreads. In my opinion sandwich bread doesn't need to be crusty.
Metal bread pans are cheaper, lighter, and less fragile. They won't even out any heat gradients in a sloppy oven. If you know your oven is unreliable consider getting a thermal mass (such as a pizza stone) to even out the temperature.
I haven't used a cast iron loaf pan but my first inclination would be to use it for southern-style cornbread. This type of cornbread is normally cooked in a cast iron skillet. The pan would be preheated with hot fat and the cornbread batter would be poured in. The stored heat in the pan would fry the bread before it rose and set. I don't know why a cast iron pan would be used for normal bread.
Baking a normal bread in a closed cast iron dutch oven has a very similar effect to baking it in a stoneware cloche, trapping the steam for better crust.
@rumtscho- I agree but that can hardly be described as a loaf pan.
Given that they are used in the same way, thermal conductivity is the only difference. This is the rate in which heat is transferred from the oven through the walls of the pan to the bread
The bread exposed at the top of the pan will cook using the available radiant heat of the oven
The bread contacting the surface of the pan will cook using the heat transferred through the walls of the pan. If the thermal conductivity of the pan is low, you will not get a hard or browned crust. Earthenware, stoneware, and glass have a much lower thermal conductivity than metals used in pans
Stoneware by definition in non-porous, traditional earthenware is somewhat porous. Most modern earthenware (from Asia) though is effectively non-porous. Either way, the ability for stoneware to be "porous" to steam in any quantity will be very limited in the short trip in the oven. If you want surface stream escape use a perforated metal pan such as baguette makers use
Note: baguette makers use these sort of pans so stream can get to the bread, not escape from it. They use steam ovens to promote "oven spring", which is the process of using steam to keep the bread crust from hardening while the bread still rises internally in a hot oven. A lidded pan, cast iron or other material, generally simulates this effect
This is only true for artisan breads with fast bake times- but those do not use normal loaf pans. Unglazed stoneware does allow moisture to escape from the surface of the bread during longer bake times: http://www.pamperedchef.com/our_products/catalog/product.jsp?productId=169&categoryCode=FH
@Sobachatina Old wives tale. Can you get any information on just how much steam escapes in the time in the oven? A potter will talk about porosity as being an earthenware pot filled with water leaking 2+% of it's contents in a 24 hour period. Hardly sufficient to let large amounts of steam escape is it?
@Sobachatina You are also confusing stoneware and earthenware
It could be an old wives tale- however- In my personal experience using stoneware to bake loaf shaped things (bread, brownies, monkey bread, etc), the stoneware will always bake a little more evenly and form a thicker crust. I have read in several places, including the link I posted, that this was because they pull water away from the surface of the baked good. I am not confusing stoneware and earthenware- unless manufacturers are.
@Sobachatina Stoneware is glazed earthenware and is 100% water proof. Ask a potter! The effect you are seeing while baking with it is due to its low thermal conductivity
My dear @TFD, are we running into local language discrepancies here? I can buy unglazed stoneware, and the internet is flush with references to it. Earthenware is used in gardening, it is too brittle and not oven safe. How would low thermal conductivity cause more crust if the baking time is the same?
@Sobachatina not sure what country you live in? See wikipedia or http://stoneware.seeleys.com/html/what_is_stoneware.html for a better definition than mine
@Sobachatina low thermal conductivity means the surface does not fully cook and "burn over" in the first few minutes, so allows the crust to develop and steam to release through the gap between the crust and the pan
The link that you posted agrees with my understanding as well. Stoneware is often not glazed, and earthenware is not suitable for cooking. Stoneware is water permeable but less than earthware. Do you have a reference to the "burn over" behavior. It sounds plausible. My stoneware loaf pan died. I may have to go buy one to experiment with.
@Sobachatina Yes, stoneware can be unglazed, but is still vitreous and therefore waterproof. Many Asian cooking vessels labelled as earthenware seem to be stoneware nowadays, may be due to prices and shortages of certain clays? Earthenware can be cooked in, it just has to be handled very carefully
@Sobachatina this happens in cakes as well, basically the same process. Dough or batter quickly over cooks against the metal surface affecting the rest of cooking process. In the case of bread you want a humid environment to form a nice crust. Without a lid, you will still get this on the pan sides if they don't cook to quickly
I have baked bread in both stoneware and in cast iron loaf pans. In my opinion, cast iron loaf pans win hands down. The crust comes out a beautiful, even, golden brown all the way around the bread loaf. I will not bake bread in any pan other than my cast iron loaf pans.
As far as artisan breads, they bake as well in cast iron as they do in stoneware. You can put cast iron in an oven at the recommended temperatures needed in order to achieve the crust so desired in these types of breads.
I know this is an older post but just want to throw my 2 cents in.
I was lucky enough to come across 2 new stoneware bread pans (NEW) at a resale shop. I bought them for 10 dollars and they are from the "Sassafras" company. Good pans.
I have been seasoning the inside of them with a canola oil spray. They have a real nice patina on them now. I also sprinkle white cornmeal in them sometimes before a bake.
I preheat oven to 450 degrees F with a Pizza stone on middle rack for 45 minutes. Dough is proofed in the pans and ready to go in the oven. I cover each pan with a metal bread pan (to trap the moisture for self steaming and awesome oven spring) I got lucky my metal pans fit perfectly on top.
I put the Stoneware pans directly on the pizza stone. The bread pans suck the heat right out of the pizza stone and it works very well for me. After 20 minutes I take the lids (metal bread pans) off the bread and drop the Temp to 375 and insert a instant read thermometer in the loaf. I bake the bread until it reaches 210 Degrees F and it is done.
Bread falls out of the pan..... cool for 20 minutes on a rack and get a slice of heaven!
I have baked in metal pans but not cast iron. I prefer stoneware. I like the crust it produces.
My recipes use a 20 minute autolyse than a 4-5 hour bulk fermentation than a 1-1.5 hour rise at 78 degree dough temp. 78% hydration with small amount of yeast to get the long fermentation.
Cheers, Happy Stone baking.
RJ
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.649282
| 2012-09-28T20:21:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27462",
"authors": [
"Alexis Nikitopoulos",
"Carlos Oliveira",
"Maic López Sáenz",
"Memories",
"Peter Machado",
"Robert Streetman",
"Sheena Awad",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Willow",
"Zubin Mukerjee",
"chaoticmind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61892",
"jon underwood",
"ravron",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15068
|
Is unnecessary refrigeration problematic?
Our local grocery store's produce section has a few areas of refrigerated produce along the walls--mostly "wet" vegetables like lettuce, squash, peppers, green beans, etc. The rest, in the middle of the produce section is simply on shelves in bins, like potatoes, onions, corn and bananas.
For the most part, our home storage tends to follow the store's--we keep lettuce in the crisper and onions out.
However, there are a few pieces of produce that tend to generate some controversy in our house, and they tend to be small and round, like grapes, cherries, and berries. The questionable item this week is blueberries. My tendency is to follow the store's practice of leaving this out, whereas my wife seems convinced they will rot in a matter of hours and insists they should be refrigerated.
I'm more or less satisfied with refrigerating them--as long as it won't cause a problem. I've heard that some items will actually go soft faster, or lose flavor, if stored cold.
At our grocery store, berries are refrigerated.
Just to clarify a couple of things that others have said -
The skin of any vegetable or fruit has natural defences against microorganisms, particularly moulds - if you wash your food the minute you get it home, you reduce its keeping qualities. Wash things as needed, immediately before using or eating them, and they will keep longer than if you wash them in bulk.
Never neglect the washing, because they may have been sprayed with something to improve their shelf life - and remember this includes things like the peel of citrus fruits, which is often ignored by the pros.
It is a fact that chilling foods can initiate mould growth, which will manifest itself quite quickly if the temperature is raised. If food was chilled when you bought it, keep it that way and the mould growth will be slowed down. If you put it in the chiller, keep it there until you use it.
If you bought food at room temperature and it quickly goes mouldy, you can usually bet that it was chilled in transit.
It's patently and demonstrably untrue that chilling foods initiates mold growth. If this were the case, what would be the point of refrigeration? Now, MOISTURE encourages mold growth... say, condensation on the surface of something taken out of a cold fridge and left out. However, this is quite a different matter.
Some mold spores will germinate more readily if they get chilled or frozen. If food that has been chilled is kept chilled, the mold growth is retarded, but if the food gets above 4 degC the mold can start to grow. An experiment - take two cheap sliced loaves with at least five days shelf life. Freeze one immediately, leave the other on top of the freezer. Take the frozen loaf from the freezer after 18 hours, put it next to the other, and examine daily for mold. 9 times from 10 the frozen loaf will show mold growth earliest, usually before the shelf life is up.
@klypos That is probably due to greater surface moisture. Freezing tends to draw moisture out of foods, and it'll wind up on the surface if its sealed in a plastic bag.
@derobert - I left this alone for a long time, because what I am saying is an empirical observation - but there is no question in my mind that chilling food with mold spores attached can cause the mold to grow when the food is returned to room temperature, when it would not grow if the food had not been chilled. If you grow winter wheat, it will develop "blind" unless the seed in the ground has been subjected to frost. Sometimes chilling can initiate growth, and the effect is not confined to molds.
Living organisms, including plants, are very complicated miniature chemistry factories. Even separated, dead body parts still have chemical processes taking place completely independent from any parasitic organisms (bacteria, molds) present. But of course, lots of the processes which take place in the living plant don't take place any longer, and their absence can change the food considerably (rigor mortis in animals, wilting in plants).
Refrigeration slows down the growth of bacteria and molds, and some of the processes going on internally in the plants. There are two problems with that: 1) sometimes, you want these processes to go on. A pear will continue to ripen and enhance its aroma after plucking, especially if there are catalysts like ethylene present. If refrigerated, this ripening will be limited severely. 2) Some of the chemicals already present in plants will change under low temperatures. ESultanik pointed out two such examples, the self-destroying aromatic compound in tomatoes, and the starch-sugar conversion in potatoes. These and similar changes happen in other fruit and vegetables too. But it doesn't mean that all fruit and veggies undergo undesirable changes.
There is a good rule of thumb to predict where such changes may occur. It says that the bigger the temperature difference between the plant's living conditions and storage conditions, the more likely it is for its chemicals to behave strangely. So everything which thrives north of the Alps should do well in the fridge (if the fridge has a crisper, use it). Everything else must stay outside (including tomatoes - you can grow them in Middle Europe, but they don't taste well). Shape, color, etc. is quite irrelevant to storage temperature. If you have logistic difficulties, just use small breathable containers for placing berries etc. into the fridge, instead of the squishable plastic bags you may have bought them in.
The rule isn't perfect, but to do better than that, you'd have to research the optimal storage conditions for every single fruit or vegetable and possibly furnish a cold storage cabinet or pantry in the 10°C - 15°C range.
As Doug mentioned in his answer, tomatoes lose flavor if refrigerated. This is because they contain an aromatic compound called cis-3-hexenal which is permanently destroyed if the tomatoes drop below about 50°F. Moisture makes onions rot, and refrigerators are moist places, so onions should generally be stored in a dry place when whole and refrigerated in an airtight container after they are cut. For the same reason, you shouldn't keep your onions close to your potatoes, since potatoes give off moisture. Speaking of potatoes, their storage depends on what you want to do with them. For most recipes, you should store the potatoes at just above refrigerator temperatures. If the potatoes get too cold, this promotes their starch to convert into sugar, which can cause the potatoes to taste weirdly sweet and/or cause premature browning. This is sometimes a desirable thing, though. For example, if one is making a potato recipe that would otherwise be difficult to brown/crisp well (e.g., oven baked lowfat french fries), one might benefit from pre-chilling the potatoes. As for blueberries, I always refrigerate them and have never had a problem (but they hardly ever last more than a day or two at my house). Just don't pre-wash them, because any moisture on their surface will promote mold/decomposition. In fact, the only berries that I don't refrigerate are tomatoes (at least that I can think of).
I have always been led to believe that tomatoes, at least, will lose their sweetness if refrigerated.
Yes, those are on the controversial list as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.649945
| 2011-05-26T12:35:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15068",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Nancie Mastrangelo",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"klypos",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21872
|
What is the best rice for sushi?
I love making sushi at home - it is a satisfying and delicious experience that is very quick and easy (and I can use whatever food is leftover in the house).
However, I'm limited by the type of rice I have been using, and most of the sources I've found are confusing about details and brands. I have been using Botan Calrose Rice, and I've used the Whole Foods brand sushi rice, but neither is particularly good.
So, what are the specific considerations for good sushi rice? Obviously it should be a white, short-grained rice, but what else should I look for? Is it worth it to order rice online when you live in a place that only sells the Botan rice?
Edit: The method for making the rice is either by boiling in a pot with a tight lid or using a rice cooker - both seem to produce very similar results for me. I am looking for a rice with more consistent texture and with a stronger, less chalky flavor.
Nearly any rice will do. What is your technique for preparing the rice?
This seems like an opinion question. I have my favorite brand of sushi rice, but I can't defend it empirically. It might be more helpful for you to list exactly the things you find unsatisfactory about Botan and Whole Foods rice, and try to find out how to resolve those.
Question edited to match your comments.
I suppose it's opinion in the sense that one could use any sort of rice in any fashion (brown rice, fried?), but that wouldn't be good "sushi" rice. I think a set of characteristics of quality sushi rice could be roughly agreed upon.
Do you rinse rice very well before cooking, that may account for "chalky" stuff. You don't have an absolute question here!
I'm not sure how to be more absolute in the question. I want to know what makes good (tasty, enjoyable, effective, correct, etc) sushi rice, and where that rice can be acquired. It's not a question of methods, it's one of quality, type, and observable characteristics. Can you explain why my question is unanswerable?
Commenters, if the answer is that within the given category, everything is equally good, write an answer saying that. But do make sure it's not an oversimplification. For example, is white and short-grained sufficient?
Do you wash and soak the rice before cooking? That can make a huge difference, especially if you're getting excess starch
I do wash and soak the rice before cooking.
I deleted all the answers that were nothing but brand recommendations, and removed the part of the question asking for specific brands. Shopping questions aren't allowed here (or on any other SE site). Please, anyone considering answering this, focus on the why, not the what. Answers that do nothing but mention a favourite brand will be deleted.
Nearly any Japanese rice will do. My pick - Koshihikari (preferably Niigata Koshihikari) - but just because I like it.
According to Seductions of Rice (which also has the best written instructions for making sushi rice I've seen), any Japanese-style rice will work fine for sushi rice. They further define Japanese Rice as Japonica short rice which has a length:width ratio of 2.5:1. The grains should look translucent and rounded, sometimes with a small white spot at one end.
For example, I personally use "Akita Komachi" organic rice. This is also a "half-brown" rice, which gives it more vitamin content than pure white rice, as well as a nice nutty flavor.
According to them, Japanese rice is frequently covered in talc or powdered starch to keep it dry, which is why rinsing it prior to cooking is essential.
I'm not going to go through their entire instructions for preparing sushi rice -- you can borrow the book from your local library for that -- but I will go over the essentials to make sure you're not missing major steps:
Rinse the rice
Soak the rice in cold water for 20 minutes
Cook the rice
Mix the rice with vinegar, sugar and salt
Spread the rice out in a wide pan to cool
Make sushi within 3 hours.
"Obviously it should be a white, short-grained rice"
This is your problem, you should be using medium grain not short grain, short grain is pudding rice and will loe pretty much all its structure when cooked.
As for brands there are things like Yutaka though they're pretty expensive as their aimed at the western speciality market rather than the regular Japanese one. If you want to find it at a good price you're best off looking online at the brands the Japanese supermarkets sell, though you'll probably have to buy a large bag (5kg+).
FYI - Botan Calrose is a medium grain rice, and is specifically mentioned as a good choice if a Japanese Japonica is not available. http://www.lafujimama.com/2010/05/sushi-rice-the-secret-behind-delicious-sushi/
It's how you wash the rice and how you prepare it. You can use short, long or medium sized grains but I prefer the short grain just because every short grain rice seems to spread out more nice and evenly. When you wash your rice, it's very important you remove all the white cloudy water. When those white cloudy water gets cooked, it makes the rice more sticky, which gives the rice a mushy like texture/appearance. When you wash your rice, make sure you let it sit for at least 30 minutes or longer. This will make the rice tender. After a nice 30 minute stand by, you should give the rice a wash once or twice more. This will let any left over cloudy water that has sat down spread out evenly so you don't get the bottom part of the rice all sticky have the top cooked all nicely. What some people do is they wash the rice on the rice cooker pot and let the silt calm down and cook the rice and only use the top portions of the rice that has been cooked. But like I said before, all rice is pretty much same. Some may look more shiny and such but in the end, they pretty much taste the same as long as you prepare it will.
I generally use Botan or Nishiki. The texture is very even and you have to make sure you stir it constantly as it cools down to room temperature, or you will get some dry rice and some mushy rice. If you have too uneven of a consistency, you may not be cooling it correctly. As you stir it while cooling, make sure to add a rice vinegar/sugar/salt solution throughout the whole batch-- I am sure that it's the flavor that is missing from your rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.650520
| 2012-03-01T00:47:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21872",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Greg.Ley",
"PoloHoleSet",
"TFD",
"VINISH SHETTY",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95991",
"siboniso mashinini",
"xuq01"
],
"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
}
|
17481
|
Why does white vinegar taste better when at restaurants?
Just got back from dinner, where I had some decent fish and chips with white vinegar, and a thought came to me: At restaurants, I've found the white vinegar there helps to accentuate the flavour of the dish, mainly French fries. But when trying to do the same thing at home, the taste is more like I had just thrown on water as opposed to vinegar.
Barring that I'm imagining things (and it's entirely possible), I wonder if anyone else can shed some light on this at all?
Are you sure that you got white vinegar for your fish and chips? Usually, fish and chips are served with malt vinegar, which is a very different substance.
@martha F definitely. As someone that is not a fan of malt (all fish and chip aficinados will be recoiling in horror right now) I insist on white vinegar with my order.
According to a quick search on Google, there are two other types of vinegar served in fish and chips shops along with malt vinegar.
The first (and my best guess) is onion vinegar -- which is white vinegar that has been used to pickle onions. This is clear, but at minimum contains onions and salt, and perhaps sugar and other pickling spices. (I should note that the recipe I linked to uses malt vinegar to pickle the onions, but you could certainly achieve the same result with white vinegar.)
The second vinegar is actually called non brewed condiment, and isn't actually vinegar. It's ascetic acid, water, and a bit of caramel coloring. The coloring would make it brown, but it wouldn't have the malt flavor.
Acetic acid makes up 4-20% of vinegars anyways.
yeah, but the other 80-96% can add a significant amount of flavor.
@baka: sure does, I was just pointing out that acetic acid is also normally in vinegar (it is not clear to me whether the answer is implying that or not)
@nico -- I was just saying that the condiment is not brewed from normal vinegar. Yes, acetic acid is in vinegar, but it's produced differently. This appears to just be acetic acid in water.
@Martha: ok, sorry I misunderstood your sentence. :)
@nico -- no problem! :-)
Fish and chips shops often use a non-brewed condiment rather than real vinegar. The condiment is made of acetic acid, the same as regular vinegar, but is produced by an alternative process. This condiment is often stronger than other vinegars.
I don't know how old this food science is but I reckon the white vinegar (which is distilled vinegar, btw.) was used for pickling onions. Many chips shop use up their old stock as best as they can so once the onions have finished instead of throwing the vinegar away they used it to go on your chips. I must admit it is very tasty on fish too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.651021
| 2011-09-05T00:28:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17481",
"authors": [
"C. Martin",
"Dominik MJ opinionated alchemi",
"JASON WINTERS",
"Marcela",
"Martha F.",
"Rhomelyn Rafael",
"Terry",
"baka",
"canadiancreed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"moem",
"nico",
"user3451139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13866
|
What can you surmise about coffee beans that have oil on them at the time of purchase?
I find myself favoring the purchase of coffee beans that have visible oil on them. My inference was that this bean had some extra flavor or awesomeness.
Am I right, are beans 'better' if they are oily, or more simply, what does that mean about the flavor profile of the bean?
yeah I have always assumed that meant they were better than non-oily beans! No idea if its true though.
Coffee beans have a natural oil in them. Often beans that have been roasted longer will have more visible oil on the surface. Not really an indicator of quality, though, but a longer roast will be darker, have a stronger flavor, and (paradoxically to some) less caffeine.
(At least, this is what I learned when slinging Cappuccinos at a Canadian coffee chain during my college years a long time ago. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.)
You're correct. Darker roasts get more surface oil. And darker roasts do usually have "extra flavor", being much stronger in taste. The oil doesn't show up until a few days after roasting, and it goes away after a few weeks.
For most beans my favorite roast is just as they start expressing surface oils (pretty dark, but not burnt). Mmmmm...
Argh. The oil is not the caffeine. The oil is not (alone, or even predominantly) what makes the flavor. Also, beans that look oily are not oilier than beans that look dry. A bean that's roasted dark enough to produce an oily surface has had many of its lower viscosity oils volatilized, leaving only heavier oils. A more lightly roasted bean has not lost these lighter molecular weight oils in the lower heat (say, less than 435 degree bean temperature), so more oil is actually retained. Brewing methods that don't use paper filters will deliver these oils to the cup.
Personally, aside from not liking dark roasts in general, I don't like brewing dark roasts using methods that get the oil to the cup because I don't like the flavor that comes from a balance of oils that lacks the lighter weight oils. I do, however, very much enjoy a lighter roast brewed to yield the oils in the cup, because to my palate the balance of oils is better with the lighter weight oils not lost in the roast.
Beans stale relatively fast. Lighter roasts stale more slowly, and indeed are best a week or so after roasting. Darker roasts are best in about half that time. Oxygen and warmth (the latter affects the former's rate of activity in the bean) are enemies no matter what.
I think someone's being mischievous here, because claiming that regional distinctives don't matter, or are not what makes coffee good, borders on the insane. Charitably presuming that the poster is not insane, I conclude to mischief. Dittos for the idea that if there's not much oil visible on the exterior, there must not be any left inside either. That's backwards thinking, since oils are burned off and migrate to the surface only on darker roasts. How could less oil be present in a lighter roast that hasn't had those oils migrate to the surface and be burned off yet? Argh.
just as a point of personal experience: I spent some time in Ethopia and had fantastic coffee in many places. The beans were ALL non-oily and downright dry looking. I was really surprised as my assumption was the same as yours.
I've noticed some of the Starbucks beans are so oily I have wondered at times if they add oil for that effect.
Starbucks beans are very oily because they over-roast ALL of their coffee beans. As a result, you simply can NOT taste the unique varietal aspects of coffee from different regions. If you compare some excellent roasted coffee (such as from Counter Culture Coffee), the beans rarely show any oil.
To my mind, a fine sheen of oil is good, but a noticeably oily surface means the beans are overroasted.
I roast beans at home, and when there is oil on the surface after several days, it always means the inside of the bean is more carbonized than I like.
I generally roast beans to the point of "second crack", which produces coffee that is dark, but not so dark that all varietal character is lost. On the excellent Sweet Maria's website, this stage is called a "Full City+" roast. Beans are typically at their best between 3 and 10 days after roasting (though it varies with the kind of bean) and with an overroasted bean I may see excess oil from the third day onward.
Oilier = darker roast, although that only applies if the beans are relatively fresh. The beans will usually reabsorb the oil as they stale. In other words, the oiliness doesn't really tell you much that you can't already figure out from the appearance and smell (and roasting date) of the beans.
Though decaf coffee is a few steps oilier by roasting step. A medium-roast decaf will often be as oily as a French roast.
Recently I was in Arles and the beans used in this one establishment were completely dry. They seemed to be very happy to announce to me this result. The taste of the coffee was as excellent as I have generally known in France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, the U.S, Argentina (though not as good as in Costa Rica). I noticed one thing. Unlike when drinking the oily coffees as in the U.S. for instance, I had no abdominal problems with the dry beans. I had it everyday for one month and was well. Any oily beans always produce immediate stomach upset. So there must be actual oil in those beans that is either removed in some types of roasting or never has been there because of the type of bean that it is, in the Arles case. The oil does not seem to be responsible for the taste at all, but is heavy on the stomach. It may also taste 'heavier'. Both oily and non-oily can taste excellent.
Lighter roast beans, who have contact with the lower heated surfaces will taste less burnt, and less like an ashtray. That's what my taste buddies tell me. The oil on darker roasted beans is something shiny. It distracts me from the intricate differences in flavors of the light roast.
Oils are not in and of themselves bearers of "bad" qualities, and can provide a preferred character for some beaners: mainly, they give us information about time, heat and flavor of that little roasted guy.
Imagine hanging out at the beach..you roast lightly and are in a good mood for the party that night, butyou stay all day rolling over in the sun - letting your skin burn, you will be an rosy red grump at the party, and oozy and crispier as the days go by.
Oil on the surface of the bean goes rancid very quickly giving the coffee a bitter taste. Oily coffee is bad coffee.
Really? Other answers seem to indicate that some oil is naturally brought out by roasting, and I don't think the OP is planning to roast his own coffee beans, so I don't quite see how oily coffee is necessarily bad coffee.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.651297
| 2011-04-08T13:55:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13866",
"authors": [
"Bill Bauer",
"Cascabel",
"Kim O'Sullivan",
"Lolabunny",
"Manako",
"Marco",
"Mark",
"Martin Peters",
"Mike",
"Rick G",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73884",
"kadek suma",
"kurt",
"moopasta",
"renatopp",
"sudowned",
"suzanne russell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12068
|
Catering event for 1st time. How should I prepare?
I'm just starting a catering service for my cooking.
I'm not into too fancy style yet, like using metal silverware or china plates, but more casual version like paper plates and plastic-ware.
The events will be about for 40 people, the menu is:
curry & rice
Karaage (Japanese chicken nuggets)
veggie sticks & dips
sandwiches
bite-sized pastries
drinks (tea, beer)
I have 1 chafing dish, I rice cooker, plastic plates/bowls/spoons/cups, aluminium foil baking trays, and paper napkins. I'm thinking to do set-ups and let people help themselves (I may stand-by and help them if they need help).
What am I missing? What should I prepare more?
The most important thing is to check everything and then check it again.
Test your recipes and figure out what can be done in advance without reducing the quality.
You should have checklists of everything that needs to come with you (food, cooking utensils, serving utensils, eating utensils, decoration, cleanup gear, etc.)
You must pre-scout the location and make sure you have thought through how your logistics are going to work - do you have the refrigerator and burner space you need, for example?
Think through how everything will be transported as well. Will you be able to keep everything at safe temperatures? Make sure all containers are thoroughly sealed, and if there is any risk of spills, add a layer of masking tape.
Bring extras of everything. Inevitably, something is going to spill or there will be more guests than anticipated.
Then check everything again.
Also, keep good records of what you made and what got eaten so you'll be ready to do it next time.
And for the paranoid ... don't forget the fire extinguisher. You never know.
have backups and check again.
Another consideration -- some recipes don't scale well. Doubling cookie recipes take 2x the length of time as you need 2x as many sheet pans to go through the oven. (and then you may need more pans to rotate though, more wire racks, etc.). Not properly planning for a time-consuming recipe can really hurt you. (stress, not getting sleep if you're up 'til 4am trying to get things one the night before, so you're dead on your feet the day of ... sore back ... and the rushing leading to cut fingers and/or burned hands when you touch the rack above as you're pulling stuff from the oven)
After helping out with a few events over the years, with one of the places that we hold events renovating but removing almost all of the catering/serving gear in the process, some additional suggestions from someone who's still a novice:
Try to visit where you'll be serving the food in advance, to make sure that you're familiar with the facilities, and what they have available vs. what you'll need to provide:
How will the place be laid out on the day of the event? (so you don't get surprised to find that there's a christmas tree set up in an area that you were expecting to use, or that they now have fewer tables and chairs ... or that they have a 'standard' setup, and you'll have to get there early to re-arrange the room)
Will there be fridge space available, or do you need to work from coolers?
What is available for heating things (oven, microwaves, grills, etc. ... if multiple microwaves, and you're the first group since their renovation, make sure they know where the circuit breakers are so you don't have to wait an hour because they put them both on the same circuit)
Do they have chafing dishes, tongs, sheet pans, serving spoons that you can use, or do you need to bring your own?
Can you wash up on-site, or do you need to make provisions for transporting lots of dirty dishes?
How early can you arive to begin setting up? Can you bring stuff by the day before?
Where can you park to unload? Can you keep the vehicle nearby (either w/ backup supplies, or if you need an emergency trip)
When do you need to clean up / leave by?
Do they have cleaning supplies, or do you need to bring those, too?
What are you responsible for cleaning up, and what's covered by the hall rental?
Do they have trash and/or recycling services, or do you need to remove it yourself?
Do you need to reset the room back to the way it was when you got there, or break down all of the tables & chairs?
Make labels for the food, possibly with ingredients. It really slows down the serving line when someone with a food restriction has to sit there and try to figure out what something is and if there's a something in it that they're avoiding.
If you're not expecting people to grab a little from every dish, make sure that the labels are large enough to be seen from a distance, so people can survey the offerings before getting in line.
Once you figure out what you need to bring, consider how you're going to transport it all:
If you need to bring large things like tables.
If you need to transport cold or hot things (and keep them cold or hot)
What can be packed the night before vs. packed the day of the event.
What order it's going to need to come out (tables at the bottom kinda suck)
Consider bringing containers for leftovers. (most people don't want to take home a large tray of food; they're more willing to deal with manageable portions).
Consider traffic flow:
If trying to serve lots of people, pull the buffet tables out from the wall, and let people form a line on either side.
Try to place the buffet line such that you're not going to have to walk through the line of people waiting when you're going to refresh a pan.
Place silverware, napkins and drinks at the far end of the buffet line (so people don't have to try to juggle them while they're serving themselves, or go back when they decide that they really did need a spoon).
If you can, set up an area for drinks separate from the one for buffet line.
Place condiments after the dish they're expected to be used on, in a separate space from the dish itself. (so people don't take twice as long at that dish if they want to doctor it up)
Place any food for people with restricted diets towards the end of the line. If you place it first, people will try it out of habit, so it'll run out way too early, potentially not leaving anything to eat for the people it was intended for.
Plan for unplanned things:
Do you have someone else you can call if you need something brought to you? (If you're going to need two trips to move everything, holding one person back with the hot & cold stuff also lets them grab anything that might be needed after the first person assesses the location)
Are there shops nearby that you can go to if necessary?
Even if they say that the tables are wipe-clean and don't need table cloths, bring some. Even if just for the buffet line. (because after you've spent however many hours preparing, setting up, serving, etc, you don't want to spend more time cleaning than you have to).
Also worth mentioning -- you need more forks than any other utensil. Unless it's all finger food, everyone gets a fork, but they don't always need a knife or spoon. It's a good idea to have 1.5 to 2x as many forks as you have people.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.651964
| 2011-02-11T23:49:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12068",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Max",
"Tinita Bright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user205944"
],
"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
}
|
33883
|
What are "parsley greens"?
I have a recipe that calls for 2 cups of "parsley greens". Is this referring to chopped parsley?
In most contexts, I would assume that simply means the leaves from the herb parsley.
Depending on where your recipe originates—especially central Europe, or some Asian cultures—parsley root may also be used, so the recipe might be trying to make that clear.
I suspect, however, it really is the recipe author's idiosyncratic style.
Now, as to chopping them, that would depend on how it is used and what the rest of the recipe says.
Strictly speaking, parsley isn't an herb...
How is it not an herb? https://www.google.com/search?q=herb+definition&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US438&aq=f&oq=herb+definition&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3.3506j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It's more a vegetable, or a salad green. I suspect in north America it's just a herb or garnish
In my lexicon, an herb is something where you only ever use the greens, whereas in my household at least, parsley is as important for the root as it is for the leaves.
Depending on how its cultivated, it can be an herb, vegetable, or spice. As far as cooking is concerned, it should be an herb (salad is not cooking) and refer to the leafs. The vegetable should be called parsley root the same way celery root is called and how celery doesn't refer to the root. Another analogy: Grape refers to the fruit, not the leaves that some people cook with and not the seeds we get oil from.
Its a non-woody green leafy plant. That's an herb :-) Parts of it may be used as a spice or a vegetable or dried and used to thatch a hut :-)
@SAJ14SAJ So lettuce is a herb?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.652530
| 2013-05-01T16:11:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33883",
"authors": [
"Greg McNulty",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"Winston L",
"dope",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80084",
"jcf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12188
|
How can I imitate a coffee yoghurt?
I used to enjoy coffee yoghurts and eat them often... However, where I'm currently living coffee-flavored yoghurts are unavailable. I've tried to sort of make my own by adding a bit of instant coffee mix and some sugar to plain yoghurt, but it doesn't taste nearly the same. Are there any other ingredients I can try adding? Has anyone ever tried this?
Have you tried mixing in Kahlúa? Shouldn't need much... And should be plenty sweet enough.
"Instant" coffee typically is disolved in hot water, so I'd think that just stirring it into a cold product would be less than ideal.
You might try making a coffee syrup (as you're adding sugar anyway) or try steeping the instant coffee in hot milk or water first, cool it down, then mixing that into the yoghurt.
thanks! not sure why I didn't think of this... just dissolving the coffee and sugar in a bit of hot water before adding it to the yoghurt makes a big difference!
I think this is going to really depend on the quality of the instant coffee you use. Go to Starbucks and pick up a packet of Via, it is probably the best tasting instant on the market. Start with about 1/4 packet for a 6 ounce yogurt and work your way up from there. You might want to add a bit of sugar too.
I used to like getting a coffee cream chocolate (out of standard boxes of say 'Milk Tray' or whatever) and melting it into my yoghurt. Try it, you might like it ;-)
I would avoid the instant coffee and just stir in a bit of regular coffee that's been made and sweetened to your taste.
I suspect normal coffee might have too much water per flavor to work well for mixing into yogurt.
@Jefromi - That's a good point, so perhaps a strongly brewed non-instant coffee would be ideal in terms of quality. The commercially made coffee flavoured yogourts are probably completely artificial flavours and lots of extra sugar, so it depends on if the goal is pure imitation or just yummy coffee flavoured results.
I added this stuff to Greek yogurt (naturally tart, not sweetened) when we were there and it's fantastic. Apparently this guy is bringing it to the states. http://bit.ly/11C5zbs
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.652701
| 2011-02-15T16:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12188",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Cascabel",
"Eric Finn",
"Joël",
"Pain",
"Sam Hatake",
"Shog9",
"Tom",
"azZur0",
"clueless",
"dani00",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"vhcandido"
],
"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
}
|
32258
|
Is it safe to eat food that was heated in plastic wrap to the point the plastic wrap flamed?
I accidentally used plastic wrap instead of foil wrap over the salmon in the toaster oven. There was a flame. When i checked the salmon, the cling wrap was gone. Did it melt into thge salmon? Is the salmon safe to eat?
Generally, plastic isn't good to eat and there is almost certainly some on your salmon. If it was a life and death survival situation, I'd eat the part that wasn't touching the plastic. But if you have a toaster oven, it's probably not a life and death situation... Chuck it...
Plastic wrap is actually acceptable as field wrapping for burns and wounds. It is sterile as it comes from the manufacturing process, and non-toxic for contact. So having had it in contact with food when it has not burned, is not a problem. http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=40462
There are multiple types of film wrap, which are different plastics. No matter what yours was made from, it almost certainly partially burned up, partially melted, and partially had other heat-based reactions leaving unknown remains on your food, possibly including dioxins, which are quite toxic.
In any of these cases, I would not risk finding out.
Discard the fish.
This answer is right, but just curious why does this get 15 up votes, without anyone leaving one comment? It is kind of a low-knowledgeable question with a relatively obvious answer. I feel fishy reading some really nice answers these days not being recognized as much as something like this getting inexplicable number of up votes.
@kmc I have long since stopped wondering these things. The pattern of votes and comments is almost impossible to predict, it seems, and is not related in any way I can understand to the amount of research or depth a particular answer required! :-)
well I guess you're right. I might think it's common sense not the eat the plastic wrap but people may think otherwise..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.652919
| 2013-02-27T19:09:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32258",
"authors": [
"Coomie",
"KMC",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47552
|
Should I add vegetables and spices in the stock-making stage of pig-knuckle soup?
I'm toying with the idea of making some soup - just a simple one. The recipe call for boiling/simmering a pig-knuckle for about four hours together with a laurel-leaf. Afterwards the stock/fond is strained, the meat stripped from the knuckle, and vegetables and the meat is put into the fond to make the soup - which should boil for another 10 minutes.
The thing is, I was wondering if I could do something more with it. I thinking about adding vegetables, herbs and spices when cooking/simmering the knuckle, to add flavor to the stock and/or meat.
I was thinking root-vegetables like celery-root, beats and carrots... perhaps leek... perhaps onions, perhaps garlic - maybe after frying them lightly in some butter (before adding the water to cook the knuckle)... I guess black pepper would be OK, but what about chili? And what about some fresh herbs and spices?
My first thought would be to strain the stock and throw-away the out-boiled vegetables, since I'll be adding fresh ones to the soup anyway... But could some (eg. the root-vegetables) or all be puraied in a mixer and added to the soup to make it "thicker" - and perhaps add flavor?
I you probably understand, I'm a lot better at eating food than making it, so any advice would be appreciated.
Hi, I edited your title, because on first glance, I thought it is asking which vegetables taste well in a pig knuckle soup. This would have been off topic (we don't do pairing questions, they are subjective), and we don't want others to make the same mistake, so I reworded. If I misunderstood your meaning, you can re-edit it.
Thanks! :-) English is not my first language - especially not the parts about cooking.
There's no reason why you couldn't boil vegetables as you make the stock and then puree them in as a base. It's really about taste and the result you want.
Making the stock without vegetables in it will give you a clear broth with a simple pork flavor and the vegetables will be distinct in it. If you add vegetables while cooking the stock and then puree them in your base will be much more vegetable-y, and opaque - the color will be determined by the vegetables added. The pork taste will be a bit more hidden by vegetable flavors.
Spices and herbs are 2 separate matters. In general you can overcook herbs very easily but it's hard to overcook spices (although some spices can change during long cooking times). Adding bay (laurel) is one of the exceptions herb-wise. Spice-wise adding at the beginning will make the spice permeate the meat, careful not to overdo it though.
Like I said it's all about the look and taste you want.
If you are going to cook a stock for 4 hours, the flavor of the vegetable will contribute to the overall flavor of the stock...but not be so great in vegetables themselves...and their texture will be very soft. I would strain and de-fat the stock... then use the stock you created to build your soup. Add vegetables at this point and cook just until the vegetables are cooked through. This would provide both the best flavor and texture of the vegetables. Use the same process if you want to puree some or all of the soup.
Add vegetables and herbs and bay leaf to enrich the stock, but these must be removed (and eaten as a pre-dinner treat) or pureed as suggested above. Add fresh vegetables and allow to cook to create an amazing stew. I also add one dollop of butter and sprinkle on a little more of the herbs. Bon appetit!
When making soups, stews, stocks, etc. Think of where you want the flavor to go. If you want the flavor in the liquid, then cook the items (meat, veg) longer until their flavor leaves them and dissolves into the surrounding liquid. Done correctly, this will leave those items flavorless and mushy at the end.
If you want the flavor to remain in the items themselves, cook them for shorter periods of time so their flavor does not migrate into the cooking liquid.
If you want soup, stew, stock, etc. to have both good tasting items AND good tasting liquid, you'll need two batches of items: One to flavor the liquid and the other to remain flavorful in the final dish.
When making the liquid, cook one batch of items for a long time until their flavor has moved into the liquid. Generally, their flavorless remains should be removed at the end, although the now-tasteless vegetables can be pureed to give body to the liquid.
For the final soup/stew, add new items to your now flavorful liquid and cook them only long enough to attain the texture your desire.
If you try to compromise and cook the items only long enough to lose some of their flavor to the liquid, you'll be rewarded with overcooked, bland items floating in an equally bland liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.653109
| 2014-09-30T11:03:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47552",
"authors": [
"Baard Kopperud",
"Denis Babary",
"Dusti McKinney",
"IceCreamEnthusiast",
"Jen Stock",
"Renee Wise",
"Rita Penn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17673",
"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
}
|
36799
|
Should sauerkraut on hot dogs be washed
I'm a recent convert to the fermented cabbage dish Sauerkraut which I know is popular in Germany and Poland. On TV I've seen this served on hot dogs in The States and was wondering whether it is traditionally washed to produce a milder flavour before being used?
No, saurkraut is not traditionally washed, but there are an infinite number of hot dog eating traditions. I am not sure that there is any single answer to what else goes with saurkraut on a hot dog.
I add mustard, even though both Sauerkraut/zuurkool and mustard are already sour.
American Sauerkraut is milder tasting not because it's washed, but because it is pasteurized to extend shelf life, which kills the live cultures.
It really comes down to taste. In this usage, you're treating sauerkraut like a condiment so there's not really a "correct" answer.. A lot of hot dog places have traditions - for instance, Nathan's Famous hot dogs (the original "Coney Island" hot dog) uses these combinations with kraut:
-Sauerkraut, spicey brown mustard (New York style)
-Thousand island dressing, sauerkraut, swiss cheese (Reuben style)
A famous hot dog maker in Pennsylvania, Yocco's Famous Dogs, uses sauerkraut and a thin bean chili combination to make their hot dogs.
The sauerkraut will often be very strong tasting, but not as "funky" as kimchi. It pairs well with a lot of different foods, usually other strong flavors (either strong tart like the spicey mustard, or strong sweet like the thousand island dressing or sweet relish).
Personally, I just eat sauerkraut with a fork. But if I have it on a dog, I pile it on with dill relish, country style dijon mustard, a dash of sriracha, and some diced onion. I recommend not kissing anyone for awhile after eating.
Thanks for the information, some interesting suggestions to try!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.653508
| 2013-09-14T18:21:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36799",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"StuPointerException",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376"
],
"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
}
|
24329
|
What to do with old coffee beans?
I have several bags of quality coffee beans brought from Costa Rica. Their best before date is over a year ago. I just grinded and made a pot of coffee of them, and although it was drinkable, taste wasn't that good anymore.
Is there any other culinary use for coffee beans? Any recipe where their fresh taste isn't as important as in a cup of coffee?
Coffee can be used for a variety of things BESIDES drinking straight. Off the top of my head, you can use less-than-perfect beans for:
Chocolate mousse and cakes: brew into coffee, and add to the chocolate mix for a richer flavor
Ice cream and sorbets. Coffee ice cream is awesome, and the cream will mask defects
Chocolate-covered coffee beans. These make a great pick-me up snack for mornings, sweet and caffeinated.
Coffee-flavored simple syrup, for baking and cocktails. Use equal weights coffee and simple syrup.
Compost. Grounds compost very well, especially if used
In a pinch, stale beans also make great projectiles. Got squirrels on your bird feeder? Coffee bean slingshot!
I feel that the more violent options are always better.
Sometimes I roast grinded coffee in a small pan to get rid of cooking smell in my appartement, mostly just after opening the window. I don't know if it really helps, but I like it much better then ie some fishy smell. Maybe that's also something for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.653683
| 2012-06-09T15:32:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24329",
"authors": [
"Caleb Andrew Hendershott",
"Stefan",
"Sven",
"Terrence Cartwright",
"Thanos",
"Tyler Carter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5949",
"user55354"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69450
|
Homemade frozen pizza dough
I like to use the commercial frozen pizza doughs to make pizza, like for example Tizeo's.
The problem is that my doctor has told me to cut out sodium. I used to make my own, but then I would have to bake soon.
What I would like is a techinque where I could make a big batch of pizza dough, split it up into small pieces, freeze it, then pull out some and have to thaw and rise so I can make pizza that day.
It's also worth mentioning that the 'Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day' technique lets you keep the dough in your fridge for about 2 weeks ... but they do add a fair bit of salt to keep the yeast from getting too active.
I used to do it all the time. (but then I cut out gluten ... blah)
Make the dough
Let it proof once.
Roll into smaller balls
Place in a zip-top container
Freeze
It's easiest to let it thaw in the fridge overnight when you want to use it ... but because I make lots of small balls (maybe 2" / 5cm across), and then freeze them in sheets (16 to a gallon zip-top bag), if I have to I can break it apart into smaller amounts ... or spread it out so there's additional surface area for thawing.
Once it's thawed, you can easily shape it, and then add toppings and bake. (or bake, add toppings, and bake ... or cast iron skillet, flip, flip again, top & broil ... however you like baking pizzas)
This is what I do as well. Works great.
I see Joe suggested a method, but one important thing: don't freeze the balls, make discs and freeze them. You'll have much shorter thawing times that way.
The way I do it is to freeze them laid out separately on different shelves, and once they are hard enough to handle without bending and sticking, put them into a case and store the case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.653944
| 2016-06-03T19:13:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69450",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"LMAshton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"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
}
|
49243
|
Lemon juice as a natural preservative for soups
Can lemon juice be used as a natural preservative for soups?
Additionally, Russian soup Borsch has a lot of cabbage in it, as far as I know that makes it last longer. Do you think cabbage can help a soup to be preserved longer?
What are other natural preservatives that can be used for soups?
There is this question Are there any natural preservatives that can be used in Soups or Stews? but the answer doesn't address lemon juice or cabbage or any other natural preservatives.
Anything that will keep bacteria and other spoilage microorganisms from growing will extend shelf life. Acidity and salt are the most common historical preservatives, since they create inhospitable environments for many microorganisms (or only allow the growth of ones that are less harmful). In high concentrations, sugar can also function in this way, as in jams or jellies (though this is probably not applicable to soups). Unfortunately, any soup with enough salt and/or acidity to stop bacterial growth entirely will probably be unpalatable.
That said, lemon juice is highly acidic, so it's likely that it could prevent spoilage a little longer than in soups without it. However, unless you're adding a lot of lemon juice, chances are this effect will not be long enough to call it a "preservative" -- but it might make your soup last a day or two longer in the fridge. A fairly acidic soup using things like tomatoes, lemon juice, vinegar, etc. will generally last a little longer than a similar one without those ingredients.
Nevertheless, the normal storage recommendations for soup should still be observed. Soup in general is very perishable. Stocks and broths are a near ideal growth medium for any bacteria that might contaminate them, and various ingredients in soups could contain spore-forming microorganisms that are not completely killed during cooking. More importantly, not all spoilage -- even that from dangerous bacterias -- produces odors or molds that could be easily spotted. Thus, while adding more acid to soup probably makes it safer a little longer, I still wouldn't depend on it to last more than a few days even using proper cooling procedures and stored under proper refrigeration.
As for cabbage, I'm not aware of any significant anti-microbial properties. It's possible that soups which contain more vegetable matter (like cabbage) will also contain less meat and other ingredients prone to fast spoilage, but the cabbage by itself isn't likely to have a significant effect.
To put it another way, the normal way of really preserving things with acid is pickling them. The amount of lemon juice you'll actually want to add to a soup or stew is not going to be anywhere near that kind of acidity.
@Jefromi - yes, though I think "really preserving" depends on context. I rather doubt the question here was asking whether a little lemon juice would cause soup to be shelf-stable for months or years, as pickling would do. For bread, for example, a "preservative" impedes molding and staling for a few extra days; I assume in the context of soup that it would mean a similar timescale. And acid or salt will often retard microbe growth, even in smaller quantities, compared to without them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.654097
| 2014-10-25T18:33:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49243",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Carla Grace",
"Cascabel",
"Erica Richey",
"Joshua Young",
"PAMELA DUBEAU",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49254
|
Could a non-bitter eggplant become bitter after cooking?
I've seen a couple of questions here, that touch the issue of aubergine bitterness:
How do you make sure aubergine doesn't go bitter when cooking?
Rubbing eggplants in salt
But nobody writes about the connection between the taste of a raw and a cooked eggplant. (Do not be afraid to taste a raw eggplant - it's not poisonous, you would have to eat 36 raw eggplants to cause any harm.)
So, if you chew a small bit of a piled eggplant before cooking, and it does not taste bitter, is that a guarantee that it will not taste bitter after cooking?
Hello Alexander and welcome! All of the information I've seen about eggplants say that it is less bitter with cooking. So, if it is not bitter when raw, it should not get bitter when cooked.
As you note, there are several ways to remove excess moisture and bitterness. Some of those would be salting, peeling, and removing the pith and seeds. However, most eggplants today are bred to not have the bitterness, or at least not as much.
Always be sure to use young, fresh eggplant as the more they mature the more bitterness they will have if they are prone to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.654353
| 2014-10-26T12:25:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49254",
"authors": [
"Aamna Chachar",
"Cindy Zanotti",
"Dave Werry",
"Sudais nova",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117625"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49326
|
What sort of kebab is used with Chellow Kebab?
I came across the following picture
in wikipedia the entire serving was being called Chellow Kebab without separately naming the Kebab Variety.
I would like to know the name of the Kebab as displayed in the picture and the recipe to make it
An alternative spelling is Chelo Kebab, which may help with Googling.
Chelo (or Chellow) kebab refers to the entire dish which consists of the kebabs (usually 2), rice, and usually grilled tomatoes. Sometimes other accompaniments are included as well.
The most common types of kebabs used for this dish are koobideh (ground beef) and barg (ground lamb). It is sometimes served with one of each. There are exceptions and, though not as common, other types of kebab may be used.
If you perform a Google search for Chelo kebab recipe you will get tons of results. Most of the recipes include both the rice and the kebab.
Thank you for your answer. In case if my question was not quite clear (I do apologize for it), I am particularly interested in the one displayed in the picture
@Abhijit the picture includes both a saffron chicken kebab (jujeh kabab) and a meat kebab. Without tasting it, there's really no way for anyone else to tell you whether it is lamb or beef just from the picture.
@Abhijit You could try a Google image search to see where the image came from and if there was a recipe included. If there wasn't, then sorry, you're out of luck, and the closest you'll get is a similar recipe.
@Didgeridrew: I am particuarly interested in the kebab which is along the center of the picture. Also I am more interested to know the name of the kebab and the recipe rather than whether its lamb or beaf.
@Abhijit Most likely it is barg kebab (made with ground lamb) or koobideh kebab (made with ground beef), as is in the answer. As per the comments from Didgeridrew and logophobe there is no way to tell for sure unless you can get a recipe for the dish in the picture.
Here is the link (http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschelo_Kabāb) where the picture is located. However, I am not able to translate. Performing a Google search using the spelling on that page, Tschelo Kebab only comes up with results for chelo kebab.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.654481
| 2014-10-28T17:39:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49326",
"authors": [
"Abhijit",
"Cindy",
"Commercial Water Suppliers LTD",
"Darrin McColl",
"Didgeridrew",
"Erica",
"Karen Dilatush",
"Linda Dutrisac",
"Tinman1691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28948",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66694
|
Infusing Chilies in Alcohol
I have been reading about infusing chilies in alcohol to create a liqueur, and I'm not clear on how they should be infused (if at all). Various sources suggest various methods (whole vs. chopped, length of time, etc.), but I'm not clear on the influence of these factors.
How long should the chilies be infused?
Is there a known "upper bound" after which all of the spice gets transfered to the liquid? Can one infuse them indefinitely, or is there a botulism / spoilage risk?
Is there any problem with infusing them whole?
Would making a small hole in each suffice? I'd like to do so for aesthetic purposes, but I'm not sure the implications this will have on flavor / spoilage.
What, if any, are the advantages of cooking them prior to infusion?
I have seen that some people cook the chilies first, but I assumed the flavor would be imparted eventually, even without cooking. So, is there any point cooking them?
When I've seen chillies in vodka they look like they've been dried, not cooked.
I've infused jalepenos for 1-2 weeks successfully, I don't know if there is an upper limit past that. The alcohol should prevent spoilage and the pH is too low for botulism to be a concern.
Infusing them whole is ok. There will be a lot more heat if you leave in the seeds and membranes.
Cooking them will change the flavor. Only do this if you want the flavor of a cooked chile.
Thanks! Just a note though: the seeds themselves are not hot in any way. It's the white membrane that holds them
You can speed up the process by roughly chopping your peppers (conserving all the parts, the pith and seeds pack more capsaicin than the flesh!) And putting them with your spirit into a whipping siphon. Pressurize the siphon with one or two canisters of NO2, let it sit for a few minutes, and then safely release the pressure. You can then strain out the liquid for use immediately or continue to infuse in a glass vessel for a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.654992
| 2016-02-21T15:16:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66694",
"authors": [
"Andy Sideras",
"Chris H",
"Concetta Hunt",
"Jessica Tinsley",
"Lori Pantrey",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Rebecca King",
"Trish Whitcomb Sipes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19586
|
What can I add to boiled lollies to stop them from melting in humid weather?
I've made a gingerbread house this year and popped in stained glass windows. The windows are made of crushed up boiled lollies.
I baked the gingerbread, then added the windows, then baked the bread a further 15 minutes. Five days later the windows are melting because of air humidity. How can I stop this from happening? Is there something I can add to the boiled lollies to keep them hard?
To be precise, the lollies are not melting. They are absorbing water from the air.
If you're really just crushing the lollies (not melting them and re-casting them into sheets of "glass") then you're accelerating the absorption process by increasing the surface area.
Does it need to be out in the open for five days? I'm surprised the gingerbread hasn't gone soggy (actually, I'm surprised it's not been eaten). I would consider putting it in an airtight box until it's ready to serve.
Otherwise, you might be able to make the windows last longer by reducing their water content. Put the crushed lollies in a pan, bring them to the boil and let them simmer to lose more water. Use a sugar thermometer to find the necessary stopping point. Be careful not to burn the sugar. Then pour onto a flat greased surface, to solidify into "glass".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.655224
| 2011-12-12T02:08:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19586",
"authors": [
"Matt Kline",
"Paula Wiser",
"Severino Pérez Santiago",
"chaosflaws",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42839",
"user42839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13406
|
Is methyl cellulose edible?
I blend methyl cellulose for cosmetic products (I use the fine powder). Is methyl cellulose edible? I want to make an edible gel without sugar; just stevia and fruit flavours.
There are several related questions: methylcellulose for gel noodles, vegetarian marshmallows, and others - just search for methyl cellulose or methocel!
Methylcellulose is commonly used in molecular gastronomy to raise the freezing temperture of solids and liquids. Think piping-hot ice cream.
For the gel, you could use agarose (commonly agar) to create a jelly.
The other obvious choice for the gel would be gelatin. Buy plain gelatin at the store and have at it with the directions.
You can create a foam using either the gelatin or the agar and an N2O whipper. This is also called an espuma.
The third, more fun choice would be to get thee to an asian food store and buy and flavor some tapioca pearls.
hey that does sound fun. Thanks technowizard12. Must check nutritional info on tapioca. I love sago pudding asian style. I am trying to imagine piping hot icecream? Will check it out.
This (e)Book has a number of recipes involving meythlcellulose (a.k.a. methyocel), including:
noodles (cream cheese, olive oil, parsley)
foams (generic, carrot)
marshmallows
puddings
hot ice cream (vanilla, Bailey's)
burgers
films (mozzarella, etc)
and more
wonderful, thank you Ray, my only experience to date is using it to make an aloe vera gel. Great ebook cool.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.655382
| 2011-03-24T07:00:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13406",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"Patricia Westridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5403"
],
"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
}
|
16696
|
What is the best temperature to store honey at?
I was wondering what temperature is suitable to store honey bought from stores?
Now in the summer, it can be around 30+ Celsius, and even nearly 40 on some day. Do you suggest keeping honey while being consumed in the refrigerator? If not, what harm can that cause?
fun fact: honey is the only food stuff that never spoils.
Honey should be stored at 50-70 Degrees Fahrenheit
Honey is similar in to olive oil and should be storaged between 50-70 Degrees Fahrenheit according to Max Shrem from Slashfood:
Similar to olive oil, honey should be stored at a cool temperature
between 50 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit. So, it's best to store it away
from your oven or stove. Also, it should not be refrigerated. Extreme
changes in temperature will spoil the flavor of honey.
Looks like this confirms that you may want to keep it in a cool place and away from hot temperature where it would cause honey to degrade in quality.
Shrem from Slashfood continues:
Remember
Do not store honey in a refrigerator or near a stove or oven.
Store it in an air-tight container.
Thus, choosing an appropriate container is an important part of the equation.
Penn State has a great article germane to this topic.
Refrigerating Honey
In the article, it talks mentions the crystallizing state of honey if it is refrigerated in no way it harms the honey at all.
Restoring honey from a crystalized form
I know this is not related to your question. But something you asked in the comments. Apparently, honey can be restored from it's crystalized form: placing it in the microwave for 20 seconds can restore it from a crystallized form.
Therefore, you can store it in the refrigerator and heat it afterwards. The downside is that if stored in the fridge too long it'll turn hard and sugary.
Proper Storage Container
Since honey has very little moisture in it it is difficult for microorganisms to grow. Thus, an airtight container is of utmost importance.
If moisture gets in the container it can be an ideal environment for mold and yeast to grow. Honey should be thrown out if it foams and smells like alcohol
Long Term Storage of Honey
Honey can be stored for long periods of time without any issue. Over time, honey will darken and intensify with flavor.
Thanks! Why not in refrigerator? Does that do harm?
It'll crystalize
"turn hard and sugary" and "crystallize" are the same thing. It's not right to refer to that as degrading, since it's entirely reversible and harmless. You can put crystallized honey in your tea or other hot drink without effect, and as a child I liked crystallized honey for sandwiches because it was crunchy and fun. It's only inconvenient and hard to get out of the jar. It doesn't become unhealthy or spoiled or bad.
Only some honey crystallizes. Canadian cream-style honey, for example, maintains perfect texture and flavor throughout freezing and refrigeration. My mother-in-law recently found some pure clover honey from the '80s in her deep freezer. When thawed and heated slightly and used as usual, it was absolutely amazing.
When I was a child, we used to keep honey (taken from our own bees, and not pasteurized or whipped or whatever) in the root cellar, where it was dark, and cool but not cold. This was a situation where some of it would be kept for years. Sometimes when honey gets cold it crystallizes, which is really no big deal - just sit the closed jar in warm water from the tap for a few hours, stir, maybe repeat. Or scrape off however much you need with a sturdy spoon, and carry on with your life as though it wasn't crystallized. It's harmless, just inconvenient. Totally reversible if the inconvenience is getting to you.
If you just have a jar of it in your house, and you go buy another when it runs out, I don't think it matters. Keep it where the ants are least likely to find it (for us this means out on a kitchen counter rather than away in a cupboard) but not in the fridge. That's what we do with whatever current jar we're using. The honey stores (from my adult hives, which have since died since I was not as good a beekeeper as my Dad, or perhaps it's because mites and such are a much bigger deal now, but anyway we're working through a dwindling store over a multi year period) are in the cool dark (but heated) room in the basement where we keep all our canned goods.
Thanks! Why not in refrigerator? Does that do harm?
In the fridge it might crystallize. And even if it doesn't, it will be thicker and harder to pour, spoon, or spread.
One of the wonderful properties of honey is that if it crystallizes all you need do is put it in a microwave (or warm it some other way) and it is just as good as it has ever been.
Honey crystallizes quickest at 14C (57F). Above this temperature the rate of crystallization decreases until by 32C (90F) it will stay runny. Similarly, below 14C the rate of crystallization decreases until by 0C (32F) it will be frozen solid and no crystallization can occur.
You might deduce then that keeping it warm is best but this results in an increase in enzyme activity which increases the level of of a chemical called Hydroxymethylfurfural which is, apparently, bad for us. Here in the UK it's illegal to sell honey for human consumption is the level exceeds 40mg per Kg. The darkening of honey is also due excessive warmth/enzyme activity. So, from health perspective and to avoid degradation of the honey, in the fridge is best. I have to admit though that I don't keep mine in there (but it's not normally very warm here!).
FYI, Honey crystallizes differently according to the types of sugar present in the nectar. Those high in Glucose set quickly with a fine crystal, those high in Fructose set slowly with a large crystal. "Cream-style" honey is honey that has set solid (preferably small crystal) then warmed just enough to allow it to be mechanically agitated which breaks the bonds between the individual crystals and results in the lovely smooth texture.
Hope that helps.
I buy honey in 5lb. plastic jugs, 6 per case. if it crystallizes I warm it in my crock pot in water. a better way to store is on the top shelf In my pantry ( heat rises) so far none stored there has crystalised.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.655532
| 2011-08-07T16:31:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16696",
"authors": [
"Becky Livingston",
"Frank Gallagher",
"Ilanysong",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kevin",
"Melissa Carter",
"Mike McCoy",
"Tim",
"Tim Booker",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"justkt",
"saltface",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14558
|
What Old World Europe countries (apart from Germany and Italy) have their own unique pasta traditions?
I was doing some research on websites and came upon a site where a German pasta company had been trying to sell their products into the US (the site is down, looks like the enterprise was not successful).
There is a list of their pasta types given:
Fadennudeln, Schnittnudeln, Bandnudeln, Walznudeln, Nudelnester, Drelli, Spiralen, Makkaroni, Knoepfle, Bauern Spaetzle.
Apart from learning the meaning of the name "Knopfler", I was very surprised to find such a range of pasta with specialized names coming from Germany. I have eaten pasta in Germany, but never before realized that they have their own "pasta tradition".
Being English, with a pasta tradition imported from Italy, I am wondering if other countries apart from Germany and Italy have their own "pasta traditions"? I am thinking Old World Europe; of course the USA has its local variations, but they are not what I am looking for. My focus is on a unique noodle version.
I think the terms you gave are just German translations of Italian types of pasta.
Some are very similar, some are unique - knoepfle were defined as a thick version of spaetzle on the site I found. Remember that umlauts are represented by putting e after the vowel when they can't be used.
That's a really interesting question why isn't there a noodle tradition in England? It's such an obvious and simple way to consume flour.
I can think of several Polish noodle types.
Uszka - shaped like tortellini, filled with mushrooms. Usually served in soup.
Kopytka - made of flour, potatoes and eggs. The composition is basically the same as gnocchi, but they're formed differently: you roll the dough into a rope the size of your thumb, then cut it into pieces diagonally.
Kluski lane ("poured noodles") - a thin egg and flour dough that's drizzled into boiling water. Usually served in soup. Similar to spaetzle.
Pierogi - a round piece of dough that's folded around a lump of filling, making a semi-circular shape. The filling can be a number of things. The most popular one is a mixture of potatoes and farmer cheese - "pierogi ruskie". They can also be filled with ground meat, cabbage, or fruit.
Łazanki - flat square pieces of pasta, less than an inch wide. Usually mixed with sauerkraut, mushrooms, and optionally sausage or salt pork. The name is probably derived from lasagna.
Knedle - these are eaten in Poland, but I think they're originally from Hungary. It's a ball of potato dough (similar to kopytka, above) with a plum in the center.
Kopytka - you get something similar to these in Italy. I don't remember the Italian name, I do remember the two famous italian TV chefs preparing them for the cameras. Whatever, you get my vote for giving me something to think about!
Spaetzle are pretty unique as pastas go--they're almost dumplings--and it shouldn't be hard to find recipes.
Beyond that, I'd look to Asia for true variations on noodles that aren't just shape variations of the standard semolina noodle or egg noodle.
In Turkey you have an interesting type of (I would call them) ravioli, at any rate stuffed pasta called manti, and I have not seen anything quite like it elsewhere.
On the Balkans, there is yufka. Don't let yourself be fooled, this is a Turkish word meaning a type of bread, but in Bulgaria, ex-Yugoslavia (and I think Romania too), it is used for a type of noodle.
For this noodle, you make a dough like you would for a banitsa (this is a dish similar to a strudel). It only has wheat flour (not semolina) and water. Then you roll it out in flour until it is transparent (~0.3 mm). The sheet is first dried in the air for some days, then baked a bit. The drying and baking makes it crack, resulting in irregular scales. The picture shows the dried yufka.
The prepared noodles are cooked in water and usually served with feta cheese and butter.
BTW, I don't think that there is much of a noodle tradition in Germany. Germans eat lots of pasta today, and most of it is indeed produced locally, but I think that they have (except for Spätzle) imported and simplified the Italian custom, probably in more recent times. In Germany, you get practically two types of noodles - Hartweizennudeln, noodles made with 100% durum semolina (the Italian type), and Eiernudeln, noodles with eggs added to the dough (not sure if they are always made with durum, Spätzle usually isn't). The rest of the terms just denotes different shapes of noodles, but unlike Italy, there are no rules for which noodles go with which kind of sauce. The different shapes are just used interchangeably by German cooks.
Some Germans could tell you that they have a different type of noodle, called Maultaschen. This is something of a border case, but I consider it to be a dumpling, not a noodle. On the other hand, it could be argued that if ravioli are a noodle, then Maultaschen are a noodle too. Either way, Maultaschen are traditional food from Schwaben.
Turkish 'yufka' is the material that borek and baklava are made out of. Like the Turkish version of phyllo dough. I don't know if you would call that a pasta but I wouldn't call it bread.
I think I've had Maultaschen in a country inn in Latvia. They were described in English as mushroom dumplings which could be served fried or boiled with a sour cream sauce - we tried both and found them very nice!
@wyatt mann In the former USSSR, dumplings are called вареники (vareniki). I don't know how much they differ from Maultaschen, but if you consider ravioli and Maultaschen to be different food, than vareniki and maultaschen should count as different too.
Tiny rice grain shaped noodles (Kritharaki/Orzo) are often found in greek and turkish dishes, even though an italian adaptation (Risoni) seems to exist.
Hungary has a unique (as far as I know) noodle speciality, called "galuska" or "nokedli" (see photo). They are often compared to either the swab "Knöpfle" or the swab "Spätzle", which can be an approximation only, since they taste very different and are, all in all, absolutely distinct (see my comment below)! Therefore the Hungarian Wikipedia entry is the best resource to learn about them. These also come in varieties, with sheep quark cheese in the dough, for example, called Sztrapacska then, also part of Slowakian national cuisine.
Another, typical, Hungarian (and Slowak) noodle is "tarhonya". These are small noodles, which get sautéed in a little oil or bacon, before getting cooked in boiling water (or right into the dish, they are being made for, so they get cooked along with it).
Besides this, Hungarians have a lot of pasta types, just as the Germans. And no, these are not italian style pasta, these are distinct, just as the German's.
By Kobako (photo taken by Kobako) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
Now you made me curious: what exactly is the difference between Knöpfle and nokedli? My Hungarian is too weak to understand the Wikipedia entry and the photo is the same as in the German entry for Knöpfle.
I admit, that I know "Knöpfle" only from the supermarket, "Spätzle" from Restaurants in the Black Forest. Now your comment made me suspicious and I checked some of the recipes, only to realize, that they are mostly the same! Variations exist only by amount of flour/eggs in use, these varieties exist for both types. Maybe I was wrong? Only testing it in the lab can give assurance. Here is a traditional "Nokedli" recipe: 600g flour,
1-2 whole eggs, 2 tbs lukewarm oil or fat, 100ml milk, salt, water. Instructions mention, not to stir more as needed to mix together.
From France :
Raviole du Dauphiné, some kind of small ravioli,
Crozets de Savoie, a small flat square-shaped pasta
Spätzle, also made in the north-east of France
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.656021
| 2011-05-07T20:45:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14558",
"authors": [
"Kallisti Dischordia",
"King-Ink",
"Mien",
"Papa Casper",
"Robin Betts",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Wyatt Mann",
"amix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67624",
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.